Advertisement

Equity-Centered Approaches to Educational Technology

  • Antero Garcia
  • Clifford H. Lee
Chapter
  • 303 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter reviews the perspectives and scholarship that address educational equity through the application of technology and digital tools. We first explore how equity is framed in global discourse and the role that educational technology has played in both addressing and perpetuating disparities in achievement. Policymakers, designers, and researchers have routinely attempted to use digital technologies to address the learning needs of historically marginalized populations. Before we examine these technological interventions in context, we must first explore the root causes of what “counts” as an achievement gap as well as what “counts” as technology.

Keywords

Equity Educational technology Marginalized populations Achievement gap 

References

  1. Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2016). Structured study time, self-efficacy, and tutoring. AEA RCT Registry.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5–6), 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera-Osorio, F., & Linden, L. L. (2009). The use and misuse of computers in education: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial of a language arts program. Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL).Google Scholar
  5. Beuermann, D. W., Cristia, J., Cueto, S., Malamud, O., & Cruz-Aguayo, Y. (2015). One laptop per child at home: Short-term impacts from a randomized experiment in Peru. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(2), 53–80.Google Scholar
  6. Blume, H. (2013a). L.A. students breach school iPads’ security. Los Angeles Times, September 25, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/24/local/la-me-lausd-ipads-20130925
  7. Blume, H. (2013b). L.A. unified to get $6.4 million in settlement over iPad software. Los Angeles Times, September 29, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-unified-ipad-settlement-20150925-story.html
  8. Bradshaw, A. C. (2017). Critical pedagogy and educational technology. In A. D. Benson, R. Joseph, & J. L. Moore (Eds.), Culture, learning, and technology: Research and practice (pp. 8–27). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the Internet. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 5, pp. 239–280). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Cakir, H., Delialioglu, O., Dennis, A., & Duffy, T. (2009). Technology enhanced learning environments for closing the gap in student achievement between regions: Does it work? AACE Journal, 17(4), 301–315.Google Scholar
  11. Chávez, V., & Soep, E. (2005). Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harvard Educational Review, 75(4), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, C., Kahne, J., Bowyer, B., Middaugh, E., & Rogowski, J. (2012). Participatory politics: New media and youth political action. Irvine, CA: DML Research Hub. Retrieved from http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/default/files/publications/Participatory_Politics_New_Media_and_Youth_Political_Action.2012.pdf
  13. Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin, E. (2017). Technology and child development: Evidence from the one laptop per child program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 295–320.Google Scholar
  14. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (2012, March 10). Answering the big question on new technology in schools: Does it work? (Part 1). Retrieved from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/answering-the-big-question-on-new-technology-in-schools-does-it-work-part-1/
  16. Cuban, L. (2018). The flight of a butterfly or the path of a bullet? Using technology to transform teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cummins, J. (2009). Transformative multiliteracies pedagogy: School-based strategies for closing the achievement gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 38–56.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014) Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
  20. Davies, R., Sprague, C., & New, C. (2008). Integrating technology into a science classroom: An evaluation of inquiry-based technology integration. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of technology and the laboratory on K–16 science learning series: Research in science education (pp. 207–237). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc..Google Scholar
  21. de Alvarez, M. S., & Dickson-Deane, C. (2018). Avoiding educational technology pitfalls for inclusion and equity. TechTrends, 62(4), 345–353.Google Scholar
  22. de los Ríos, C. V. (2018). Bilingual Vine making: Problematizing oppressive discourses in a secondary Chicanx/Latinx studies course. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 359–373.Google Scholar
  23. Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., & O’Malley, K. (2015). Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  25. Emmanuel, N. (2018, February). Education technology is a global opportunity. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from http://social.techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/education-technology-is-a-global-opportunity/
  26. Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: an evidence-based review (No. w23744). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  27. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word & the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Gallego, M. A., Cole, M., & Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (2001). Classroom culture and culture in the classroom. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 951–997). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  29. Garcia, A. (2017). Good reception: Teens, teachers, and mobile media in a Los Angeles high school. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gitlin, A. (2017). Communities of difference. Retrieved from http://divvy.live/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=19:communities-of-difference
  31. Gitlin, A. D., & Ingerski, J. (2018). Rewriting critical pedagogy for public schools: Technological possibilities. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 9(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
  32. Global Report Predicts EdTech Spend to Reach $252bn by 2020. (2016, May 25), Retrieved September 17, 2018, from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-report-predicts-edtech-spend-to-reach-252bn-by-2020-580765301.html
  33. Grover, S. (2018). The 5th ‘c’ of 21st century skills? Try computational thinking (Not coding). Edsurge News. Retrieved September 16, 2018, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-02-25-the-5th-c-of-21st-century-skills-try-computational-thinking-not-coding
  34. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gutiérrez, K., & Penuel, W. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: From Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  40. Ito, M., Soep, E., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., & Zimmerman, A. (2015). Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructures. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(1), 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  42. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, C. D. (2003). Why we need to re-think race and ethnicity in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, C. H., & Soep, E. (2016). None but ourselves can free our minds: Critical computational literacy as a pedagogy of resistance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(4), 480–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, C. H., & Soep, E. (2018). Beyond coding: Using critical computational literacy to transform tech. Texas Education Review, 6(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mirra, N. (2018). Educating for empathy: Literacy learning and civic engagement. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Mo, D., Huang, W., Shi, Y., Zhang, L., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2015). Computer technology in education: Evidence from a pooled study of computer assisted learning programs among rural students in China. China Economic Review, 36, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moreno Sandoval, C. D. (2013). Critical ancestral computing: A culturally relevant computer science education. PsychNology Journal, 11, 91–112.Google Scholar
  51. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Osguthorpe, R. T., Osguthorpe, R. D., Jacob, W. J., & Davies, R. (2003). The moral dimensions of instructional design. Educational Technology, 43(2), 19–23.Google Scholar
  54. Pacheco, M., & Gutiérrez, K. (2009). Cultural-historical approaches to literacy, teaching and learning. In C. Compton-Lilly (Ed.), Breaking the silence: Recognizing the social and cultural resources students bring to the classroom (pp. 60–77). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  55. Patel, L. (2016). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Philip, T., & Garcia, A. (2013). The importance of still teaching the igeneration: New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Philip, T. M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Schooling mobile phones: Assumptions about proximal benefits, the challenges of shifting meanings, and the politics of teaching. Educational Policy, 29(4), 676–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., Kwayumba, D., & Strigel, C. (2016). Does technology improve reading outcomes? Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICT interventions for early grade reading in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Whither opportunity. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY. (pp. 91–116).Google Scholar
  61. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  63. Soep, E., Lee, C., Van Wart, S., Parikh, T. (2020). Code for what? In H. Jenkins, S. Shresthova, &, G. Peters-Lazaro (Eds.), Popular culture and the civic imagination: A casebook. (pp. 89–99). New York University Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  64. Software & Information Industry Association. (2015). SIIA Estimates $8.38 Billion US Market for PreK-12 Educational Software and Digital Content. The Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from http://www.siia.net/Press/SIIA-Estimates-838-Billion-Dollars-USMarket-for-PreK-12-Educational-Software-and-Digital-Content
  65. Spring, J. H. (1994). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  66. Subramony, D. P. (2004). Instructional technologists’ inattention to issues of cultural diversity among learners. Educational Technology, 44(4), 19–24.Google Scholar
  67. Subramony, D. P. (2017). Revisiting instructional technologists’ inattention to issues of cultural diversity among stakeholders. In Culture, Learning, and Technology (pp. 28–43). Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., & Stich, A. (2016). Intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social inequality. TechTrends, 60(6), 598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vakil, S. (2018). Ethics, identity, and political vision: Toward a justice-centered approach to equity in computer science education. Harvard Educational Review, 88(1), 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vakil, S., McKinney de Royston, M., Suad Nasir, N., & Kirshner, B. (2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Young, P. A. (2014). The presence of culture in learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 349–361). New York: Springer New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antero Garcia
    • 1
  • Clifford H. Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Mills CollegeOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations