Digital Inequality Assignment

Digital divide and digital inequality are two ideas I don’t often think of. I’ve had access to the Internet for over 15 years so it seems foreign to me to consider that individuals do not leverage the Internet or other associated technologies. I found this assignment to be quite interesting as it shed some light on my home state, Kentucky, and how digital divide and digital inequality is a real issue, particularly for the eastern portion of the state. Atkinson and Coleman described that the lower socio-economic individuals within the eastern part of the state live in very mountainous regions that don’t lend themselves to very good wired or wireless access options (2011). Helping to bridge the digital divide gap for these people tends to be a challenge. It is important to consider the general socio-economic status and topography of a region to develop a plan to address digital divide and digital inequality.

Participating as a group was nice but yet challenging. Our group represented 5 different states and 3 different time zones. Arranging time to meet was often challenging, but we were able to more both asynchronously and synchronously to complete the project. We used several Google tools to complete this task. Technology was heavily involved in helping us pull the assignment off. From compiling our thoughts on a shared Google document, to meeting online using Google Hangouts, to completing the presentation together in a Google presentation, technology was used for every aspect of collaboration.

By completing this assignment I have shown competence in meeting the AECT 2.4, 3.2, 3.4, and 4.2 standards. We affectively integrated audio and graphic elements into a shared online presentation. We shared and vetted ideas and discussed state policy/regulations openly in a collaborative setting. We used Google documents to work together, track our progress and complete this project.

Atkinson, J. K., & Coleman, P. D. (2011). The digital divide in kentucky: Is rural online learning sustainable?. Journal of sustainability education, 2, Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/the-digital-divide-in-kentucky-is-rural-online-learning-sustainable_2011_03/

Google Presentation

Narrated Presentation (SWF)

Technology Use Planning Overview

Success has different meaning to different people.  To some individuals, success might be a specific pay scale, the perfect career, a particular college degree, or any other attained achievement.  Success is often difficult to quantify unless the outcome we hope to measure is dear to our own hearts.  In any case, success is generally determined by comparing where we are at the start of our journey, the milestones we aim for and/or hit along the way and the perceived “finished product.”  Technology Use Planning is essentially our guide to success within the realm of the implementation of technology within the educational setting.  It is a combination of understanding where we are, where we think we should be going and how we get there.  It involves critically evaluating our current state and making observations and predictions concerning the technology that will be needed to positively influence future learners.  The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan describes a Technology Use Plan as a device that helps explain various points of interest and destinations upon a technology planning road map to help promote continuous action with creation and maintenance of a technology-rich educational environment (1996).

The United States Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan (NETP) 2010 is a great resource to begin development of a localized technology use plan.  By using the NETP document, educational technologists may gain a deeper understanding of the goals and desires of our current government officials as it pertains to education and the use of technology.  The NETP acknowledges that technology is a core aspect of virtually every U.S. citizen’s life and there is great desire to adopt technological solutions to improve learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure and productivity (2010).  Although, implementing the full range of recommendations provided by the plan may prove to be difficult due to time, financial, and resource constraints, the NETP is an excellent resource to shape a local technology plan through a national vision.

A technology use plan must always be developed with educational goals in mind.  Utilizing technology for technology’s sake is often a hindrance to education.  In the early 200s, a study conducted by the University of Munich showed that students that were oversaturated with technology performed at an undesirable level as compared to students with more limited access (MacDonald, 2004).  So how do we know when we have “just the right amount” of technology?  An effective Technology Use Plan will guide you to that solution.

When developing a plan, a long-term goal of educational improvement should be addressed through the realization of short-term goals.  John See, Technology Integration Specialist for the Minnesota Department of Education, states that effective technology plans are short term less than five years in length (See, 1992).  These short-term milestones should be flexible because the nature of technology is rapid and ever changing.  Even for the most technologically astute teachers, predicting what technologies will be available five years from now would prove to be a deeply challenging task.  Take Social Media for example; in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) dominated the untitled “social network” allowing for asynchronous communications amongst users.  These messages were text-only and required a personal computer for development and retrieval of messages.  Flash forward 20 years, users can send and receive text and multimedia (audio / video / still photography) messages both asynchronously and synchronously on various platforms (personal computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones) through a number of areas such as Facebook, Instant Messaging, E-Mail, Blackboard, Moodle, MySpace, and LinkedIn (Goble, 2012).  Aiming for short-term goals provided the opportunity for flexibility while maintaining an attainable vision.

A technology use plan must also be feasible to implement.  This feasibility evaluation should encompass metrics related to financial, stewardship, and outcomes.  See recommends that the technology use plan should be tied to the school district’s budget cycle (See, 1992).  If the budget does not provide an opportunity for the desired technology, the plan is of little use and should be revised.  Secondly, having teachers and faculty that can appropriately operate the technology is extremely important.  How are we to implement mobile learning solutions if our facilitators are not properly trained on how to use mobile technology?  See suggests that technology plans should be tied to staff development plan through awareness, application, integration, and refinement of technological skills (See, 1992). Thirdly, educational outcomes should always be considered.  Does the use of the technology make sense?  Does it really make a considerable difference?  See states that “effective technology plans focus on application and not technology” (See, 1992).  If incorporation of a basic slideshow conveys the same information and leads to the same outcome as a more expensive technology element, the cost savings outweighs the benefits of the new technology as it pertains to application.

My experience with technology in an educational setting has been one of extremes.  Educators who have embraced technology often over utilize their desired tools and never plan for the pitfalls that come with technology.  These instructors implemented the technology as the lesson, rather than technology to support the lesson.  In these instances, when network access abruptly stops or streaming web media becomes unavailable the lesson itself broke down.  Instruction stopped.  Learning stopped.  The focus was now on “how to restore the technology” instead of focusing on transitioning the lesson to another effective method of instruction.  On the other hand, I have also seen educators who entirely diminish the value of technology.  In my corporate role, I see many instructors who only embrace “paper copies” when digital formats are available.  These instructors refuse to use available technology and in turn introduce inefficiencies and unnecessary cost to the learning environment.  I believe we need to find the healthy balance between technological and non-technological solutions to learning.  The thorough development of a Technology Use Plan will aid in the process and guide our steps toward the future.

Sources:

Graduate Students at Mississippi State University. (1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan. Retrieved from: http://www.nctp.com/downloads/guidebook.pdf

Goble, G. (2012, 09 06). The history of social networking. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/

MacDonald, G. J. (2004, 12 06). Too much computer exposure may hinder learning. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-12-06-complicating-things_x.htm

See, J. (1992, May). Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, 19, (8). Retrieved from: http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National education technology plan. Washington D.C: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

The development of this post addresses the AECT 3.4 Polices and Regulations Standard.  The standard states:

3.4 Policies and Regulations
Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that
affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology.

By completing this activity, I have effectively reviewed policy developed by the United States Department of Education to influence my writing concerning key aspects of developing a localized Technology Use Plan for local use.