Mario Antonio Kelly (стр. 3 )

The second digital divide refers to disparities in how ICT is used at school as well as outside of school (Atwell, 2001). It comprises several features.

Fewer technologically skilled teachers: In general, schools that primarily serve ethnic and linguistic minority and/or low-income students have fewer teachers well versed in the integration of technology into instruction and fewer technology support staff than schools that primarily serve white and/or middle-class students. This is not surprising in light of the first digital divide.

Different technology assignments within the same culturally mixed classroom: Within the same classroom those with the lowest grades are often assigned drill and practice technology activities, while those with higher grades are given more engaging and challenging assignments involving problem-solving components.

Fewer technologically facile parents: Another feature of the second digital divide is that parents of minority and low-income students are generally less accomplished with technology and are less likely to directly provide achievement enhancing technology activities at home than are the parents of middle - and high-income and White students.

The differences described above should be considered in the larger contexts of K-12 and teacher education, where there is a divide between the pedagogical affordances of current ICT on the one hand, and daily pedagogical practices in most classrooms on the other hand. It is arguable that nationally too few teachers (and teacher educators) meet the existing broad standards for the integration of technology into teaching, such as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and the Professional Standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In the latter standards require a “commitment” to technology in the conceptual framework. Teachers and teacher education programs may well meet these standards yet lack the ability use technology in content specific, pedagogically appropriate ways.

The impact of the second digital divide

In the context of the big picture, the poor uses of ICT in teaching are not unique to low-income and minority students, but are higher among this group. More importantly, its impact on them is potentially more deleterious because it is added to, and interacts with, other entrenched factors weighing down the achievement of low-income and minority students. Already relatively low achievement in reading, math and other content areas may be exacerbated by poor uses of technology in teaching (Warschauer, 2000).

The differences in use of technology matter because it is with this dimension of the digital divide that differences in genuine access to knowledge lies (Natriello, 2001). As Warschauer (2003) demonstrated with examples from around the world, a large infusion of technology resources, when poorly managed and used inappropriately, may be less effective, in terms of promoting ICT literacy, achievement, and social inclusion, than limited resources used well. It follows that with the present state of the second digital divide, even if differences in the physical access to ICT were to be immediately erased, and all schools and families had high end equipment and the fastest Internet connection, the differences in use would perpetuate the digital divide.

As was true of the first digital divide, the reality of the second digital divide is more complex than the simple binary division of the haves and the have-nots. The reality is of the second digital divide is that it is about ineffective TMI strategies. This use can be found everywhere. What creates and maintains the second digital divide is the disproportionate use of these strategies with low-income and minority students. This is true in schools that primarily serve such students, compared to schools that primarily serve students who are of higher income and/or White. It is also true of schools that serve demographically mixed students, and is of special concern in such schools when the ineffective strategies are selectively and excessively applied to minority and/or low-income students, due to low expectations and/or as response to lower achievement in content areas. Some of these strategies will be discussed next, followed by a discussion of effective strategies.

Ineffective TMI strategies

Drill and practice: Wenglinsky (1998) found the racial and income differences in school use of ICT to be significant. White and Asian students were more likely to use computers for simulations and applications, whereas African-American and Latino students were more likely to use computers for drill and practice. The same difference was true for students from low-income families as opposed to those from wealthier families. In terms of learning, achievement and inclusion in the broader society, the long-term consequences for Latino, African American and/or poor students of using computers primarily for drill and practice are most likely negative and substantive. Of course there is a place and a need for drill and practice in learning. But the over-reliance on drill and practice is consistent with the industrial model of schooling that consigns students, to low-end jobs with limited prospects for professional or personal fulfillment. It is inconsistent with the achievement of the 21st century ICT literacy described earlier. It is preparing students for an industrial economy, rather than for postindustrialism or informationism.

Defensive teaching (and learning): The term defensive teaching (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987) was used by Garrison and Bromley (2004) to describe overly restrictive and controlling TMI practices observed in a case study. The term basically means that students are held to very detailed instructions based on the assumption that if they are not, they will get into trouble. Garrison & Bromley described an observation in a lab where the teacher first controls students by telling them: “If finished, wait patiently, till I finish what I’m doing”. Further controlling them with the statement: “Hands in lap”. Then waiting a brief interval before saying: “Yes, save”. The point is that defensive teaching elevates control beyond what is necessary for safety and learning and may stifle inquisitiveness, exploration, motivation and even the intended learning. Defense teaching has a counterpart in defensive student learning strategies such as pretending (faking inability or faking being busy) and undermining (preventing work initiation or completion sabotaging equipment, e. g. unplugging the computer by kicking the power strip or removing the ball from the mouse). Garrison & Bromley found these too. The cause-effect relationship between these variables is not a fruitful discussion to have here. What matters is that they are related and that teachers should try to decrease both.

Using basic access to ICT as a reward: This strategy can be exhibited in several ways. ICT access may be a “privilege” that has to be earned or maintain by good behavior, or by minimal levels of academic performance in other areas. Garrison & Bromley described the mutually reinforcing role often played by teachers and students in this strategy. Students struggling academically act out to be denied computer “privilege” and the hard work involved in integrating technology into weak content knowledge. Denial of the “privilege” spares teachers the labor intensive interaction required lift the achievement of such students.

Technological pedagogy for bridging the second digital divide

Part of the solution to the problem of the second digital divide is to build effective technological pedagogical practices into standards based curricula (Atwater, 2000; Lynch, 200). Another is to improve the performance outcomes for teachers (and teacher education programs). However, building on the second digital divide issues raised above, there is much that individual teachers can do in the absence of such systemic changes.

1. At the start of an academic term take steps to learn about the prior ICT knowledge and skills of students in the classroom. (See strategy 5 under the first digital divide).

2. Determine the required competencies for each activity and whether all students have them (Chisholm, Carey, & Hernandez, 2002). Do not rely entirely on promotional statements from manufacturers.

3. If there is wide variation in the prior technology or subject knowledge of students, then use this variation as a variable pairing or otherwise organizing some TMI activities.

4. Expose students to a variety of ICT, including computers, the Internet, visualization software.

5. Avoid educational technological performativity—merely running students through a checklist of technology activities of skills for the sake of being able to state that they were exposed, but with little concern about whether they really understand and are able to apply the knew knowledge in meaningful, purposeful ways (Lyotard, 1984; Lankasshear & Knobel, 2003, Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004).

6. Use drill and practice when necessary, but not excessively, and not exclusively for any group.

7. Develop activities that encourage students to use ICT to explore natural phenomena, experience scientific phenomena, extend their thinking, create multiple representations of their understanding, communicate with teachers and peers (Edelson, 1998; Hug, Krajcik, & Marx, 2005; Linn, 1998; Spitulnik, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998). In addition to increased understanding and higher achievement, another important result is likely to be increased motivation (Blumefield, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991).

8. Assign creative, problem-solving activities that require application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation—e. g. multiple step projects that require searching the Internet, evaluating what is found and then applying it to the solution of a problem.