technology4kids

2nd Edition: Article summaries

Article 1 Summary

Kim, S. H. & Bagaka, J. (2005) The digital divide in student’s usage of technology tools: a multilevel analysis of the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [online serial], 5 (3/4). Available: http://www.citejournal.org

Seung H. Kim and Joshua Bagaka, the authors of ‘The Digital Divide in Students’ Usage of Technology Tools: A Multilevel Analysis of the Role of Teacher Practices and Classroom Characteristics’, are concerned about student preparation for effectiveness in an information-rich world. Technological fluency is expected in today’s job market and students without adequate computer access will be at a disadvantage (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). The U.S. Department of Commerce refers to the gap in computer access as the ‘Digital Divide’ (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Phase 1 of this study examined the dependent variable of difference in students’ use of computer resources (in home and at school) with respect to the quantitative independent variables of technology tool use (interactive tools, individual tools, productivity, and word processing) and in relation to the qualitative independent variables of school location (suburban vs rural/urban), gender (boys vs. girls), additional computer access at home (with vs. without), and grade level (fourth grade vs. fifth grade). Phase 2 of the study looked at the extent teacher and classroom characteristics predict inequities in the type of technology used by fourth and fifth graders (Kim & Bagaka, 2005). Only Phase 1 is being reviewed by this author since this assignment is bounded by a five-page review and a 15-minute presentation. Method Participants Seventy-five survey packages were mailed to teachers in northeastern Ohio who had previously agreed to participate. Forty-eight of those packages were returned for a 64% response rate. The fourth and fifth grade teachers that returned both teacher surveys and student surveys consisted of 15 males and 33 females with teaching experience ranging from 1 to 39 years. The student respondents were 1,037 fourth and fifth grade students with fifty-one percent (n = 523) from 24 suburban classrooms, eighteen percent (n = 180) from nine rural classrooms, and thirty-one percent (n = 320) from fifteen urban classrooms. On the average, minorities composed 28% of the suburban sample, 1% of the rural sample, and 59% of the urban sample. Instrumentation Phase 1 data was gathered from a student survey developed in association with three teachers knowledgeable in the field of technology and experienced at classroom teaching. The student survey assessed frequency of student use on a weekly basis at five category levels (none, 1-3 times, 4-5 times, 6-10 times, 11 or more times). The usage was monitored according to two environmental measures: Y₁) in class use, Y₂) at home use, and four measures of the independent qualitative variables of technology tool use: X₁) word processing , X₂) interactive tools, X₃) individual tools, X₄) productivity tools. The change in computer use data was also analyzed based on the independent qualitative variables of Z₁) Location (suburban = 1 vs rural/urban = 0), Z₂) Gender (male = 1, female = 0), Z₃) Home Access (with = 1, without = 0), and Z₄) Grade Level (fourth = 1 vs. fifth = 0). Variables and Measures Through principal component factor analysis Cronbach’s reliability alpha α=[k/(k-1]*(1-∑^K _i=1  σ_i²/σ_s²) was identified for each technology tool. Individual tools consisted of typing practice, reading software, and encyclopedia use (α = .63, mean = 2.26). Interactive tools consisted of drawing, web searching, computer games, and e-mail (α = .62, mean = 2.91). Productivity tools consisted of Power Point , spread sheet, and word processing with PowerPoint and spread sheet α = .52, mean = 2.91 and word processing mean = 2.43. Data Analysis ANOVA or the analysis of variance model was used to determine how much a students’ use of computer technology tools would vary by students’ characteristics such as Z₁) Location (suburban = 1 vs rural/urban = 0), Z₂) Gender (male = 1, female = 0), Z₃) Home Access (with = 1, without = 0), and Z₄) Grade Level (fourth = 1 vs. fifth = 0). Analysis for the study (Phase 1 and Phase 2) was conducted using the HLM™ version 5.04 in conjunction with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-11.0) in the Windows XP Environment (Kim & Bagata, 2005,p. 4).

Findings (Phase 1 only) Table 1 gives the results for the differences in students’ level of use according to Suburban vs. Rural/Urban environments. The average number of hours per week students spend on computers in school (F = 16.50, p < .01) and at home (F = 11.30, p < 01) are significantly different by school location. Students in the suburbs, on the average, spent more hours on the computer at home and in school than did students in the Rural/Urban environment.

Table 2 gives the results for the difference in students’ level of use according to Boys vs. Girls. The average number of hours per week students spent on computers in school (F = .22, p > .01) and at home (F = 15.44, p < .01) are significantly different at home but not at school when analysis of gender is included in the model. Boys tend to spend significantly more time using the computer at home. Girls tend to spend more time word processing at school (F = 3.48, p > .01) but that difference is not significant at the alpha level selectedfor the study.

Table 3 gives the results for the difference in students’ level of use according to computer access at home (with vs. without). The average number of hours per week students spent on computers in school (F = 14.70, p < .01) and at home (F = 17.22, p < .01) are significantly different for students with home access vs. those without home access. Students with access to computers at home had significantly greater use of all technology tools. Discussion Limitation of the study The age of the students involved in the study made it difficult to determine the level of sophistication being applied when the students’ used technology tools. Also, the study was isolated to one region of the United States and the sample of 48 teachers is not random. Future Work A larger sample involving more regions of the United States may reveal cultural differences affecting the ‘digital divide’ in students’ use of specific types of computer tools. The larger sample could provide reliability and validity needed for defense of transactional changes in teaching resources (e.g. provide students with laptops). stm

References

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P.K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools (Policy Information Report). Princeton , NJ : Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412893)

Kim, S. H. & Bagaka, J. (2005) The digital divide in student’s usage of technology tools: a multilevel analysis of the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [online serial], 5(3/4). Available: http//www.citejournal.org

Peterson, R.A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2) September 1994, 381-391. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002, February). How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Web site: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf

Article 2 Summary

Leu, D.L. Jr., & Kinzer, C.K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication [Electronic version]. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1) 108-127.  

As the use of the Internet converges with literacy instruction, the fundamental nature of literacy is being reshaped. Teachers seeking to prepare students for the future must overcome cultural variations and politics as well as professional development in multiple technologies. Technology has reshaped literacy across cultures throughout the ages . . . from the Sumerians cuneiform tablets during the 4th millennium B.C. to 15th century German moveable type technologies that allowed publication of Bibles . . . technology and cultural have profoundly affected the nature of literacy and literacy instruction. Success in today’s rapidly changing global environment demands that individuals access reliable information quickly, evaluate and communicate that information appropriately, and apply that information effectively to solve problems (Leu & Kinzer, 2000, p. 113). At all levels, there is a move from centrally planned organization to the formation of collaborative teams that span both time and space. The effective use of information literacy influences global economic conditions. Governments around the world are effecting public policy initiatives (including funding) to ensure higher levels of literacy achievement. These initiatives make literacy a technological deixis with users of technology creating new literacies through application of technology. Since data on the beneficial outcome of technology lags behind the obsolescence curve of new technologies the data is of little use by the time it is published. However, observation assures us that application of new technologies for teaching and learning effective literacy strategies will prepare one and all for the collaborative environment of the future. stm

Article 3 Summary

Stokes, S.M., Kaufman, T. U., & Lacey, A. (2002). Preparing teachers of the 21st century: Creating technological literacy in a teacher education program. Reading Online, www.readingonline.org published December 2002 (International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232 Accession Number 13515432) p.1-13. Retrieved June 18, 2006 from Master FILE Premier EBSCO host through www.lib.ncsu.edu

As technology ‘renews’ the U.S. school system, teacher education needs to provide for the use, management, assessment, and understanding of new millennium technologies. The research of Tiene & Luft (2002, p. 38) indicates that teachers expressed their most important technological needs as word processing, a web browser, and presentation software. Pre-service and practicing teachers too often lack opportunities for meaningful professional development in the use of technology. The integration and use of technology must be a focus of continuing education in response to society’s need for higher informational literacy and higher student achievement. The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay is the focus of many articles related to ‘best practices’ for revising teacher education programs to include technology integration, integrated curriculum, team teaching, portfolio assessment, inquiry groups, newsletter, and web resources. Initial education course ‘blocks’ at The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay include integrated technological resource instruction that meet the ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) standards of technological literacy. These courses are rooted in constructivist theory that builds on prior knowledge with concrete experiences to reinforce natural learning. Teachers are required to create professional portfolios using electronic formats and resources. Inquiry groups explore controversial topics using the Internet as a research tool. The expertise developed in these ‘block’ courses, where technology is actively applied, insures that graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s program will become life long learner and enable their students to become life-long learners. stm