Mario Antonio Kelly (стр. 1 )

Bridging Digital and Cultural Divides:

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Equity of Access

Mario Antonio Kelly

Hunter College

City University of New York

That is true culture which helps us to

work for the social betterment of all.

Henry Ward Beecher

The focus of this chapter is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for addressing issues of equity of access to information and communication technology (ICT) for students from diverse backgrounds. While equity of access is not a content area taught by teachers, it is central to teaching effectiveness. It is likely to grow in importance as the role of technology in K-12 teaching and learning increases, while the access of low-income and minority families to equipment, to Internet connectivity, and to effective technology instruction that accommodates cultural differences continues to be limited. The issue of equity of access has many foci, including gender, disability status, geography (urban-rural residency), age, race and ethnicity, and socio-economic status. It is the latter two that are the focus of this chapter.

The goals of this chapter, to be achieved in a non-linear format, are threefold: To describe the current state of equity of access to technology; to discuss the relationships among technology equity, achievement, and what is broadly referred to in the literature as multicultural education; and to propose TPCK for improving equity. As a platform for the discussion the next section provides a brief description of 21st century literacy.

ICT literacy in the 21st century

Our society is arguably experiencing a third industrial revolution, one that Castells (1993, 2000) referred to as “informationalism”. Among its major features are an increasing reliance on science and technology, a shift from material production to information processing and management, and networked organizations in which administrative hierarchies are flattened, replaced by team-based work. These are the labor, economic and social environments in which students will have to function (Warschauer, 2003). To be effective in these environments students increasingly have to be able to individually navigate and sort-through vast digital repositories of knowledge and make accurate judgments about the quality, authenticity, relevance and applicability of what they find. In conjunction with the above individual skills, students also have to be able to work collaboratively with others. They must to do so in person as well as online over great physical, often global, distances, and often with others who are culturally different. Achievement of this literacy in the 21st century, is as related to race, ethnicity, income and linguistic and cultural differences as achievement was in the 20th century.

There are multiple digital divides

While the effectiveness of schools in fostering ICT literacy for all children may be questionable, there is ample evidence that children from low-income families, and those from minority families, including English language learners (ELLs) are at a distinct disadvantage. Not only is their overall achievement lower, but their access to technology in school is relatively limited. Obviously, there are multiple causes for this, including societal and systemic ones (Gorski & Clark, 2001). However, the narrow foci of this chapter are solutions developed around the technological pedagogical practices of teachers, and—to the extent that teaching practices can influence them—parents. These are presented in three groups below, each corresponding to one of three digital divides.

The discussion of equity of access to ICT, crystalized in the term “digital divide” has largely focused on equal access to technology infrastructure (computers, multimedia equipment, software, the presence or absence of Internet connectivity, and recently, the speed of Internet connections). Following Attewell (2001) this aspect of equity will be referred to in this chapter as the first digital divide. However, equity is more complex than the simple presence or absence of equipment. It is multidimensional (Dividing Lines, 2001), comprising at least two other aspects of equity: 2) access to achievement enhancing technology mediated instruction (TMI) in school, and technology mediated activities outside of school; and 3) access to culturally compatible (or at least culturally sensitive) TMI—teachers knowledgeable about multicultural education, and able to incorporate this knowledge into teaching with technology. The latter two dimensions will be referred to as the second digital divide and third digital divide, respectively.

In the sections that follow the characteristics of each digital divide will be presented and discussed as the basis for a set of pedagogical practices designed to bridge that divide. Also incorporated into these discussions will be theoretical and empirical literature on math, science and “technocentrism” (Damarin, 1998), and multicultural education. These literatures are based on largely different sets of assumptions and conceptual frameworks. Yet, when the major student learning outcomes are content knowledge and ICT literacy for all children, the technological pedagogical practices derived from these dissimilar and seemingly oppositional theoretical frameworks are compatible. As Damarin (1998) suggested, these pedagogical practices are low on the “banking system of education” scale (Freire, 1970), low on student accumulation of pre-selected facts, low on teacher centrism, high on individual constructivism, and high on Vygotskian social constructivism. In other words, in terms of teaching with technology, both theoretical frameworks lead to strategies that involve individuals as well as learning communities seeking answers to challenging, stimulating, often personally relevant questions; supported, guided, scaffolded, or mentored by teachers, more knowledgeable peers, or even peers of equivalent levels of knowledge.

The first digital divide:

Access to technology hardware, software and the Internet

The first digital divide refers to an actual physical divide between those who have ICT, such as computers, scanners, and camcorders, as well as access to the Internet. Recently the term has also been used to distinguish those who have the highest level of technology from those who have the lowest level and those who have broadband or high speed access to the Internet from those who do not (National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 2002, 2004). Perhaps far too much of the discussion about the digital divide has revolved around this aspect of equity. Countless theoretical, empirical and policy articles have documented its existence. In general, what the evidence shows is that physical access to ICT is greater among middle - and high-income families than among low-income families; greater among White and Asian-American families than among Black and Latino families. For example, the U. S. Department of Commerce (2004) reported that in October 2003 45% of families with annual incomes $75,000 and above had broadband access, while only 7% of families with annual incomes below $15,000 had such access. 34% of Asian American and Pacific Islanders lived in a broadband household, as did 25% of comparison, only 14% of Blacks and 12% of Latinos had broadband access at home. The data also showed that suburban families are more likely to have ICT equipment than urban families, particularly those residing in inner cities, and rural families tend to have the least access, although recently access in some rural areas has increased significantly.

While it is convenient to bifurcate the technology world into the haves and the have-nots, as seen in much of the literature, reality, as Warschauer (2003) pointed out, is a lot more complex. Actual physical access to technology is on a gradient that goes from no access, to access limited in terms of times of access and the quality of equipment or Internet connectivity, to high access. Likewise, inter-group differences on physical access are not as simple and linear. For example, low SES White and Asian-American households are much more likely to have computers and Internet access at home than similar Hispanic and African-American households of limited income (Gorski, 2005). Similarly, a recent study by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2003) found a home access ethnic divide for older children, but not for preschool-aged children. Between 21 and 23% of Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic children ages 2-5 used the Internet at home. The authors of the study speculated that the absence of difference may be related to parental age. Parents of younger children are more likely younger and more experienced with the Internet, having experienced it in high school, at college or their own or at a friend’s job than parents of older children. Equity of physical access to ICT is also complicated by the distinction between private, as opposed to public access, an issue to be analyzed later in the discussion of the second digital divide. It is sufficient to note here that those who do not own computers and other ICT can often gain access at work and in their communities.

Bridging the first digital divide is important for several reasons

Children need physical access to complete homework assignments requiring ICT. However, this reason may have been overemphasized in the literature, given that teachers and parents willing to invest the time and energy (important caveats) can offset lack of personal ownership by finding publicly accessible ICT.

Physical access has been associated with higher ICT literacy. One way of conceptualizing the highest form of ICT literacy is in terms of what Ching, Basham, and Jang (2005) called “full spectrum frequency” users. These are individuals with a high degree of use across a broad range of ICT activities, including 1) communication technologies (text or voice-based with computers or hand-held devices); 2) construction technologies (Web pages, digital images, spreadsheets, PowerPoint and other manipulable digital artifacts); and 3) entertainment technologies (e. g., computer video games, digital music). Ching, et al. found, for a sample of education candidates at a Midwestern college, that the higher the family income (and presumably access to ICT), the more likely the student was to exhibit “full spectrum frequency” of use. (Ethnicity was not found to be a predictor, but the authors acknowledge limitations of the sample that could be responsible for that finding). They also found that the earlier and the better the access, the better one’s chances for ICT literacy. College students who first started using computers prior to age 10 were significantly more likely than those who started after age 10 to achieve “full spectrum frequency”.