Advertisement

Digital Equity: 1:1 Technology and Associated Pedagogy

  • Maria D. S. Andrade JohnsonEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

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.

This chapter examines the significance of digital equity, especially as related to 1:1 educational technology, by first setting the historical context of the digital divide. A review of the research literature pertaining to technology and the patterns of disproportionate impacts differentiated by economic positioning of learners provides evidence for the second and third levels of the digital divide. Evaluation of the conceptual framework of a critical theory of technology intersecting with critical pedagogy identifies potentially democratizing conditions and processes, including a rubric of Teemant and Hausman’s Six Standards for Effective Pedagogy that operationalizes the framework. After discussing the role of learner agency within this critical framework, the chapter concludes with an analysis of exemplar studies that have demonstrated the efficacy of 1:1 uses and associated practices that exploit Margins of Maneuver to strengthen learner agency. The analysis categorizes the characteristics of 1:1 initiatives demonstrating positive effects on the second and third levels of digital divide into three themes:
  1. (a)

    An intentional school culture supportive of democratizing uses of technology

     
  2. (b)

    A teacher shift to facilitator concerned with development of student agency as outcomes of technology-enhanced authentic learning

     
  3. (c)

    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.

Keywords

Critical 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 

References

  1. Adorno, T. (2000). Introduction to sociology (E. Jephcott, Trans). Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Ares, N. (2008). Appropriating roles and relations of power in cooperative learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(2), 99–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701256472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15, 1–10.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Clark, C., & Gorski, P. (2002). Multicultural education and the Digital Divide: Focus on socioeconomic class background. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Derry, J. (2007). Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feenberg, A. (2017). Critical theory of technology and STS. Thesis Eleven, 138(1), 635.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  22. Friesen, N. (2008). Critical theory: Ideology critique and the myths of E-learning. Ubiquity 9(22): Article 2.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1403922.1386860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge.Toronto: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Greeno, J. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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/
  28. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Inan, F.A., & Lowther, D.L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 137154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, S. (2013). Critical literacies in the making: Social class and identities in the early reading classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 13(2):197–224.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798411430102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technology integration and student learning. Educational Information Technology, 17, 137–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9150-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Kemker, K., Barron, A. E., & Harmes, J. C. (2007). Laptop computers in the elementary classroom: Authentic instruction with at-risk students. Educational Media International, 44(4), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinzie, M. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 5–21. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30219923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 18 years, 2016. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1194.htmlGoogle Scholar
  38. Kopcha, T.J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 175190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, P. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Marcuse, H. (2001). Towards a critical theory of society. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Matzen, N. J. & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(4), 417–430,  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. McLaren, P., & Kinchloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mundy, M.A., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012). Teacher’s perceptions of technology use in the schools. SAGE Open, 2, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012440813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M.J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 557571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9146-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rainio, A. (2008). From resistance to involvement: Examining agency and control in a playworld. Activity Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 115–140.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030801970494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the Time to Know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D. Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 299–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003767615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shields, C. M. (2012). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain and complex world. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. 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.
  65. Valadez, J. R., & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and the internet. The High School Journal, 90, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Warschauer, M., Matuchniak, T., Pinkard, N., & Gadsden, V. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179–225. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40588177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotton, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.866871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Loyola Marymount UniversityLos AngelesUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • John M. Heffron
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate SchoolSoka University of AmericaAliso ViejoUSA

Personalised recommendations