Week Four Readings

Day One

Today's readings and lecture focused on the digital divide.  All three reading noted that the digital divide was closing among American schools, at least numerically speaking.  However, the manner in which the technology is being used shows that while there is increasingly greater digital equality, there biggest divide that needs to be crossed is digital equity.  Ed Tech and Equity, by Allen & Soloman explain that it's not so much how many machines a school has, but how they're being used.  The authors posit that instead of students using the technology to help foster higher order thinking skills machines are rather being used for remediation and basic skills.  Furthermore, they argue that students from lower socio economic schools are using computers to do work vs. their more affluent counterparts that are learning how to make the computer work for them.  While I agree that this is probably true, students from a lower SES tend to struggle more with basic skills.  Should we be teaching students how to program or web design that cannot read and write at grade level? 

Deconstructing the Digital Divide, also took on this topic but argued that the digital divide is not only about socio-economic status but there are many more divides than that.  The authors argued that sex, class, geography, and wealth all play a factor in determining on which side students and families fall on the digital divide.  They (like the previous article) also stated that the digital divide is not just about access to machines but how students are being taught to use them.  As a teacher from a district with it's fair share of lower SES students I can fully relate to and see what they're saying.  However, I see things a bit differently.  Students and parents placing value in technology and it's potential for education is not different that students and parents that place value in reading and education all together.  While there certainly is mind crushing poverty in this country, many students that I see that qualify as low SES students have nice clothes, shoes, etc.  I believe that because many students' families do not value education in general that they will not see that value in spending money for internet access at home even though many companies offer programs for lower SES families.  I believe that conquering the digital divide is a cultural problem as much as it is these other factors.  Until the culture changes and more people value education nothing will change; public education simply has to play the hand it has been dealt.  It's like Tomas Paine said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."  After reading all of the posts on the discussion boards it looks like many of my classmates see a lot of the same thing. 

This issue is again tackled in Equity is Not Just About Access, by Soloman.  Once again Soloman points out that it's not about the number of machines but how they're being used.  This is encouraging because I believe that this is a solvable problem.  I agree with the author that teacher prep is the key as well as visionary administrative leadership.  Once again, basic skills should take precedence.  Regardless of a school's population, be it rich or poor, I believe it is difficult to teach students how to make computers work for you if they're lacking basic educational and social skills. 

Day 2

Today's reading and lecture covered something I find to be most fascinating, the topic of the Global Village.  On the face of it the term sounds ludicrous, however, the facts of the topic are quite interesting and happening all around us.  The basic idea of the global village is that because of the massive influx of technology and what it allows people to do on a global scale that humanity is close to realizing a single unified community with common traits and purpose.  While some parts of this I believe are very true, others are not there yet and may not ever be there. 

Do We Really Need A Global Village, by Talbott was written in 1995.  The date is important because it was just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberalizing of China economically, the passage of NAFTA, and creating of the European Union.  Also, the mid 90's mark the dawn of the information age.  Much of what Talbott wrote was quite visionary while some of it was way off.  In the article Talbott warns against the dangers of what might come about as a result of the global village.  He sees the global village as a threat to native cultures (3) and that it could possibly lead the rise of the same dictatorships humanity was hoping to avoid (5).  The big question about the global village is that what if winning is the worst possible outcome.

Let's first deal with where Talbott seems to be on the money.  While there is much to celebrate in that the global village has a lot of promise in ending totalitarian regimes there is also a danger with it.  The Arab Spring showed that people working together on a global scale can help topple despotic regimes.  However, what happens once we're all connected?  In China people rioted for democracy in 1989 only to be placated  by western culture once China opened up socially and economically.  Who cares about freedom of speech and religion when you can watch "Dancing with the Stars" in Hi-Def on your iPad!  The same can be said for the west, recent scandals have shown the the US Government has been mining data on ordinary citizens for years and while many are upset there hasn't been anyone called to be held accountable, why is this, maybe it's because people have been put to sleep by YouTube and Jersey Shore. 

In other areas Talbott was either off the mark or simply naive.  The author argues that assimilation is wrong and that the global village can lead it leaves no place for native cultures.  This is the way of the world, people, animals, and cultures that cannot adapt to their world die out.  It is the circle of life.  The Roman Empire collapsed, the Mayans disappeared, and nobody speaks Aramaic anymore; it's a new dawn, you can't avoid the morning because it's coming whether you want it to or not.  Also, I don't believe Talbott could have foreseen the information sharing and grass roots power that would stem from the global village.  Because of the technology that the global village relies on, my colleagues and I planned and edcamp without personally meeting any of the other planners.  We used a combination of skype and google hangouts to works across a wide geographic region.  However, Talbott would have needed a crystal ball to see those things. 

Day 3

Distance Learning was the main topic for day three.  In Distance Learning, by Natriello the author explains reasons for the growth of the distance learning phenomenon.  The author states that people engaged in careers that call for education to advance don't have the time for traditional courses (3).  This explain why I am working towards a degree online from Iowa State University while I am located in Pittsburgh, PA.  Also in the paper the author lays out four reasons why this revolution in education is occurring.  While I agree that the four the author mentioned are all important I would argue five and that of the four available capital is the most important.  The fifth not mentioned by the author but included by me would be the advances in technology have allowed for the revolution to occur.  I remember when video chatting was very rare, I couldn't believe that more people didn't do it, but with tools like Skype, Facetime, Oovoo, etc video chatting is very easy for most and makes distance learning much more feasible.  Also, the most important point made by the author was the availability of capital.  This has been done because of shifting resources.  Papers like "Project RED" explain how schools can actually save money by adopting 21st century tools.  I have personally witnessed this in my wife's school district.  By reallocating resources that would have been used on workbooks, textbooks, copier paper, etc to purchasing technology that will do these jobs and more schools are able to buy the tools they need. 

Distance education is going a bit further with the creating of MOOCS (massive online open course software).  As the USA Today article I read explained, MOOCS are being offered by many top tier colleges.  People can take the course online for free but receive little to no credit.  Why would someone do such a thing?  Many people simply enjoy learning or are trying to improve their knowledge in a certain area or master a specific skill.  I myself have done this.  I took an open course on google apps ed but opted not to take the test hence I am not google certified.  However, I probably know more about GAE than anyone else in my district. 

The video I watched about MOOCs explained that many people believe that they get better interaction with classmates and professors online than they ever got in a face/face class.  While I don't believe this is always true (it depends on the class and teacher) I've certainly experienced this myself. 

That being said, I don't see a use for MOOCs beyond what what already described.  In k-12 education most students are focused on the grade, simply passing, or just the social aspect of school.  As a result I'm fairly certain that MOOCs will continue to only operate in higher or adult ed.