This was a surprising course in many ways. It was the first conceptual course that demanded that I think critically and deeply, not simply about the tools of technology I use as an educator, but what that means for students of varying economic, racial, and gendered statuses. Although I had taught in a number of varied landscapes-from a small, elite private school to a massive 1000 student public school, to a rural public school- I had not ever considered my role as an equalizing force (or not) through the lens of education and technology. In this course, I realized while we have come so far in American society in many ways, in others technology use and prevalence can also serve as a disequalizing force.

In this course, we had the opportunity to read seminal works by educational theorists such as John Dewey, Thomas Fallace, and John Ogbu. Reading some of Dewey’s work sparked a particular interest in me as I began to think how necessary it would be in the future for our digital native learners to be proficient in a very different kind of vocational skill. While previously it might have been a choice for students to be “academics” versus vocational learners, Dewey accurately predicted that our learners of the future would need to meld both academia and practical, hands-on learning in order to be successful. Our students’ new vocational needs must include real, applicable skills that not only allow them access to increased content but allow them to be content creators in the new world.

In this way, I began to think differently about the subjects and ways I was using technology. I began to think that perhaps in my own way, I was being a bit of a technology “gatekeeper” and insisting students use technology in a way that suited me and my purposes. Similarly, I did not take into account students’ own identities and perceptions of self. Perhaps, by not allowing students to use their technology to express ideas and learning, I was not fully preparing them for the real world where they would have to choose to use (or create) tools to best suite their needs. Marc Prensky would describe my students as “digital natives” who grew up using technology intuitively and innately. I began to believe I must embrace this idea and open the door to learning from them.

Although there were many important assignments in this course, the most significant learning for me came through my work on my literature review. I chose to research a topic that emerged through the reading to me-identity matters tremendously in STEM education and ultimately employment. My literature review concluded three major findings. The first was that identity plays a large role in the likelihood that an individual will pursue and sustain a career in a STEM field and it may start as early as elementary school. The second major finding was there is a lack of diversity in gender, race, and socioeconomic representation in STEM education and professional outcomes. Finally, there is a severe lack of equitable academic offerings across socioeconomic classes of public schools and those schools designed for vocational education as a separate curriculum actually increase social stratification.

This course set the stage for my inquiry into the inequality that education can both alleviate and perpetuate. Until this point, I had always seen education as the one factor that could allow most for social mobility. In this course, I realized that it can often act as a disequalizer. In my own practice, I realized that it is my responsibility to help all my learners but particularly those from lower socioeconomic statuses, nonmale, and nonwhite students see themselves as digital natives, creators, and innovators. This course paved the way for me to begin to shift some preconceived notions and paradigms I had held previously. I am most proud of the literature review and subsequent presentation I created to highlight my findings.

References

Dewey, J. (1944). The Democratic Faith and Education. The Antioch Review, 4(2) 274. Doi:

10.2307/46090.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-

Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education. Anthropology Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188. doi: 10.1525/aeq.1998.29.2.155

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Doi:

10.1108/10748120110424816

Literature Review

Bi-Weekly Responses to Reading