Running head: EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

Issues in Education Technology

Melanie Marsh
EDU 352: Foundations of Educational Technology
Instructor Wetanah Lenardson
January 11, 2015

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

2
Issues in Education Technology

Inequality of access to technology adds to the fragmentation of our society. The ways in
which we obtain information, from daily news to information about our interests and hobbies has
changed and continues to change. Digital information is increasing exponentially as the variety
of technological formats (text, sound, moving images, etc.) and the corresponding computer
hardware evolves. If a person does not have access to, or does not know how to use technology
once they do have access, further social fragmentation is likely to result. Contributing factors to
this inequality are generational differences and a variety of economic factors. An individuals
level of economic resources will determine the quality of access or even whether or not a person
has access at all. This is true of corporations and educational systems as well. The inequities
have become distinct enough that we have a description: It was the U.S. Department of
Commerce that first coined the term digital divide, (Koch, p. 159). If a business does not stay
abreast of technology, it may not survive. If schools dont keep up with technology, students
will not be prepared to face the challenges of our ever-changing and shrinking world.
Computer technology divides generations. There are those who have grown up with
technology and those who have learned and continue to learn to use technology into late
adulthood. Generational differences are fairly easy to recognize and evaluate, because we are
aware that those born in the age of personal computers are digital natives, while previous
generations are digital immigrants. This contributes to the digital divide.
More complex and more difficult to evaluate and address are the economic factors that
contribute to the inequality of access. Children in poverty are somewhat shielded from the
complete denial of access because schools provide access as part of the requirement of meeting

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

technology standards. However, a study by DeBell & Chapman reveals that Students living in
poverty are almost twice as likely as other students to access the Internet from school only, (as
cited in Koch, 2012, p. 159). Children in poverty will not have the hours of practice that their
more affluent peers will have.

Access to technology is important, but learning with technology is critical. A study of

the use of technology in schools finds that both public and private schools, including those with
religious affiliations, have provided students with access to technology, yet access does not
ensure that students leave school with the skills they need for the technological challenges they
will meet in their future. (Dosen, et al., 2004) Our schools and teachers currently do not
effectively use technology. As the authors of the Dosen study revealed: Faculty did not make
large use of technology as a means of alternative assessment, reinforcing basic skills or assigning
homework, presenting material to students in new ways or even teaching students how to use
computer technology as an analytic tool, ( p. 23). Schools are not making effective use of the
technologies that they have, so children are falling further behind.
Effective schools teach problem solving. Teachers and students can create opportunities
to address the issue of the digital divide. The Dosen study also observed the ways that
technology is taught and what needs to change: Integration of technology into the curriculum
demands that students and teachers re-evaluate how they work with one another. Technology
integration requires teachers to permit students to actively participate in their learning, ( p. 24).
This observation that students need to be actively engaged in learning with technology is yet
another bit of evidence that outdated teaching models must be re-evaluated. Teachers can no
longer cling to the perception that they are disseminators of information. Facilitators and
coaches, yes, but teachers no longer have the advantage of having more access to information

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

than their students. The omnipresent availability of information has resulted in an information
overload that requires an ability to separate good information from inaccurate information. As
we have learned, Many teachers who use the Internet for project- and problem-based learning
caution that students need to be taught how to use inquiry-based methods powered by
technology, (Koch, 2012, p. 151). Since some teachers are on the other side of the digital
divide due to generational gaps, they must learn along with their students. Learning along with
our students gives the term cooperative learning another layer of meaning. Project-based
learning and problem centered inquiry models can help both teachers and students create
solutions to the problem of the digital divide. This is a wonderful way to model the benefits of
lifelong learning.
As with other technological revolutions in history think of the Gutenberg press and the
Industrial Revolution we face massive social and educational challenges. Addressing these
challenges in the age of information and computer technology requires the same kind of shifts in
thinking and perceptions as the previous technological revolutions. The social implications are
immense. We can promote scarcity or abundance, challenge our form of governing ourselves,
and create new and exciting ways of learning. As we learn alongside our students, we as
teachers have the opportunity to guide future generations in the most positive way imaginable.

References
Dosen, A. J., Gibbs, M. G., Guerrero, R., & McDevitt, P. J. (2004). Technology in
Nonsectarian and Religious Private Schools. Journal Of Research On Christian

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
Education, 13(2), 289-314.
Koch, J. (2012). TEACH. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 Teachers: Technology Use and the
Second Level Digital Divide. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 38(3/4), 181-193.