Mario Antonio Kelly (стр. 5 )

·  Rotate the membership of groups.

6. Use information obtained at the start of the academic year (see first and second digital divide strategies above) to identify and meet the unique needs of students.

For example, Chisholm, Carey, and Hernandez (2002) found that computer based self-efficacy was lower among low-income university students with limited prior computer ownership, information that could be useful in addressing the unique student needs.

Conclusion

Three aspects of equity of access to technology (three digital divides) were discussed in this chapter—physical access, access to achievement enhancing uses, and access to culturally compatible technology mediated instruction. The impact on students of color and those from low-income families was discussed, and more importantly, strategies for bridging each divide were discussed. It is fitting to conclude with an example from a recent case study that models many of the strategies discussed.

In a case study of Adelante Elementary School in California, Warschauer, Grant, Del Real, & Rousseau (2004) provided a good model of the TMI for English language learners (ELLs). While the initial challenge to ELLs is to develop basic interpersonal communication skills, the greater challenge is to develop academic literacy, which is more complex in its vocabulary, syntax and genre (Cummins, 1988). This is particularly true in the upper elementary grades (Warschauer, et al. looked at fourth grade), where ELLs add the challenge of learning English to the challenge to all students that Chall (1996) described as having to go from the early elementary grades focus on learning to read (emphasis on decoding skills) to the later grades focus on reading to learn (emphasis on comprehension of a variety of texts across content areas). To facilitate this process with technology a teacher at Adelante Elementary School, Mr. Molina, infused technology into each of the projects students had to complete as part of thematic literature units. Pre-reading, independent reading, and post-reading activities each used a variety of technology to offer students challenges, choices (and some control), social interaction, and technology skill development, while limiting the monotony of drill and practice

Pre-reading technology mediated activities to build student background knowledge for the material to be read included relevant content and images downloaded from the Internet and used to engage the whole class in a discussion. Individual students could also visit websites through a teacher created Webquest. These activities provided a basis for discussions among students, discussions that provided opportunities for practicing language use in a cooperative group.

Independent reading activities included taking computerized quizzes in the Accelerated Reader program (the school library had 16,000 books for which the quizzes are available). It should be noted that the program was used to encourage independent student reading and to evaluate it, not to teach reading skills and strategies. The teacher, Mr. Molina monitored the latter by having students fill out cards describing the strategies they used and discussing these and the books with them.

Finally, in post-reading activities Mr. Molina used technology extensively to help students deconstruct texts and better understand their structure and genres. They used cognitive mapping software to interpret and outline, often having to reread texts for this purpose. They searched the Internet for visual representations of texts and in doing so enhanced their vocabulary (figuring out the best words for desired images will have that effect) and technology skills.

REFERENCES

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74 (July), 252-259.

Atwater, M. M. (2000). Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Science Education, 84, 154-179.

Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Blumfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 369-398.

Bodley, J. H. (1994). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states and the global system.

Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Castells, M. (1993). The informational economy and the new international division of labor. In M. Carnoy, M. Castells, S. S. Cohen, & F. H. Cardoso, (Eds.), The new global economy in the information age: Reflections on our changing world. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. 2nd Ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development, second ed. Fort Worth: Hartcourt Brace College Publishers.

Ching, C. C., Basham, J. D., & Jang, E. (2005). The legacy of the digital divide: Gender, socioeconomic status, and exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adults. Urban Education, 40 (4), 394-411.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2004). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), & C. A. McGee Banks (Assoc. Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2002). Connected to the future: A report on children’s Internet use. Retrieved 05/25/06 from: http://www. cpb. org/stations/reports/connected_report. pdf

Cummins, J. (1988). Second language acquisition within bilingual education programs. In L. M. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition. New York: Harper & Row.

Damarin, S. K. (1998). Technology and multicultural education: The question of convergence. Theory into Practice, 37 (1), 11-19.

Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realizing authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. Internaational Handbook of Science Education, 317-332.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘actin White.’” Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The

interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Gorski, P. C. (2005). Multicultural education and the Internet: Intersections and integrations (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gorski, P., & Clark, C. (2001). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on race. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(4), 15-25.

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & society, 5(4), 499-522.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290-294.

Hale-Benson, J. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hoffman, D. L., & Thomas, P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280 (April 17), 390-391.

Hug, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40 (4), 446-472.

Kalyanpur, M. & Kirmani, M. H. (Fall 2005). Diversity and technology: Classroom implications of the digital divide. Journal of Special Education Technlology 20(4), 9-18.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Le Vine, R. (1973). Culture, behavior, and personality. Chicago: Aldin Publishing Co.

Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. International Handbook of Science Education, 265-294.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Natriello, G. (2001). Bridging the second digital divide: What can sociologists of education contribute? Sociology of Education, 74 (July), 260-265.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). enGauge® 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved 5/25/06 from: http://www. ncrel. org/engauge/skills/skills. htm

Oden, S., Kelly, M. A., Ma, Z., & Weikart, D. P. (1992). Challenging the potential: Programs for talented disadvantaged youth. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312-334.

Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Solowy, E. (1998). Using technology to support student’s artifact construction in science. International Handbook of Science Education, 363-381.

Swain, C. & Pearson, T. (2003). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital divide. Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 34 (3), 326-335.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (September 2004). A nation online: Entering the broadband age.

Van G. J. (Spring 2000). Education and class. Multicultural Education, 7 (3), 2-11

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32, 525-537

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Policy Information Report. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved June 01, 2006 from: http://www. ets. org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG. pdf

Wilson, K. R., Wallin, J. S., & Reiser, C. (2003). Social stratification and the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 133-143.