Mario Antonio Kelly (стр. 2 )

Broadband access to the Internet at home has been associated to higher engagement with higher Internet use and decreased television watching. It does seem to matter whether students have broadband, as opposed to dial-up Internet access. In one study (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2004), those with broadband access at home were more likely than those with dial-up service to use the Internet daily (66.1% to 51.1%) and to engage in more types of activities on line, including obtaining information. Moreover, at least among teenagers, time spent online and with all types of digital media seems to be increasing at the expense of television watching (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003). In general, children who use the Internet spend 37% less time watching television and 16% more time with friends and family (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003). This is a positive outcome given the association of television watching with lower achievement, and its disproportionate impact on minority children. However, time spent not watching television is often spent with computer and multimedia forms of entertainment, not pursuing knowledge and achievement, and this is especially true for minority children ( ). Therefore, it is important to encourage children, through homework and other pedagogical practices, to dedicate a greater proportion of their multimedia activity to academic pursuits or to other activities that contribute to the acquisition of general knowledge.

Teachers have a role in bridging the first digital divide

In summary, it is important to bridge the first digital divide, and to do so as early as possible in children’s life to help them develop high levels of ICT literacy or “full spectrum frequency”. Much of the discussion about the first digital divide incorporates the tacit assumption that bridging it is primarily the task of local, state, or federal government, and secondarily, large corporations, philanthropies and civic organizations. Gorski & Clarck (2001) have rightly suggested that an ideal and complete solution requires systemic social justice change that will make technology accessible to all children. For too many, a tacit extension of this line of argument seems to be that schools and teachers, and teacher educators are powerless in the face of this obstacle; and that their responsibility will begin after others have made the equipment available. To the contrary, the argument here is that inequity of access to all kinds of resources (up-to-date books, well designed and furnished school buildings, overhead projectors) has always been a challenge to those in low-income brackets, many of who are minority, and to their teachers. Effective teachers have always improvised bridges across those divides, and the first digital divide is another example of this phenomenon. It is incumbent on teachers to work collaboratively with school administrators, parents, and community organizations to develop strategies for securing access to hardware, software, and the Internet for all extension, it is incumbent on teacher educators to prepare pre-service teachers to do so.

To the extent that technology is another area in which individuals from low-income and minority background may be socially and educationally excluded, the goal, as Warschauer (2003) suggested, must be social [and educational] inclusion. Accomplishing goal requires not being daunted by the limitations in the availability of equipment in the ideal locations of home and classroom, but instead developing the resourcefulness to find and use technology where it is available. The assumption here is that effective pedagogy depends on making the best use of available equipment and other resources. It is further assumed that it is part of a teacher’s responsibility to incorporate into instruction strategies that help students and parents identify and use public ICT resources. Rather than focus on the real obstacle that not having technology and Internet access are, it is more effective to develop pedagogical practices that attempt to overcome these ch a focus is empowering for teachers, students and parents.

Technological pedagogy for bridging the first digital divide

1. Work with school administrators to secure after school access to school ICT.

Where schools have up-to-date technology, especially a computer laboratory, then one strategy is to work with administrators to secure after school access with technical and academic support. It may be incumbent on teachers to take the initiative, given that well intentioned administrators may not see the need without assistance from teachers.

2. Work with parents and others to identify public ICT facilities in the community.

Develop a list of resources (e. g. after school programs) that are close to the school or student’s homes that can provide access for those who lack it at home. Even where a school computer lab exists, it may be insufficient if many children need access. For these situations, as well as for schools without a computer lab, public facilities in the community are viable supplements or substitutes. Managed and/or supported by a community-based organization, a local civic group, or business, such facilities can be found in communities across the nation. Teachers can work collaboratively with parents and administrators to identify such facilities, make contact with them, and if possible make arrangements for students to use them for homework assignments. Sometimes the facilities have staff with the expertise to tutor, not only regarding technical issues, but also content. The establishment of formal and informal relationships with such programs and staff can not only make technology accessible to students, but can be such that equipment time, and even tutors, are set aside when notified about class assignments.

Teachers are likely to find in some parents a valuable resource in locating public facilities, given that Wilson, Wallin, & Reiser (2003) found that not only are African Americans less likely to have home computers or Internet access, even when SES is controlled, but they are also more likely to know of public facilities in their community. Establishing contact and securing time for children should be seen as only the start. Teachers, parents and staff at public facilities can collaborate to provide an ideal level of support for ch facilities often have on staff former teachers or others sufficiently familiar with K-12 education to be academic resource for students, especially if well informed by teachers about students’ needs and homework goals.

3. Develop strategies to counter problems at public ICT facilities.

There are potential drawbacks to the use of after-school computer programs at schools or other public facilities. These include the possibility that children may have to share computers, the limited hours of access which often require working immediately following school with no break for meals, and that parents are usually not present (Gorsky, 2001). However, there are silver linings to these clouds. With some attention to how children are grouped and the structure of the TMI task, children can derive important learning and social benefits from the sharing of computers. Since relatively high amounts of television watching (sometimes at the expense of homework) is a characteristic of many children in the group of interest, working immediately after school may not only be an effective alternative to television watching—previously cited data associates increased technology use with decreased television watching—but it is one that many parents have instituted. Regarding the meal issue and parental involvement, arrangements can be made for healthy snacks and many programs can accommodate (and some invite) the participation of parents.

4. Seek assistance from local colleges and universities.

Gorski (2001) proposed a strategy similar to the one described above, but built around colleges and universities and their technology resources. He suggested that teachers seek for their students and families, physical access to university computer labs, digital access to universities’ libraries and the direct engagement of faculty, especially those whose expertise involves the intersection of multicultural education and technology. Unfortunately this strategy may not be as widely applicable as desired given that some institutions of higher education are finding their technology facilities insufficient to meet the needs of their own students. Moreover, there are insufficient educators well trained in both multicultural education (and the other content areas) and technology This is true despite efforts such as the federal program, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology (PT3) and other similar programs which provided training for many.

5. Take steps to learn about the ICT access and history of students in the classroom.

Survey the class early in the school year to determine out of school access to technology, history of ICT use and level of skill.

6. Advocate for the fair and effective distribution of ICT resources.

If teachers lack technology skills, encourage school administrators to provide professional development before the large scale purchase of equipment that may be poorly used or not used at ggest purchasing one or two carts of laptops that can be shared by many classrooms as opposed to equipping every classroom.

7. Plan for equipment failure.

For schools that primarily serve low income students workability issues—that the equipment will not work is a common problem (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). If the school does not have resources and a plan in place for dealing with such problems, e. g. (ICT staff), then identify colleagues with technology skills and set up an informal network, or at least ask if it is OK to call on them in emergencies.

The second digital divide:

Access to achievement enhancing technological pedagogical practices and activities