I posted earlier in the week about the fact that I think one of the major flaws in my school's laptop initiative is the lack of a clear long-term goal. No one can easily tell me what the initial goal of the program was. I'll have to check with..... Um...you might want to ask.... My latest resource, Implementation and Effects of One-to-One Computing Initiatives: A Research Synthesis, from the Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Spring 2006 (This is from a UF library database so I don't know if you need to be logged into the library to access it?), discusses the importance of knowing what your goal is before you embark on a 1:1 initiative.
The author found that the goals tended to focus on these outcomes:
1) Improving academic achievement with the use of technology
2) Increasing equity of access to digital resources and reducing the digital divide
3) Preparing student's more effectively for today's technology-saturated workplace
4) Transforming the quality of instruction
Not much information exists as to the effects of 1:1 initiatives on student achievement, so it would seem unlikely that districts would be basing their decisions on this goal. Although, NCLB is certainly making "student achievement" front and center, so many schools are probably looking for any route that may take them to the "better test scores" exit. To me, the last three seem like more viable alternatives. Especially, numbers 3 & 4. There's been some discussion as to the fact that although we may be reducing the digital divide, we are still not solving the root of the "division" problem. The problem with number four will revert back to my favorite mantra...the current professional development program stinks. If schools are not willing to recognize that not only will they have to shell out the funds for the hardware and software, and that they will have to carefully plan and fund the requisite professional development to aid in the chances of success, they have failed from the beginning.
4 comments:
I love your blog. We are addressing a contentious tax levy in the small town of Oberlin Ohio. Would love to have you post to our newly created "Community Diaries" on the matter. http://www.communitydiaries.org/tions
Another outsider has welcomely infiltrated our ranks, ladies. Crystal I guess you and I are doing something wrong, since Laine and Ann now have each had postings from bloggers outside our group. Jealousy rages through me. No, sorry, that was the chips I just ate.
Ann you hit on the biggest problem: the digital divide cannot be solved simply by handing a poverty-stricken child a laptop. This is why I feel the OLPC initiative was fundamentally flawed. It's simply the socioeconomic equivalent of putting a band-aid on cancer. Something is there which cannot be solved by technology. Can technology be an integral part of bridging the gap? I would argue that it has to be. But technology does not structure socioeconomic frameworks: people do. Unless people understand the pervasively defeating effects the current financial and social structures have on the "have-nots," the movement of those in need will be lateral rather than vertical. Technology can make the movement faster, but we are the ones who must help guide it.
Horray for outsiders and Richard's "crazy" chips! Hey, I may have received comments, but you got a big compliment! Good for you.
Your post made me think back to the importance of goals. Without clear goals, we are left floundering and often arguing over what we expect the end result to be. This brings me to my school's decision to use curriculum mapping for math and science over the past two years. We started with math and one of the first steps was to determine a goal. Yeah, I think that was the one thing we skipped over and said we would come back to later. Needless to say, it was never completed. Overall, the map was helpful, but so many of those involved forgot that a main component of mapping is revisiting the map and frequently discussing the good and bad. With a clear goal from the start, we could have avoided the two steps forward, two steps back tango.
Richard's band-aid on cancer analogy hits the nail on the head. We can't rush to reach the end, we must research, go through trial and error, discuss, etc. if we want things to work on such a global scale. Now, the question is, how can we bridge that divide and help guide technology when it seems like we are always out for the quick fix?
Hey Ann, sorry for the confusion I created by messing with the settings. I myself had no idea what the heck I was doing. I was trying to figure how to make my blog notify me when I have new comments. In trying to streamline the process, I messed everything up.
Mea Culpa.
Post a Comment