TPACKChapter+2

toc

Sammie
The word responsibility was echoed repeatedly throughout this chapter, in reference to teachers and teachers education programs raising the bar to engage and equalize the education system for students at socio-economic and language disadvantages. While I agree whole-heartedly with this idea and the underlying philosophy, I also cower at the task. It seems incredibly daunting to maintain an equitable classroom even as a newer teacher who has an established comfort with technology and has worked in a school system where English Language Learners and underprivileged students are present. However, I was encouraged upon reading of the equitable classroom as described in this chapter. Several changes that I have initiated this year were recognized as good practices in the equitable classroom. For example, this year I decided to utilize student groups that would stay consistent for a progress report period (4 weeks). The groups would be utilized for homework discussion, in-class problem solving and peer practice. At the close of each marking period, the groups would shuffle. This sounds almost identical to the practice described as fostering an equitable classroom on page 48. Also, on the previous page, the description of the equitable classroom sounds very much like layered teaching, an instructional strategy designed to promote student autonomy, higher-level thinking, instructional personalization and authentic assessment. I first implemented layered teaching units three school years ago and immediately saw the benefits, but to have the concepts echoed so clearly in the context of this chapter was very encouraging. I have experienced great success in reaching different levels of students with this technique and would love to share with my cohort. Another observation that I made in this reading was that many of my students are being placed at a disadvantage due to cultural bias that I was previously unwitting of, or at least less aware of than I am now. An implication this has on my teaching and classroom design as a result of this recognition will be a heightened attention to my students who are exposed to these particular risks. For example, I may utilize flex periods with my ELL students to preview definitions for and pronunciations of upcoming vocabulary terms for Geometry class.

Lisa
The second chapter, Bridging Digital and Cultural Divides, was eye opening to me. I have never really thought about technology integration and cultural divides in that way. Teaching in a rural school district we do strongly believe in “equity of access for all” which is also support by the State of Maine. With the one-to-one laptop initiative students 7-12 are provided access to technology. There is also a program that supports families that don’t have Internet that they can sign up for and it’s free. Which kind of leads to the topic of digital divides. I have thought about this concept in my classroom as equal access to hardware, software and the Internet and I try to be sensitive to this issue. As we know even though these technologies have been made available to all students it doesn’t mean that students have access at home. I have never thought of the cultural-sensitive side of this issue but now that it has been brought to my attention I’m excited to incorporated my new knowledge into my teachings.

Melody
Chapter two discussed the issues of access and equity. Not only is the “digital divide” there between teachers, but our students experience this issue as well. The absence of certain equipment is a problem with students in their homes and at school as well. Many homes and schools lack the tools needed to provide students with the proper education they need.

Impact On My Classroom Teaching:

When I started teaching, the one-to-one laptop program was only rolled out to middle schools. Back then, my students could only access the internet occasionally with laptops on rolling carts we signed out for their class period. There was not a good system for saving work and keeping files to access later, especially since everyone was using these laptops in the building. Also, I couldn’t require research to be done at home because not every student had the access or the equipment needed to complete the work. Times are changing, access and equipment are becoming more and more affordable for all families, but not all the problems are gone.

Questions/Comments: Knowing that we have this huge priority to teach with technology and help students, how can do we deal with our schools not always providing the tools necessary for this? What about the students that have family members that don’t see the value in technology and possibly stand between their children and this learning?

Sam
Maine’s one-to-one laptop programs significantly reduce the first digital divide (i.e. equity of access to Information & Communication Technologies, or ICT). However the simple fact of every Middle and High school student having access to a laptop - does not ensure ICT literacy. If the second and third digital divides are also addressed (i.e. teachers being well trained to provide Technology Mediated Instruction, or TMI), would we see improvements in ICT literacy? And is ICT literacy even a typical goal of technology integration in schools? To provide equal access to TMI for all students (and for the TMI to be culturally sensitive), we are really talking about targeted professional development. However, the time typically set aside for professional development in schools is rarely adequate for any sort of in-depth learning. Furthermore, the “wicked” nature of the problem makes it difficult to provide simple, standardized solutions that will work for all teachers and all content areas. I would further suggest that there is digital divide between teachers who fear technology and those who embrace it, making it even more difficult to effectively provide a consistent quality of TMI among all teachers. Having said that, there does appear to be significant anecdotal evidence to suggest the Middle School MLTI program eventually produced technologically competent staff and a real change in school culture. Perhaps perseverance is the key. Chapter two of the TPCK handbook also suggests ICT literacy as being the goal of technology integration in schools. But is ICT literacy even measured in many (or any) schools? NCLB and AYP have caused the majority of recent research to use standardized state test scores in reading and math to be the yardstick for measuring virtually all school initiatives - including the MLTI program. In the case of increased access to technology, the state testing results have at best have stayed the same, and in some cases have gone backwards. I don’t personally think standardized reading and math tests should be used to assess the impact of technology integration programs, but in a climate of accountability what other measure of progress can be used instead? And if ICT Literacy is not required by AYP, would there be enough community and administrative support to make that it a worthy goal?

Erica
First of all, I enjoyed this chapter and really connected to what it was discussing and the students it focused on. As a teacher of ELL students, I run into these technological downfalls and situations all the time. This chapter emphasizes the need for technology in a classroom and thoroughly discusses three digital divides that make using technology more difficult for lower SES and ELL students. When using technology, teachers really need to pay close attention to the students in their classes and the resources that they not have. Students who are minorities and may be low-income, have a difficulty with using technology simply because they have not had the exposure to it and probably do not have the access to use it at home. This is the first digital divide stated in the reading.

The second divide is the idea that teachers and parents may not be properly trained in using technology, and therefore cannot assist students with it at home. Not only are some teachers not trained on the technology, but also they assign projects that are not applicable to the culture of their students. The final digital divide that is present is the idea that technology is not culturally sensitive. Students of a different culture and ethnicity may have a difficulty understanding something on the internet because they have never heard it before. Examples on the internet may tend to be more Americanized as opposed to culturally perceptive.

I agree with all of the information given in this chapter and to be honest, I did not learn anything new. This is currently my fourth year teaching mathematics to ELL students, and I tend to keep all of the digital divides in mind when using technology in my classroom as well as assigning projects or activities that require the use of technology. Because of the divides discussed in this chapter, is the reason why I create all of my own activities, assignments, projects, etc. This way I can make sure that each assignment properly assesses each student to the best of their ability.

Leigh
I found Chapter 2 of the TPCK handbook to be an interesting and engaging read. I enjoyed reading about the sensitivity issues surrounding culture and income and I especially appreciated the authors’ suggestions on how to solve those problems in a classroom. As much as I enjoyed reading this chapter, I felt unable to relate to it in terms of my classroom. The closest I could come was in regards to the section that talked about the First Digital Divide. I could equate that with some of my students participating in PE with crocs because their parents cannot/will not buy them sneakers. I did appreciate the call to teacher educators to prepare preservice teachers better in this area. Speaking as a PE major and not a classroom teacher major, I feel that universities do not spend enough time with the social/cultural/affective components to learning. Preservice teachers need to have many experiences in different types of schools, for example, inner city, rural, multi-cultural, homogeneous… It is these experiences that will create a culturally/socio-economically sensitive educator. I also appreciate the ‘wicked problem’ section that says” it is subject area and situation specific”. I find that in teaching PE, there is not much emphasize on PE as there is in math and literacy. That being said, I looked in the Table of Contents and noticed there is a PE section. I’ll be reading that next!

Lynda
Not all people have access at home/school to ICT infrastructure such as computers, multimedia equipment, software, and efficient Internet connectivity. This is the //first digital divide//. People at a disadvantage are those with low incomes, and cultural/linguistic backgrounds that differ from the mainstream. Not mentioned in the text are those with disabilities. In my classroom most laptops for children with special needs are outdated and near death.

The //second digital divide// is limited access to technology mediated instruction (TMI) in and out of school. Some of the causes are: few skilled teachers, different technology assignments dependent on student’s skills, few skilled parents as resources who value technology, and poor uses of ITC such as the strategies of drill and practice, defensive teaching, and using access as a reward. Educators need access to TMI specific to their content area. Students with special needs require teachers who are capable with computers. Unfortunately our school has not developed to that point yet. I haven’t received any training; the little I’ve learned has been by word of mouth from a few highly skilled teachers.

The //third digital divide// is access to culturally sensitive TMI. Needed are teachers who are knowledgeable about multicultural education who can incorporate this into their practice, establishing equitable classrooms and good teaching. Creating equitable classrooms is an important aspect of the //third digital-divide// and includes providing a broad conception of what it means to be smart allowing multiple ways to demonstrate and evaluate, something our classroom does well. Not mentioned in the text is awareness of mainstream versus minority cultural views of the world.

Whether autism is considered a culture or a disability, teachers need training to learn the protean of technologies and the pedagogy of how to teach this unique population. The Dine and Discuss evenings hosted by UMF have addressed the protean of several technologies, which is a great start.

susan
In chapter 2 of the Handbook of TPCK, the authors discuss aspects of access to technology in light of the three overlapping domains: content, pedagogy, and technology. I interpreted this simply to mean whether students have the “machine” and whether they know how to use the “machine”. Furthermore, it’s not a matter of have or have not, but the degree to which one has access. The student may have an old machine or make use of a new high-speed unit at a public library. They may know only how to retrieve and send emails or they may have the skill to rebuild the motherboard.

For the population that I work with, what remains an unknown element is the demand or need for increasing access to technology. Certainly there are students, regardless of age who, for a variety of reasons, want to become skilled at using computers. Not to be neglected however, are the students who want to learn to read better, and want to practice using just paper or a book. The authors speak of “ethnicity, socio-economic status, language, and cultural background…” (p.32) being at the core of the “digital divide”, and this is true of adult learners as well.

I promote the use of technology resources, when the student acknowledges interest and inquires about skill building. Also, my responsibility as a teacher is to constantly assess student progress and project future instruction. As the authors mentioned in the first chapter, the goal of the teaching context is to keep the domains in balance. They write about the “equitable classroom” in this 2nd chapter. Further expectations of subject, method and what tools to include must respect student perspectives and abilities.

Darlene
Chapter Two addressed the issues of equity in regard to access to communication and information technology. The book describes three different types of digital divides: physical access, access to achievement enhancing technology mediated instruction and culturally sensitive TMI. Not surprising were the reported influences income and ethnicity have on access to ICT equipment. The teacher’s role in “bridging” the first digital divide of physical access in played out in the classroom. Using technology effectively and educating students about available technology outside of the classroom are viewed as the teacher’s responsibility. The access to achievement enhancing TMI is described as the second digital divide. This divide is evident in the technological skill levels of teachers, the types of technology assignments and the technological skill level of parents. The third divide deals with cultural diversity and the explanation provided does enlighten one to the many different types of cultural differences. The second part of the chapter discussed the ways in which TPCK approaches the issues of equity. The context is highlighted in the discussion of the theoretical framework of TPCK. The laptop initiative in the state of Maine has certainly lessened the extent of the digital divide for its students. Therefore, the first digital divide is less gaping, but the second exists for many of our students. Even though our school has little ethnic diversity, we do have socio-economic and cognitive skills differences. In those areas I see the equity issues in regard to accessibility of achievement enhancing TMI. I do agree with the closing statement in the chapter summary regarding teacher preparation programs and understanding of context.