Digital Equity: 1:1 Technology and Associated Pedagogy
Educational technology has been proliferating, especially the implementation of one-to-one (1:1) initiatives. This accelerated growth has challenged digital equity with three gaps that comprise the digital divide: (1) access to computers, software, the Internet, and necessary infrastructure; (2) differentiated lower-order and higher-order uses of technology; and (3) technology uses that develop learner agency and efficacy in addressing the realities of the learner’s issues, interests, and community. The access gap, level 1 of the digital divide, has been closing, but as the number of computers in schools as well as the number of 1:1 implementations increase, the second and third levels of the digital divide continue to widen the learning gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged learners. A wide variety of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies and the National Education Technology Plan of 2016 and 2017 supplement have documented this gap in digital equity.
Contemporary critical theorists and pedagogues, informed by Feenberg’s critical theory of technology and Freire’s critical pedagogy, have proposed that technology can be enlisted to help close this gap rather than being a hegemonic tool as previously asserted. Educators and learners who shift technology uses and associated pedagogical practices to teacher-facilitated, student-centered, and inquiry-based learning environments foster potential for democratizing spaces called Margins of Maneuver. Within these spaces, 1:1 uses and practices develop learner agency that also shapes and forms learners as their efficacy, autonomy, and voice grows, strengthening their resistance to oppression and increasing the potential for their participation in the dominant society and its resources.
An intentional school culture supportive of democratizing uses of technology
A teacher shift to facilitator concerned with development of student agency as outcomes of technology-enhanced authentic learning
Inquiry-based, student-centered learning with higher-order uses that develop learner abilities in critical thinking, problematizing, and investigating issues affecting student lives
While acknowledging potential ideological and sociological bias in the reporting of the exemplar studies, there was sufficient replication of effects across varying contexts to justify the generalization that 1:1 uses and pedagogical practices that align with the critical conceptual framework demonstrate documented potential for closing the second and third levels of the digital divide.
KeywordsCritical theory Critical pedagogy Critical stance Democratization Democratizing Digital equity Digital divide Economically disadvantaged Educational technology Gap Higher-order Inquiry-based Knowledge Economy Learner agency Margins of Maneuver One-to-one technology Pedagogy Pedagogical practices Social replication Social stratification Student-centered Teacher facilitator Transformative leadership
- Adorno, T. (2000). Introduction to sociology (E. Jephcott, Trans). Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
- Amankwatia, T. B. (2008). Teaching with technology for 21st century learning: A multiple-case study of a school district’s high school laptop initiative. Dissertation presented Lehigh University. Retrieved from Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses: 2008.Google Scholar
- Andrade Johnson, M. D. S. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technology uses and pedagogical practices: Student agency and participation in an economically disadvantaged eighth grade. Dissertation presented to Loyola Marymount University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: 2017.Google Scholar
- Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15, 1–10.Google Scholar
- Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 1–59. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1607
- Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences in and relationships between computer access, computer use, and state-level technology policies. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3), 1–38.Google Scholar
- Boardman, D. C. (2012). Educator responses to technology influences in a 1:1 laptop middle school. The Graduate School, The University of Maine. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: 2012.Google Scholar
- Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Reframing the path to school leadership: A guide for teachers and principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
- Chandrasekhar, V. S. (2009). Promoting 21st century learning: A case study of the Changing role of teachers in one-to-one laptop classrooms. University of California, Irvine, and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses: 2009.Google Scholar
- Cusi, R. C. (2007). Technology and equity: Explaining differences between elementary teachers’ use of computers in low-income latino and middle-class schools. Dissertation to University of California Irvine and University of California Los Angeles, Retrieved from Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses: 2007.Google Scholar
- Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Feenberg, A. (2017). Critical theory of technology and STS. Thesis Eleven, 138(1), 635.Google Scholar
- Felderman, C. B. (2010). Critical literacy and podcasting in a 2nd grade classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd12162010102252/unrestricted/Felderman_CB_D_2010_f1.pdf
- Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
- Friesen, N. (2012). Critical theory and the mythology of learning with technology. In S. B. Fee, & B. R. Belland (Eds.), The role of criticism in understanding problem solving, volume 5 of Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies (pp. 69–86). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge.Toronto: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
- Harris, M. J. (2010). Impactful student learning outcomes of one-to-one student laptop programs in low socioeconomic schools. Ph.D. Thesis, San Francisco State University. Retrieved from https://www.editlib.org/p/129101/
- Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.) Handbook of urban education (pp. 199– 216). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kemker, K. (2007). Technology in low socio-economic K-12 schools: Examining student access and implementation. Dissertation to the University of South Florida, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses: 2007.Google Scholar
- Kirkscey, R. (2012). Secondary school instructors’ perspectives on the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) with course content. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 17–33.Google Scholar
- Lee, T. (2013). Educational technology and equity: Student access to and use of computers in low socioeconomic and middle-class socioeconomic schools. The Graduate School, Walden University, College of Social and Behavior Sciences. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: 2013.Google Scholar
- Leffler, M. E. (2015). Digitally divided in Jackson: Are students getting the digital literacy skills they need to succeed?. Division of Graduate Studies, Jackson State University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: 2015.Google Scholar
- Lewis, C., & Moje, E. (2003). Sociocultural perspectives meets critical theory: Producing knowledge through multiple frameworks. The International Journal of Learning, 10, 1979–1995. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/SocioculturalPerspectivesMeetCriticalTheories.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, P. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Marcuse, H. (2001). Towards a critical theory of society. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- McConnaughey, J. W., & Lader, W. (1998). Falling through the net II: New data in the digital divide. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Department of Commerce, US Government. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/falling-through-net-ii.pdf.Google Scholar
- McLaren, P., & Kinchloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
- McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/11109.aspGoogle Scholar
- Okan, Z. (2007). Towards a critical theory of educational technology. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology Conference, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500086.pdf
- Pogany, W. S. (2009). Evolving pedagogical perceptions of teachers integrating ubiquitous computing in their classrooms: A case study of the South Dakota laptop program. The Graduate School, University of South Dakota. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: 2009.Google Scholar
- Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181–193.Google Scholar
- Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Carnikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5–68. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ873678.pdf.Google Scholar
- Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence. Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI), University of Southern Maine. Retrieved from http://usm.maine.edu/Cepare//impact_on_Middle_School_Teachers_and_Students.pdf.
- Teemant, A., & Hausman, C. S. (2013). The relationship of teacher use of critical sociocultural practices with student achievement. Critical Education, 4(4). Retrieved from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182434.
- United States Department of Education (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education: National Education Technology Plan 2016. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf.
- United States Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: National Education Technology Plan 2017 update. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.