Mario Antonio Kelly (стр. 4 )

Avoid using ICT to engage in defensive teaching (Garrison and Bromley, 2004), and especially avoid granting basic access to ICT as a reward.

The third digital divide:

Access to culture-sensitive technological pedagogical practices

One of the lessons learned from decades of theory and research in multicultural education is that to some degree all teaching and learning involve issues of cultural compatibility or cultural sensitivity. This is true whether or not teachers choose to acknowledge them. In this sense TMI is no different from any other kind of instruction. Technology is not a culture free medium, nor are the pedagogical practices that incorporate it. The third digital divide occurs when this is not acknowledge. The third digital divide is a difference in the extent to which the TMI received by students is compatible or sensitive to their cultural backgrounds. Bridging it requires embracing cultural differences and incorporating them into TMI.

Culture has been defined in numerous ways. (See for example Gertz (1973) and LeVine (1972)). For the present discussion it suffices that most definitions include at least three components: 1) the material products or artifacts that people produce; 2) what people do, the ways they behave (for example, whether or not it is normative in the culture for individuals of different social rank to maintain eye contact); and 3) what people think and believe, their mental processes (including learning styles), and their values and belief systems (Bodley, 1994).

The first of the above components is the most tangible, the most superficial, and the easiest to observe. Perhaps for this reason it has received a disproportionate amount of attention in multicultural education. However, in terms of the third digital divide it is the second and perhaps even more so the third components of culture that are of greatest concern. Cultural groups develop unique ways of behaving, interacting, thinking, and learning. They also develop unique belief systems in response to the history and experience of the group as well as personal experiences. For example, in response to societal racial stereotypes and a long history of segregation in education, employment and housing, the identification of racism and prejudice, even in its subtler forms, is part of the cultural knowledge base of the group. Many African-Americans parents have come to expect such behavior from at least some teachers and school administrators and in anticipation, psychologically “buttress” children so that they will be resilient (Oden, Kelly, Ma, & Weikart, 1992).

When the learning environment is monocultural, the pedagogical requirement to manage cultural issues is at a minimum. This is an increasingly rare exception in our ever more diverse society. Most classrooms are culturally mixed. A mix of several cultures is the norm in many East and West coast schools, and is increasingly true in other parts of the country. Effective teaching in such environments requires the pedagogical management of cultural issues. Indeed, teaching should rise above the mere management of cultural differences to embrace the richness of cultural diversity, mining it for the opportunities it offers to enrich the development and learning of all children. A review of the vast literature on cultural diversity is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, key concepts from that literature will be used as the basis for strategies for bridging the third digital divide to be recommended.

Cultural attribute-treatment-interaction pedagogy

The school, its curriculum, materials, pedagogy, and ways of processing information and interacting are reflective of the dominant culture in which the school operates (Banks, 2006; Nieto). When students are from the dominant culture their ways of behaving and learning are generally compatible with those of the school. However, culturally mixed classroom require effectively managing this diversity pedagogically so that all students achieve their academic potential, not only those whose cultural background is dominant and therefore most compatible with the school, the curriculum, the teacher. Moreover, ideally pedagogy will stretch students beyond their own culture to become facile with other ways. When students are from multiple cultures, effective teaching requires a variety of pedagogical accommodations, including, attribute-treatment-interactions and enrichment.

Attribute-Treatment-Interaction Pedagogy (ATIP): The term is a deliberate alteration of the concept of Aptitude-Treatment-Interaction, replacing the term aptitude with attribute to convey the equality of cultural characteristics. In ATIP students vary on a particular cultural attribute, such as preferred learning style, and it is the teacher’s responsibility to figure out which instructional strategies will be the most compatible (interact best with the preferred learning style) to result in the highest achievement (Hale-Benson, 1986). The “treatment” may be different for different students. Of greatest importance is the conscious and deliberate analysis of preferred learning style which can then be used as the basis for an instructional strategy. Another important way ATIP must be considered is that pedagogical practices often interact with student cultural attributes in unique ways, resulting in unintended academic, psychological and social outcomes. Whether or not a teacher is aware of it, a student will have accumulated a history of experiences and knowledge about how others positively respond to their cultural background. Intended to or not, pedagogical practices are often interpreted by students (positively or negatively) through the filter of this prior experience. That interpretation matters because it is the basis for student achievement related behaviors. Students who interpret an instructional strategy as high or at least neutral teacher expectation are likely to exhibit higher motivation to learn than students who interpret the strategy as low teacher expectations. This is one of the central factors that should guide technological pedagogical practice intended to bridge the third digital divide. Clearly no teacher can know each student’s prior history or thought. However, there are practices that decrease the likelihood of negative interpretations (and increase positive ones) for all children. A number of theoretical principles undergird these practices.

Achievement is enhanced by “Good teaching” in “equitable classrooms”

Academic achievement is more likely in an equitable classroom (Cohen & Lotan, 2004), which is one in which: 1) teachers and students view all students as capable of acquiring basic skills and high-level concepts; 2) where all students have equal access to (and often share) challenging learning materials and are challenged by tasks that require higher-order thinking skills; 4) where teachers create opportunities that enable ELLs and students reading below grade level to complete activities; and 5) where students have equal status in terms of participating in class and openly expressing opinions.

Creating an equitable classroom is not an easy task. It is even more challenging when the classroom is multilingual, multicultural, multiethnic, and multi-income and ICT is the medium of instruction. Classrooms become equitable when: 1) teachers broaden the conception of what it means to be smart to allow multiple ways of demonstrating multiple types of abilities; 2) assess these in multiple ways; and 3) students interact with each other in the context of meaningful group activities that require discussing ideas, deliberating and coming to decisions, and learning to resolve intellectual and social conflicts (Cohen & Lotan, 2004).

Academic achievement is more likely to occur with “good teaching” than with the “pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991). “Good teaching” engages students with major concepts and ideas; it has them applying ideals; it encourages them to question common sense; it engages students with important issues in their lives and encourages them to reflect upon these issues; it has them learn to perfect their work by redoing and polishing; and in terms of the third digital divide, it has them using technology in meaningful ways. In contrast, what many poor urban students, who are largely minority and ELLs experience is what Haberman labeled the “pedagogy of poverty.” They are given information, directions, assignments, homework, tests and grades; they review assignments, homework, tests; they are punished for noncompliance. Individually there is nothing wrong with these acts, but they block achievement when they are used collectively and systematically to the exclusion of other pedagogical practices. Obviously bridging the third digital divide will require deliberate efforts to incorporate “good” teaching into TMI.

Technological pedagogy for bridging the third digital divide

1. Analyze TMI before, during and after lessons.

Identify specific culture components and attempt to determine whether and how they have affected teaching and learning.

2. Review software and multimedia programs for bias or insensitivity.

For example, are non-whites depicted in costumes, when these are not relevant to the main discussion (Warschauer).

3. Provide a balance of individual assignments and group TMI activities.

4. Make TMI activities consistent with “good teaching.”

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.

5. Use TMI activities to foster an “equitable classroom.”

·  Do not lock students into a group for an entire semester or academic year. However, extend groups for sufficient time to enable the development of working relationships and the completion of meaningful projects.

·  Assign different roles or tasks to group members and make sure that all students experience the full range of roles. In particular, make sure minority and low-income students experience leadership roles with technology.