This week in EC&I 830, two teams argued the statement:
Technology is a force for equity in society
The general consensus during our class discussion was that Team Disagree had a tough side to argue as nearly two thirds of the class sided with Team Agree. That being said, Team Disagree raised some very valid and important points in their opening and closing statements and rebuttal.
The image below is the first thing I thought about when I read the debate statement. Equal distribution and use of technology will not work in our society – it can’t be a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Instead, equitable distribution and access to technology is required to have positive and successful integration of technology. Therefore I completely agree with the debate statement this week, provided there is equal opportunities for all.
Although my ‘agree’ opinion did not change before or after the debate, my eyes were opened to some of the negative aspects of technology and equity in society. One of the points Team Disagree focused part of their opening statement on is the issue of gender inequality in the technology world. In one of the suggested articles, technology is considered another avenue for men to oppress women. In fact, many women have come together to reveal the sexist culture in Silicon Valley tech and venture capital firms.
The article also expresses the idea that, “we have to challenge the presumption that it (the workplace) is neutral and allow women to reach their potential in workplaces where they feel safe and respected”. I have never really considered the idea that technology can be biased against women, but it does make sense. I know I don’t question the fact that certain tools like Siri are set to a woman’s voice. Although you can change this in the settings, it is interesting that the default is often a female voice. As the article describes, we need to have a neutral technological system for gender and social equality.
Often a barrier for technology is limited access in some developing countries and poverty stricken areas. Facebook created Free Basics, a limited internet service for developing markets, (which) is neither serving local needs nor achieving its objective of bringing people online for the first time. Maybe the intention of this service was meant to be a great solution for developing areas that do not have internet access, but instead it narrows what users can access and search for online. Ellery Biddle, the advocacy director of Global Voices says, “It’s building this little web that turn the user into a mostly passive consumer of mostly western corporate content. That’s digital colonialism.”
The term “digital colonialism” showcases one way that our society is not making technology equitable across different socio-economic groups. Instead of giving these groups “internet” (like Free Basics) that pushes certain messages or propaganda, Biddle explains that we need to fix, “the barriers to internet access (which) include signal availability, device ownership, education, digital literacy and electricity”.
Finally, bringing the technology access closer to home, a Huffington Post article explores access to internet in Canada. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority’s 2014 Factbook (CIRA) states that while 95 percent of Canadians in the highest income bracket are connected to the internet only 62 percent in the lowest income bracket have internet access. Some communities in Canada (like Nunavut) only have 27 percent of communities with internet access. Unfortunately, the CIRA explains that Canada has no national strategy to improve access, speed and prices.
Team Disagree made some very good points in their rebuttal that for technology to be equitable in society, internet should not be a luxury. It needs to be affordable and accessible to everyone and we need to redesign systems that discriminate against social status, gender and race. All this being said, technology is here to stay, so we need to find a way to make it equal and fair for everyone. This issues raised in Team Disagree’s argument are a great starting point for how we can improve technology to be an even better force for equity in our society.
Team Agree opened their argument by suggesting that technology has achieved a lot in our society, like removing barriers (ex. helping people read) and connecting the world (ex. real time video chat). Most importantly, they focused on the idea that technology is not the problem and neither is the “digital divide”.
In my own experiences and those expressed by my classmates during our class discussion, we have seen how technology can help remove learning barriers for students in schools. A big discussion took place on how one school division (my division) redistributed technology across all schools for equitable use among students. During my short career so far, I have only taught in community and lower socio-economic background schools. The equitable distribution plan has been crucial in my teaching and use of technology, because many of my students do not have access to reliable internet and technology at home. It has also affected how I prepare lessons and assignments, as I have to assume that students will be able to complete assignments with technology at school, but not necessarily at home.
Some students have an assigned laptop (assistive technology) that follows them throughout their school career. As a teacher, I know that I can design instruction that will allow these students to have the most success because they are guaranteed to use the assigned technology to help with their learning experience. An example is the ‘Read&Write for Google Chrome‘ extension that is used throughout my division. This tool has a variety of options including reading text to the student, dictation and simplifying text which has been extremely valuable with students who have reading difficulties. A couple of years ago I taught in a school with a high EAL population, and ‘Read&Write’ helped my students (with a variety of English speaking and reading levels) to achieve their learning goals.
Another reason I agreed with the argument is the availability and affordability of online education. A few great examples provided by Team Agree include Open Education Courses (OEC), Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Open Education Resources (OER) and Virtual Classrooms. The suggested article explores that a process that is helping share knowledge is, “the use of ‘open education resources’ (OER) – freely available, high-quality materials that can be downloaded, edited and shared to support teaching and learning.” Team Agree explains that open education is based on fairness (among gender, socio-economic status and ethnic origin) and inclusion (a basic minimum standard of education should be available to everyone).
During my B.E.A.D. program (Bachelor of Education After Degree) at the University of Regina, I was able to complete my program in a shorter time period and maintain working nearly full time by taking courses through Athabasca University. This was my first experience with online education, and I do admit that it was a challenge at first. I found that by not having classmate interaction and only assignments to complete that I needed a lot of self-discipline to stay on track. I eventually figured out the time management piece and overall felt that the experience was positive.
My first “blended learning” course was for Standard First Aid. The course required completion of online modules and quizzes prior to attending a one-day in class session. This is a great model as it allows for a deeper understanding of the information and can then be applied in person during the one-day course. I enjoyed this experience as it did not take up my entire weekend and I could work on the modules at my own pace and schedule. My husband is currently enrolled in professional development learning through his work. The course started with a one-week intensive in person to dive into the course material with the instructors and other classmates. He then has one year to complete a variety of modules and assignments through an online portal. There is continuous contact with course instructors and motivation to complete the coursework with an online course community.
And of course, EC&I 830 is my first “blended learning” web based academic course. I think one of the benefits of this being an educational technology course is that there is lots of engagement online through blog comments, Google Plus community, Twitter and of course, our weekly Zoom sessions. This keeps the motivation for learning and completing course work in a timely fashion, something I struggled with in my Athabasca courses.
This brings me to the point raised by Team Agree that the concept of open education has revolutionized the learning classroom and allowed for digital inclusion. Instead of referring to a digital divide, the term inclusion was used to reframe the divided in a more positive way. This can be achieved with equal and equitable access, affordability and a mindset to embrace the digital world.
A Forbes article explains that many advocates believe that digital technology has the potential to expand access to education to underserved children around the world. In 2015, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called technology the new platform for learning at the annual South by Southwest conference and said, “technological competency is a requirement for entry into the global economy”. For this to happen, we need to increase equity for children and communities that are historically underserved, and one way is through digital technology. This solution almost seems too easy – to help poverty stricken communities have better education, all we need to do is supply the students with technology! An example is the “digital school in a box” provided by the Vodafone Foundation, which supplies a laptop and 25 tablets pre-loaded with educational software to a refugee settlement in Kenya. I think this is an awesome initiative and it is great to see organizations looking for ways to support education around the world. But in reality, it is a band-aid fix – as it is only a temporary solution to a problem. What happens when the technology is out of date? What about all the other underserved areas in that community? Or the underserved areas in our own country?
The increase of technology and the digital world has give many different groups around the world a chance for better education. I completely agree that technology is a force for equity in society, but the complicated part is how technology is distributed and used. I think this is still a learning process and we will continue to see many trial initiatives as possible solutions to the complicated issues of technology access. By being aware of the issues raised by Team Disagree (like inequality among different gender, race and socio-economic groups), we can continue to improve distribution, access and affordability of technology to remove the digital divide. Technology is here to stay and grow, so it is society’s responsibility to search for solutions that close the accessibility gap. Both teams presented great arguments this week which served as a reminder that issues that existed before technology will continue to take place with technology use. As educators, we must continue to focus on teaching digital citizenship to develop positive online identities. As members of society, we need to rally for equal and equitable technology access in our communities.
Until next time,