This is a study of 5 Secondary Schools
Matt Harris, German European School Singapore
Drawing upon research from high SES 1:1 programs, this session identifies learning for learning programs in low SES schools that has the greatest potential impact.
Purpose & Objectives
One-to-one student laptop programs offer students not only access to computers and the Internet, but also the promise of technology infused curriculum and ubiquitous access to digitized learning materials. However, since laptop programs are logistically complex and equipment intensive, they often require considerable resources and personnel to implement and maintain. As a result, a majority of one-to-one student laptop programs are found at public and private schools that serve affluent communities. This has created a situation where affluent students are realizing the benefits of ubiquitous access to technology while their low socioeconomic status (SES) peers are not. Such disproportionate access to laptop programs has replicated the Educational Digital Divide, thus denying low SES students, their families, and their communities access to the educational and social benefits of ubiquitous computing.
While this suggests that laptop programs should be established in low SES schools, mere implementation is insufficient. For these programs to be beneficial and sustainable, their pedagogic foundation needs to be grounded in student learning that has the greatest potential impact on low SES students and their communities. Further, this pedagogy must be based on reasonable and attainable student learning outcomes if it is to be effective and sustainable. This research seeks to enable the transfer of learning from high SES one-to-one student laptop programs to potential one-to-one programs in low SES schools and to identify how this learning can be specifically impactful to low SES students.
Perspective/Theoretical Framework
The conceptual framework for this study places the problem statement, purpose, justification, and methodology within the broad theoretical context of the Educational Digital Divide and sociological research theory. It draws upon two seminal works of scholarship to synthesize those theories and inform the overall research design: Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, and Kemker’s (2008) conceptualization of the Digital Divide in U.S. Education and Laura Nader’s (1972) “Studying Up – Studying Down” paradigm. The literature review in chapter 2 and the methodology in chapter 3 expound on these theories by investigating them in the available empirical research and contextualizing them for this study.
The Educational Digital Divide
The theoretical basis for this study was grounded in Hohlfeld et al.’s (2008) multi-layered conceptualization of the Digital Divide in U.S. Education, herein referred to as the Educational Digital Divide to distinguish it from more general forms of inequitable distribution of technology resources. Holhfeld et al. show that the Educational Digital Divide is comprised of three levels of digital inequity: school infrastructure, the classroom, and the individual student.
The foundation for the Educational Digital Divide originates in disproportionate access to school technology, which in turn results in inequitable classroom uses of technology. This resulting disparity of educational technology use is then realized by individual students, where those who have access to technology in school are more empowered than those who do not. When this paradigm is applied to one-to-one student laptop programs, we see that access to laptop programs is a replication of societal inequity and that pedagogic and student empowerment opportunities are missed by low SES students who do not participate in laptop programs.
Matt is saying there's little or no evidence of gain except in English, says Maths and Soc Stud went down
Parents made no financial contribution. No Elementary Schools in this study.
Interestingly having a 1:1 programme did remove almost all metrics relating to the digital divide
Low SES kids had vastly increased interest in Tech when compared with high SES
The degree of learning improvement and total overall impact is most dependent on the teacher. Great teachers were enhanced, average teachers remained average, poor teachers became worse. Part of the reason results did not improve dramatically with test score is that the tests were not testing what the changed pedagogy was. Irrespective of all this the lowest title SES had the biggest improvement. Writing was the most improved subject. -Performance quality quantity and speed all improved. Media studies improved across all SES.
Notable that the change of pedagogy was not as significant as ours and they were not using all the available web 2 tools.
There was more project based and asynchronous learning. More collaboration not less. Silos between subjects were broken down. Engagement was better across the board. Level of distraction relates to the level of motivation produced by clear expectations from the teacher and the school. New kids to the programme are the most distracted. This lasts 6 months irrespective of the grade of the student. The grades go down in the 1st 6 months. The more clear the guidelines and expectations the more this is mitigated.
Digital literacy and Citizenship is enhanced across the board but is dependent on the quality of teacher. Tech competence and confidence grew @ home and at school particularly amongst Title 1. E.g. They would now fix other stuff that was broken at home whereas previously they would make the attempt. There was a decrease not an increase Cyber Bullying. Once again, Cyber Bullying relates to the 6 months distraction and the expectations and structure of the teacher.
Kids learned appropriate etiquette for different forms of communication and could handle multiple streams both synchronous and asynchronous. They all experienced a flattening of social strata, and became more socially focused. The low SES schools tended to be schools both for learning and social life.
There was a clear development of responsibility. Not a financial value, but a 'this is my data' value and I'm stuffed I lose it. Kids really began to look after their gear. Low title kids become paranoic about insurance & loss because they can't afford it.
Students developed personal responsibility re dealing with distraction & developed increased self management & discipline and time management. Became far more aware of comsequences of online behaviour.
Clear evidence of expanded horizons. Extension of this to the family and enhanced employment opportunities. Clear decrease in social inequity.
Some parents got jobs using their child's netbook and the increased knowledge and access they had
It's very important for schools to focus on pedagogy cos the tech keeps changing
This guy needs to hear about Learn Create Share, as he's expressing concern about balance between consumptive and creative pedagogy.
Laptops improve communication and kids have better register when communicating online with their teachers.
They have found greater interest in low SES kids going on to college
Lowest SES school kept using Facebook and had conversations both academic & otherwise about what went on. Ethical behaviour increased over time. Distraction decreased.