An extra Journal Summary: Promising Practices for Education Technology.
Zielezinski, M. B. (2017). Promising Practices for Education Technology. American Educator, 41(2), 38-39,.
The beginning of the article surprised me, as the subject behind the message wasn't what I expected it to be. But never the less I became more interested when the research made a connection between low-'income communities' lack of digital advantages and the way it is used rather than their lack of digital access its self. The issue of low graduation rates though out low-income and high minority communities is focused on to further relate to the digital divide. ( nearly 20% of students expected to graduate do not.)p.38 The argument made in this article is that the lack of access to technology just isn't enough of an excuse. Research showed that low -income areas are using the tools for drills and practice, in comparison to the higher income schools who are simulating authentic applications, which are promoting problem solving skills among other advantages. Therefore the divide is not just whether the tools are available... but how they are used. Results were said to have shown, tools only used such as drills, were likely to "negatively affect achievement, not to mention engagement, motivation and self esteem."p.38 The article mentions only once that the bridge is partially due to little access to technology in those low income communities. It doesn't include the challenges they may face with cost or liability. Although the researchers advocate to increase those numbers, they'd like to focus on the content of the technology used and how the students engage with it. There are five tips the article maps out in order for teachers to bridge the gap:1. Use technology to engage the students. This involves the students to participate in authentic tasks rather than activities that involve memorizing or basic skill tasks. 2. Letting students create original digital content, compared to just consuming the content given. 3. Pick tools that promote interactivity, which demonstrates the student's own understanding of the content and the opportunity to express that material in a variety of facets.4. Let students share their expertise with an authentic audience. This encourages a new level of craftsmanship and the quality of the work. 5. Finding the right blend of teacher and technology. Research found that the teacher still has a large role in supporting the student's process during these activities. Further success in a blended class included student to student interaction along with "real-time digital feedback". I do agree that diversifying the technology strategies in one's classroom will only enhance their experience. Saying that, seems to easy of a solution to me. The article doesn't mention the other challenges that are proposed in districts across the country. Besides the obvious issue with lack of funding, some districts have the tools but may not train the teachers and give them the knowledge they need implement it in their class. I understand the article focuses on the practices in the classroom but there are many underlying facets that seem to be missing from their research. Can YOU think of any other contributors to the digital divide?
The beginning of the article surprised me, as the subject behind the message wasn't what I expected it to be. But never the less I became more interested when the research made a connection between low-'income communities' lack of digital advantages and the way it is used rather than their lack of digital access its self. The issue of low graduation rates though out low-income and high minority communities is focused on to further relate to the digital divide. ( nearly 20% of students expected to graduate do not.)p.38 The argument made in this article is that the lack of access to technology just isn't enough of an excuse. Research showed that low -income areas are using the tools for drills and practice, in comparison to the higher income schools who are simulating authentic applications, which are promoting problem solving skills among other advantages. Therefore the divide is not just whether the tools are available... but how they are used. Results were said to have shown, tools only used such as drills, were likely to "negatively affect achievement, not to mention engagement, motivation and self esteem."p.38 The article mentions only once that the bridge is partially due to little access to technology in those low income communities. It doesn't include the challenges they may face with cost or liability. Although the researchers advocate to increase those numbers, they'd like to focus on the content of the technology used and how the students engage with it. There are five tips the article maps out in order for teachers to bridge the gap:1. Use technology to engage the students. This involves the students to participate in authentic tasks rather than activities that involve memorizing or basic skill tasks. 2. Letting students create original digital content, compared to just consuming the content given. 3. Pick tools that promote interactivity, which demonstrates the student's own understanding of the content and the opportunity to express that material in a variety of facets.4. Let students share their expertise with an authentic audience. This encourages a new level of craftsmanship and the quality of the work. 5. Finding the right blend of teacher and technology. Research found that the teacher still has a large role in supporting the student's process during these activities. Further success in a blended class included student to student interaction along with "real-time digital feedback". I do agree that diversifying the technology strategies in one's classroom will only enhance their experience. Saying that, seems to easy of a solution to me. The article doesn't mention the other challenges that are proposed in districts across the country. Besides the obvious issue with lack of funding, some districts have the tools but may not train the teachers and give them the knowledge they need implement it in their class. I understand the article focuses on the practices in the classroom but there are many underlying facets that seem to be missing from their research. Can YOU think of any other contributors to the digital divide?
I
Comments
Post a Comment