The Use of Computers in New Zealand Schools: A Critical Review
Mark E. Brown Massey University
Mark Brown’s article takes an approach of examining the use of computers in New Zealand using film analogy as his way of telling his story. I must admit that I found it quite a difficult review to relate to. In his article Mark Brown covers 3 main points: the evolution of computers in New Zealand schools; what does it mean to be a good ICT-using teacher and finally what will be required to make IT happen in the future.
The Consultative Report on Computers in Schools was released; the report outlined the use of computers in New Zealand schools however many thought that it did it did not give a clear direction as many thought the then Minister of Education, Merv Wellington and the government had been swayed by those with commercial interests by allowing schools to choose the type of computers. In fact it seems that little direction was set for schools and education leaders. Even with the establishment of the Computer Courseware Development Unit (CCDU) which later changed to the Computer Education Development Unit (CEDU) which gave trustworthy independent information. By the year 1987 the shambles of “Tomorrows Schools” was established, the New Zealand government had commissioned over 24 Exploratory Studies into the use of computers in schools costing almost $900,000 and launched the careers of ICT educators, de-established the CEDU, leaving school leaders, teachers and communities with even less direction of the future.
It wasn’t until the Sallis Report (Information Technology in Schools) was released in 1990 that teacher professional development was recognised with the Labour Government adding $23 Million into IT in schools. However been an election year they were quick to move funds elsewhere. Continuing through the early 90’s a number of reports were released focusing on surface use of IT use in schools and little commitment to schools from the government. It wasn’t until the release of Windows 95 and the release of the Ministry of Educations publication of Education for the 21st Century did educational leaders start to see long term goals however many believed that after years of experimenting, the ICT Strategy in schools may offer new hope if we are able to learn from the past.
Mark Brown then poses the question; what makes a good ICT-using teacher and concludes that to be a good ICT-using teacher you simply need to be a good teacher. We all know by now that teachers have good cognitive processes, creative, critical and reflective of their practice and above all a solid pedagogical knowledge base. Simply put it’s about an amalgam of what good teaching is: a love of one's subject, a love of exploring new avenues with other people, a love of being with young people and helping them along the path, a fanatical insistence that each person achieves their own personal best, and a willingness and ability to employ a whole range of techniques, such as questioning, facilitating group work and giving meaningful and useful feedback. If all the qualities exist in a teacher then I believe they will be a quality teacher who is able to use ICT in their classroom effectively and with purpose.
In the final curtain call of the article Brown calls for a solid infrastructure and a collective vision that also focuses on professional development to create skilled, knowledgeable teachers, critical and skilled artists. He challenges the politicians, policy makers and the teaching profession to make it happen.
Reflecting on this article I believe that the past have given us an insight if we want to create true “Global Learners “who are connected and future focused.
There are some important issues which need to be addressed for ICT to be embedded effectively and consistently in schools:
· At senior management level we need leaders who are effective strategic thinking and planners for the integration of ICT and the development of ICT to ensure that its potential to support and enhance learning and teaching is realised fully.
· Schools will need to consider how best to implement an effective framework for the assessment of all aspects of ICT, i.e. the range and quality of experiences, ICT capabilities and the contribution their ICT has made to learning and teaching across the curriculum.
· Schools need to develop further the effectiveness of their assessment strategies in order to evaluate the contribution that the use of ICT makes to the students learning.
· Continuing staff development in ICT is necessary to increase the teachers’ awareness and understanding of the potential of ICT to support learning. A significant investment in teachers’ professional development and training.
· There needs to be a link made between kindergartens and schools ensuring children coming into schools with some skills that can be built on.
· We need to create one rich on-line environment that encourage and facilitate the access to, and sharing of, resources within and across educational stakeholders.
ICT has the potential to improve, significantly, the quality of learning, teaching and management in schools and help raise the achievement of learners.
References
Brown, M.E (1998) The Use of Computers in New Zealand Schools: A Critical Review. Palmerston North: Massey University
Chamberlain, M., & Kenndy, S. (1991). A Case of growing like topsy. Wellington Research and Statistics Division, Ministry of Education.
McMahon, T. (1986). Exploratory studies in educational computing in New Zealand. In A. Salvas & C. Downing (eds), Computers in education: On the cres of a wave? Proceeding of the Eighth Annual Australian Computer Education Conference. Balaclava: Computer Education Group of Victoria.
Ministry of Education. (1990). Report of the consultative committee on information technology in the school curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education
Nightingale, D. & Chamberlain, M. (1991). A study of computers in New Zealand schools. Wellington : Research and Statistic Division, Ministry of Education.
Outline of Educational Learning Theories and Theorists in Information Technology
Behaviourism
Behaviourism is a worldview that assumes a learner is essentially passive, responding to their environment. The learner starts off as a clean slate (i.e. tabula rasa) and behaviour is shaped through positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. Both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement increase the probability that the same behaviours will happen again. In contrast, punishment (both positive and negative) decreases the likelihood that the behaviours will happen again. Positive indicates the application of a stimulus; Negative indicates the withholding of a stimulus. Learning is therefore defined as a change in behaviour in the learner. Lots of (early) behaviourist work was done with animals (e.g. Pavlov’s dogs) and generalized to humans.
Behaviourism precedes the cognitivist worldview. It rejects structuralism and is an extension of Logical Positivism.
Cognitivism
The cognitivist revolution replaced behaviourism in 1960s as the dominant paradigm. Cognitivism focuses on the inner mental activities – opening the “black box” of the human mind is valuable and necessary for understanding how people learn. Mental processes such as thinking, memory, knowing, and problem-solving need to be explored. Knowledge can be seen as schema or symbolic mental constructions. Learning is defined as change in a learner’s schemata.
A response to behaviourism, people are not “programmed animals” that merely respond to environmental stimuli; people are rational beings that require active participation in order to learn, and whose actions are a consequence of thinking. Changes in behaviour are observed, but only as an indication of what is occurring in the learner’s head. Cognitivism uses the metaphor of the mind as computer: information comes in, is being processed, and leads to certain outcomes.
Constructivism
A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviourism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation. Each person has a different interpretation and construction of knowledge process. The learner is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and cultural factors to a situation.
NOTE: A common misunderstanding regarding constructivism is that instructors should never tell students anything directly but, instead, should always allow them to construct knowledge for themselves. This is actually confusing a theory of pedagogy (teaching) with a theory of knowing. Constructivism assumes that all knowledge is constructed from the learner’s previous knowledge, regardless of how one is taught. Thus, even listening to a lecture involves active attempts to construct new knowledge.
Vygotsky’s social development theory is one of the foundations for constructivism.
Design-Based Research Methods (DBR)
In recent years, educators have been trying to narrow the gap between research and practice. Part of the challenge is that research that is detached from practice “may not account for the influence of contexts, the emergent and complex nature of outcomes, and the incompleteness of knowledge about which factors are relevant for prediction” (DBRC, 2003).
According to Collins et al. (2004), Design-based Research (also known as design experiments) intends to address several needs and issues central to the study of learning, including the following:
· The need to address theoretical questions about the nature of learning in context
· The need for approaches to the study of learning phenomena in the real world situations rather than the laboratory
· The need to go beyond narrow measures of learning.
· The need to derive research findings from formative evaluation.
Characteristics of design-based research experiments include:
· addressing complex problems in real, authentic contexts in collaboration with practitioners
· applying integrating known and hypothetical design principles to render plausible solutions
· conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning environments
· intertwined goals of (1) designing learning environments and (2) developing theories of learning
· research and development through continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign
· research on designs that must lead to sharable theories that help communicate relevant implications to practitioners and other educational designers
· research must account for how designs function in authentic settings
· development of such accounts relies on methods that can document and connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interest (DBRC, 2003).
Humanism - Rogers
Humanism, a paradigm that emerged in the 1960s, focuses on the human freedom, dignity, and potential. A central assumption of humanism, according to Huitt (2001), is that people act with intentionality and values. This is in contrast to the behaviourist notion of operant conditioning (which argues that all behaviour is the result of the application of consequences) and the cognitive psychologist belief that the discovering knowledge or constructing meaning is central to learning. Humanists also believe that it is necessary to study the person as a whole, especially as an individual grows and develops over the lifespan. It follows that the study of the self, motivation, and goals are areas of particular interest.
Key proponents of humanism include Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. A primary purpose of humanism could be described as the development of self-actualized, automomous people. In humanism, learning is student centered and personalized, and the educator’s role is that of a facilitator. Affective and cognitive needs are key, and the goal is to develop self-actualized people in a cooperative, supportive environment.
Ethical issues in Schools-Cyber safety
Impact of ICT on Society
In the mid 1940s, innovative developments in science and philosophy led to the creation of a new branch of ethics that would later be called “computer ethics” or “information ethics”. The founder of this new philosophical field was the American scholar Norbert Wiener, a professor of mathematics and engineering at MIT. During the Second World War, together with his colleagues in America and Great Britain, Wiener helped to develop electronic computers and other new and powerful information technologies. Even while the War was raging on, Wiener foresaw enormous social and ethical implications of cybernetics combined with computers.
In 1976, nearly three decades after the publication of Wiener's book Cybernetics, Walter Maner noticed that the ethical questions and problems considered in his Medical Ethics course at Old Dominion University often became more complicated or significantly altered when computers got involved. He concluded that there should be a new branch of applied ethics similar to already existing fields like medical ethics and business ethics; and he decided to name the proposed new field “computer ethics”.
Walter Maner first coined the term “computer ethic” in the mid 1970s, but only since the 1990s has it started being integrated into professional development programs in academic settings. The conceptual foundations of computer ethics are investigated by information ethics, a branch of philosophical ethics established by Luciano Floridi. Computer ethics is a very important topic in computer applications. (Herold, 2006)
Need of computer ethics
• The growth of the WWW has created several novel legal issues
• The existence of new questions that older laws cannot answer
• Traditional laws are outdated/anachronistic in this world
• A more coherent body of law is needed to govern Internet and computers
2 Ethics, in the classical sense, refers to the rules and standards governing the conduct of an individual with others (Alavundeen,Kalil and Jayakumaran, 2008). As technology and computers became more and more a part of our everyday lives, we must understand that the problems that have always plagued business and conduct will continue to be a problem such as copyright breaches, hackers, information security and computer crime. In fact, a new medium can provide even more difficult questions of judgement. In other words, since the introduction of the World Wide Web, the definition of ethics has evolved, too. A new type of ethics known as computer ethics has emerged. Computer ethics is concerned with standards of conduct as they pertain to computers.
In an article written by Jo White in the University of Otago Press (White 1996) entitled, ‘The Internet: Ethical issues for teachers and students’, she refers to the ten commandments developed by the Computer Ethics Institute as an excellent framework for computer users, both recreational and professional.
The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics:
1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.
2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.
3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's files.
4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.
5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.
6. Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid.
7. Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization.
8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.
9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write.
10. Thou shalt use a computer in ways that show consideration and respect.
Recently a parent came to see me at school and asked for some help with her child been bullied on Facebook. Other girls had been posting videos where they called her daughter ugly and that she didn’t deserve a boyfriend and nobody liked her. The major problems that these were public statements open for everyone to read. After a short discussions with the parent, I explaining that there was an age restriction on users being older than 13 to have access to their own Facebook page and that really if parents were allowing their children to use Facebook they needed to monitor their child’s page, ensuring that they used the site appropriately, by having access to their child’s page, checking that there was nothing inappropriate going on. We finished our meeting with an agreement that I would meet with all of my senior students and have a “talk” about cyber-bullying and been respectful of others.
Cyber safety is becoming a more and more common as a form of school bullying. In the past we were students were pushed in the playground or called names by a few playground thugs but with the development of technology a Facebook comment is posted for the world to see and the power of the “like” button has become one of the most powerful buttons on Facebook. Imagine what it feels like for a young girl to see a comment on Facebook that she is overweight or ugly and 100 friends push the like button. Schools are now faced with the problem of dealing with all sort of ethical issues outside of school hours. Although these incidents happen out of school hours they have a huge impact back at school where students at times react to what was said on Facebook, sometimes in a physical manner. The problem schools face is how they teach their students to be safe and conscientious user of the internet.
Case Study
The first thing I did was hold a meeting with all my year 5 and 6 students to discuss the “do’s” and ‘don’ts” of the internet and to go over common sense rules and behaviours about being safe on the internet. I also gave them a copy of “The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics” and referred back to our own school values and rules. As a group we looked at the how it might make them feel if read comments about themselves and whether they would be happy. As there answer was no we agreed that if we had nothing positive to say about someone it was best that we didn’t say anything at all. All the girls apologised and where back to being friends again. Job done I thought.
Upon reflection I thought about what I had said, not only to the parent and students but also about the schools role in the issue of cyber-bullying and what we can do to help our students use the internet safely and confidently without feeling scared or been put into a situation of being bullied or they themselves bullying others. The question being “How do we teach our children to be responsible and ethical users of computers?”
My next step was to start talking to some of our students about what they thought and did at home to keep themselves safe on the internet. After discussion with some girls it became very clear that Facebook was a major contributor to our students been bullied and worse was that some parents were becoming involved in arguments or responding to status comments and in some cases even threatening other children. With the help of some year 6 students we designed a survey to be sent out to our senior students and senior students at 2 other schools. We created a simple questionnaire and went and visited each school’s principal to discuss the issue and get permission to send out our survey.
We sat down and collated all the responses that we received back from the students; in total we had received 125 surveys from the 3 schools. 67% of those surveyed were girls and 33% were boys and over 90% had access to the internet. Most children accessed the internet via a personal device (65%) and nearly all had a Facebook page. 80% of those students said that they were often received harassment either online or via text messaging and that this was almost a weekly. Again about 80% of students said that they had received “put downs” (Denigration) online at this was a common factor and happened nearly all the time. All those that responded had at one time or another been ‘outed’ on Facebook and 70% of students responded that they themselves had ‘outed’ someone once or twice. All responded that they would report being bullied if they could do so anonymously. When the group of students started to discuss our overall findings, they said that it was common and almost okay to say what you wanted to say or to think of the effects it might have on someone else’s feeling. Speaking out, without a thought that there might be a consequence or that they would be judged on their viewpoint was acceptable to these students. We know little about the Generation Z (those born after 1995) but we do know that they are growing up in a highly sophisticated media and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy (Schroer 2008).
These figures not only alarmed me but also the group of students I was working with. As our school is part of the Ministry of Educations initiative “Positive Behaviour for Learning” (PB4L) and we have access to a vast amount of research based on creating positive learning environments. 80 % of students aged between 9 and 14 years old reported they had some experiences some form of cyber-bullying and there was no relationship between the reports and the decile rating of the schools(Boyd and Helena 2011). While most students reported feeling safe at school (84%) however in the last year, many students had experienced some form of interpersonal or cyber-bullying.
Simon Collins (Collins, S. 2012) from the New Zealand Herald wrote in an article “Suicide link in cyber-bullying” that the Chief Coroner was backing a proposed law changes to crack down on cyber-bullying because of concern that it is helping to fuel New Zealand's high rate of youth suicide. Internet advice agency Netsafe (Collins, S. 2012) told the Law Commission that it was concerned about a "proliferation of anonymous Facebook pages used to publish derogatory and often sexually explicit rumours about students”. The commission reported: "The first of these gossip pages to come to their attention included 'extremely derogatory' comments about students and ultimately is thought to have played some part in the suicide of a young girl."It suggested creating a new commissioner or a tribunal with powers to order internet providers to take down such pages if they breach any law and are likely to result in psychological or other harm. When discussing our findings in a management meeting, the term came up of a “Keyboard Warrior” who was a person used the internet to attack people rather than face to face. The Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/ (1999)describes a person who uses the internet to express their anger as a Keyboard Warrior and gives the following description of a Keyboard Warrior:
1. A Person who, being unable to express his anger through physical violence (owning to their physical weakness, lack of bravery and/or conviction in real life), instead manifests said emotions through the text-based medium of the internet, usually in the form of aggressive writing that the Keyboard Warrior would not (for reasons previously mentioned) be able to give form to in real life
2. The term is a combination of the word 'keyboard' (the main tool by which the person expresses his/her latent rage) and 'warrior' (due to the warrior-like aggression, tendency towards violence, headstrong nature and propensity towards brute force as a means of resolving conflict rather than more subtle means dependant on finesse).
3. The Keyboard Warrior seeks to use the power imbued in his 'weapon' to effect death and destruction (in a strictly-metaphorical sense) upon his foes (other virtual identities he has encountered on the internet). In essence, the keyboard (ie. text input ability) allows the keyboard warrior to manifest his true warrior nature in a safe and removed environment, from which no real-life repercussions
4. Keyboard Warriors are generally identified by unnecessary rage in their written communications, and are regarded as 'losers' by other virtual identities on the internet.
Was this the reason why we had so many students using the internet to make powerful statements about others, was easier to say things using text messaging or Facebook? We are all faced with ethical dilemmas in our lives every day. Our students have the power to say things without really thinking about what they say or the consequences of their statements. It is easy to identify the problem in our school situation, but how do we get our students to ethical decisions before they type or access the ‘information superhighway’ and the ‘global village’. There are three factors that drive our decision making:
1. Biological level: guided by drives for food, shelter, love
2. Guided by laws (government, church, culture)
3. Guided by an understanding of what is good, right, proper, moral, or ethical. ( http://www.slideserve.com/brooklyn/why-show-we-care-about-ethics)
Ethical decision making is been able to make a principal choice between right and wrong. We all know that lying, stealing and cheating is wrong and we are able to make an ethical choice that drives our behaviour. But at times we are faced with having to choice in a situation that is not clear or the decision made is right for one person but it may be wrong for another. Subjectivism decisions are made when an individual decides on an action that is right for him or her (Hoffman & Fredrick). Relating this to the decision a student faces when making a derogatory comment either by text or a statement on Facebook, they know that the statement may hurt the person (making a choice) but they may believe it might make them more popular with their peers therefore making a subjectivism decision. However one could argue that decisions that students are making and that we as adults may find unethical may be accepted by the youth of today. Calling someone a ‘nigga or slut’ is a term that we find offensive but to the youth of today it may seem as it is not. Ethical relativism (Hoffman & Fredrick) implies that there is no society ethical code that is better than another’s. We are faced with moral ethics that may be accepted in one society but frowned upon in other societies. However if we look at utilitarianism(Hoffman & Fredrick) as having the virtue of simplicity-to morally do the right thing and when combined with Kant’s(Hoffman & Fredrick) ethical viewpoint of Categorical Imperative: to treat a given situation consistently and with respect. This gives us two practical principles of ethics: respect the right of others and promote their happiness.
Every day we are faced with making ethical choices and we are faced with more and more ethical decisions, when using computers often more than we realise. Kallman and Grillo (1993) state that the key to solving ethical problems is to use a logical approach, whether it is using a formal or informal guidelines or academic theory. One must be able to ensure that the actions taken are in the best interest of the public or at least not cause any social harm, violate any human rights and that no commonly accepted duties are abridged. These notions of respecting others and not causing social harm was obviously not taken into account when the girls at our school made public comments on Facebook. As teachers we need to get our students to stop and think before they push the send button, and ask themselves whether this is a statement they would be happy someone had said about them or a picture their mother would be happy to display above the fireplace in their home. When teaching ethical choices we need to ensure that students have an understanding and are able to answer the following questions:
· Does the action serve in the best interest or, at least, not cause unnecessary social harm?
· Are any laws or basic human rights violated
· Are any commonly accepted duties abridged?
The key to solving ethical dilemmas will be to use as many logical approaches as possible to analyse and solve the problem.
In our case of the young girl being teased in an open forum on Facebook, she was being subjected to comments that were emotionally upsetting; other students were spreading rumours about her ‘hooking up with’ a male class member. These comments were being made by other students who thought it was okay to make those comments and who hadn’t fully thought about the feeling of the young girl and the consequences that would follow for both the named students. (Relativism Behaviour)When spoken to these students believed they had the right to make those comments and it was acceptable for them to do so.
Our students today face very complicated forms of bullying and are placed in complicated ethical situations and rather than ignoring the problems schools need to take on the responsibility of ensuring our students have the skills and tools to manage their on-line behaviour in a respectful way. Schools have a responsibility under the National Administration Guidelines to provide a safe and healthy physical and emotional environment. Although the actual incident happened outside of the school, retaliation often can happen back at school and our school takes great pride in being part of the community and doing what we can to ensure children’s lives are safe and happy in every way we can, that includes inside and outside the classroom.
This case study has posed a number of questions and has forced me to look closely at a number of issues that our school now faces.
· How will we build our teachers capacity to guide and help students make ethical choices
· Defining acceptable behaviour to allow use of school resources
· Cyber Citizenship Education. What will it look like at our school?
· Internet management- safe filtering and tracking
We have with staff, BOT and students developed a number of resources, policies and procedures to ensure that not only is our school meeting legislative requirements (School Policy and Procedure documents developed) but we are teaching our students how to keep themselves safe when using digital devices (Facebook and cell phone safety Poster Developed) and that they need think about what and why they are accessing a website (Think then click Poster Developed). Although as a school we will never be able to stop cyber-bullies we can provide them with information and support them as we move into the digital world.
Computers don’t have ethics but people do.
Cyber Bullying Survey
Hi, we are a group of Yr 6 students at xxxxxxxxxxx and we want to know if you are bullied, harassed or put down when you a social network site like Facebook, Bebo, Facetime or text bullied.
1. What year are you in? 53 Yr5 72 Yr6
2. Are you a boy or girl? 83 girls 42 boys
3. Do you use the Internet at home? 115 yes
4. Do you have a stand-alone computer or a personal device, eg. Phone, ipad, ipod? 81 Personal
5. Is your computer in the lounge of family room? 87 Lounge 38 other
6. Do you have a social network site, iefacebook, bebo? 118
Online Harassment.Repeatedly sending offensive messages via e-mail
7. How often have you been harassed online or through text messaging? 80% often
8. How often do you think students at this school are harassed online? Of 80% all said weekly
Denigration (put-downs).Sending harmful, untrue, or cruel statements
about a person to other people or posting such material online.
9. How often have you been denigrated online? 80% weekly
10. How often do you think students at this school have been denigrated
online at home? 60% all the time 40% sometimes
Outing.Sending or posting material about a person that contains sensitive,
private, or embarrassing information, including forwarding private message or images.
11. How often have you had someone send or post sensitive personal
information about you online? 80% fortnightly 10% weekly and 10% sometimes
12. How often do you think students at this school have had someone send or post sensitive personal information about them online at home? 90% very often 10% often
13. Have you ever cyber-bullied students attending this school? 70% 1 or 2 30% Never
14. I would report cyber-bullying incidents, if I could do so without anyone
knowing it was me. 100% Yes
15. Have you ever said something that might hurt or offend someone? 80% Yes 20% Don’t Know
References:
Alvundeen, A. Kalil Rahman, R. & Jayakumaran, M (2008). Professional Ethics and Human Value (Chapter 6) Laxmi Publications: New Delhi
Barquin, R.C. (1992). In pursuit of a ‘Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics. Computer Ethics Institute, Washington
Boyd, S and Barwick, H. (2011).Wellbeing at School. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington
Collins, S.(2012). Suicide link in cyber-bullying.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10803980
Herold, R. (2006). Introduction to computer Ethics: www.infosectoday.com/Articles/Intro_Computer_Ethics.htm
Hoffman, W.& Fredrick, R. (1995). Business ethics: Readings and case studies in the corporate morality. USA: McGraw-Hill
Kallman, E. &Grillo, J.(1993). Ethics is not a four letter word. In Ethical Making and Information Technology (pp2-21). New York: McGraw-Hill
Schroer, W.J. (2008) The Social Liberian: Generation X, Y, Z and the others. www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation2.htm
White, J (1996). The Internet: Ethical issues for teachers and students. In Lai, K. (Ed).Words have wings: Teaching and learning with computer networks (pp83-97). Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press
Urban Dictionary- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter,=keyboard+warrior
Promoting gender equity in the information technology classroom
Christina Chalmers Peter Price
Australian Educational Computing vol 15,1
12 years down the line and I would hope that in New Zealand we do not share the same view as Christina Price that “obstacles are still placed in the way of female students using computers” however gender equity has been an ongoing issue in many sectors and will always continue to be an issue depending on the perspective taken.
As with all things it’s the teacher who makes the difference, teachers connecting with their students and establishing a positive relationship. As teachers we all want our students to succeed no matter of what gender, colour or beliefs they have, otherwise we would not be working in this profession. But if we understand that gender equality and ICT in the classroom can be achieved through effective teaching practice and acknowledging that there is a difference between boys and girls when accessing ICT.
To gain gender equity and equal opportunities in the classroom teachers need to have an understanding and recognise that boys and girls have different interest but that they also have a different style of learning and that teachers will need to address these learning styles individually through ICT. “The goal of gender equity [...] moves beyond equality opportunity by requiring transformative change. It recognises that women and men have different needs, preferences, and interest and that equality of outcomes may necessitate different treatment of men and women.” (Reeves and Baden)
Teachers need to provide and promote equal access of ICT in the classroom but also have an understanding that teaching and learning may differ between boys and girls. If they recognise the there is a difference then all students will benefit and have the opportunity in ICT.
Many studies (Teague and Clarke) have shown that there has been a lack of interest and involvement by girls in the use of ICT in the classroom. This could be that boys have an interest and access to ICT in the home mainly as games tend to be more boys orientated. This could lead to girls lacking the confidences to use ICT in the classroom. “This leads girls to feel that computing is not for them and is neither interesting nor meaningful”, (Bansgrove, 1994, p.23). Thus resulting in them falling behind academically within ICT based subjects.
Female student may be neglected or left behind when ICT is being taught in the classroom, however if teachers are able to encourage active participation and involvement by placing alternative programmes or systems for both male and female students.
Some possible solutions involving teacher strategies that we as teachers can imply to gain gender equality and ICT use in the classroom are:
v Introduce ICT to students at an early age (Alloway, 1995)
v Change curricula to integrate ICT (Fabricant and Adner 1989)
v Provide accurate information about careers in IT (Teague and Clarke 1994)
v Challenge stereotypes about gender and ICT (Silverman and Pritchard 1993)
v Invite female users in ICT to speak to students (Granstam 1988)
v Take courses to improve your own confidence, knowledge, and experience with ICT (Silverman and Pritchard 1993)
But most importantly we need to acknowledge that if there is a difference between male and female students within our schools, we need to start implementing changes in teaching strategies straight away.
Alloway, N. (1995) Eights too late. Early Childhood education and gender reform. Unicorn, Journal of Australian College of Education, 21(4), 19-24
Bransgrove, E. (1994). Teachers understanding of gender implications for learning with computers. Australian Educational Computing, 9 23-27
Fabricant, M. & Adner, H. (1989, October). Women in science and technology. In AMATYC’S Fifteenth Annual Convention, pp 1-9
Granstam, I. (1988) Girls and women in science and technology education. Innovations in science and technology, UNESCO, pp 3-16
Silverman, S. & Pritchard, A. (1994). Building their fiuture. Girls in technology education in Connecticut. Retrieved from the world wide web, http//borg.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ITE/jte-v7n2/silverman.jte-v7n2.html
Teague, J. &Clarke, V. (1994). Encouraging girls to study computer science: Should we even try? Australian Educational Computing, 9 (1) 17-22
The Next Generation: Looking to the future
Mark Brown, Massey University
Mark Brown states that the “future is complex and teachers have the responsibility to prepare students with sufficient digital literacy for tomorrows world”. The question that this raises for me is how?
Green and Bigum’s (1993) state that many students have become aliens in their classrooms and those students were bored and schools were outdated with little resemblance to the hi-tech world that we now live in. True in some classrooms and maybe even in some school children are still seated in nice rows and the chalk board has been replaced with a whiteboard and a computer or two sit nicely in the corner of the classroom used occasionally for publishing or printing the latest Dragon Ball Z pictures. The students that we have today are increasingly techno savvy and the challenge has firmly been laid down, teachers need to critically analyse their role in preparing our students for the future and develop the pedagogical knowledge and practical skills so that the next generation of New Zealanders are not only confident users but have the social skills to actively contribute to the ever changing, fast paced world.
Ferneding (2003) reiterates the point that we urgently need teachers who will produce active citizens capable of creating and shaping a different kind of future. Despite the increases of computer access and the access to professional development the technology is not being used to transform learning. Teachers need to start using technology so it’s linked to the student learning outcomes in order to facilitate their learning. In order for teachers to take on board this type of thinking, professional development must take teachers from learning how computers work to using technology to change how they teach.
Although there is a large amount of technology available for our classrooms, and indeed in our classrooms, it appears that teachers are failing to include these new technologies into our teaching.
New Zealand teachers are now faced with having to move past the traditional methods of ‘chalk and talk’ with little use of the available technology and the ineffective teacher centred style learning and move to a more pupil centred and group learning approach. However as all research in teaching and learning has shown that in order for teachers to change they must be willing to change the manner in which they teach and teachers need to accept technology more widely into their classroom.
The New Zealand Curriculum has the vision of young people who are confident, connected, actively involved lifelong learners. Instead of schools throwing technology at teachers, school leaders and teachers would be better served analysing whether the technology they are using is allowing students to think critically, solve problems, collaborate with others, accessing and analyse information while still promoting curiosity and imagination.
It will be up to the policy makers of this government to ensure the infra structure is in place for schools to develop true 21st Century learners.
Brown,M. (2005) Editorial: The Next Generation: Looking to the future. Computer in Schools
Ferneding, K. (2003). Questioning technology: Electronic technologies and education reforms. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Green, B. & Bigum, C. (1993) Aliens in the Classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 119-41