Understanding Educational Technology and Cultural Awareness
Cultural diversity
is growing rapidly in classrooms across the United States. With this growth and
change, the dynamics of education have changed as well, with the incorporation
of global approaches to courses such as Advanced Placement history and art
history. In efforts to expand awareness of other cultures, multicultural
approaches taking place in every content area. The advancement of technology
has made it possible for much of this educational cultural awareness to take
place, providing for more accurate views and deeper understandings of cultures
that differ from the Western world. In this qualitative study, I will explore
how technology can impact student research of non-European cultures, and seek
to understand the theory of how technology can improve cultural awareness and
tolerance toward other cultures. The following articles show current research
on issues dealing with student outcomes of student use and access to
technology, and how teacher-modeled student use of technology can bring
cultural understanding and awareness to students.
The first article that I examined was very helpful in understanding American student perceptions of other cultures and some reasons why stereotypes of other cultures exist. Carano & Berson (2007) state that American students are not as geographically and culturally literate as students from other developed countries, and that much of this illiteracy creates misconceptions and stereotypes of cultures different from their own. Carano & Berson also explain that a root cause of the lack of focus on geography and study of other cultures in U.S. school systems stems from the rigidity of the standards movement, which requires a strong focus on reading and math. In turn, much of the information that students obtain about the rest of the world comes from the media. Carano & Berson mention a 2004 Pew Center poll revealing, “21 percent of people aged eighteen to twenty–nine years get their news from comedy programs such as The Daily show and Saturday Night Live,” (Corano & Berson, 2007, p.66) I found this to be especially saddening, and further underscores how and why stereotypes toward other cultures exist. Solutions that Carano & Berson offer include encouragement of educators to integrate technology into their curriculum, and also support online projects where students are interacting with students from other countries, “enab[ling] youths to engage in a variety of civic skills.” (Carano & Berson, 2008, p. 67). Berson also states, “ By using the computer, students can gain access to expansive knowledge links and broaden their exposure to diverse people and perspectives,” (Berson, 1996, 486) and “ Technology is expanding the walls of the traditional classroom.” Carano & Berson, 2008, p. 67). Lastly, Carano & Berson explain a series of “eight dimensions of a global perspective” that instructors can use in combination with technology, which can in turn enhance the development of the eight dimensions. In the appendix of the article, the authors also provide a list of internet global resources that promote cultural awareness and cross-cultural understanding, and include listing of the eight global dimensions that each website can help students reach.
An article that explains how technology is essentially “wired” into the minds of today’s students, and for this purpose must be integrated it into education, is Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants by Marc Prensky. I found this article to be helpful in understanding how technology might not only help students learn, but also the proposition that growing up in a technology immersed environment has structured students’ minds of this generation to be fundamentally different than those of the past. Some parts of the article are very informative, and help in understanding how today’s students learn and process knowledge; that our students are “Digital Natives”, they are used to receiving information in a fast-paced way, and that they “like to parallel process and multi-task,” and “ they thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards.” (Prensky, 2001, p. 2) Views in this article that don’t coincide with other research include the lack of need for differentiation, and the implication that all students are Digital Natives, and that all require technological tools and technological integration in order to learn successfully.
A response to the series of Prensky’s articles and his viewpoints, entitled First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray & Krause, 2008), examines Prensky’s claims that students are wired in such a way that they require technology in order to learn. This is a report of a study that was done in 2006 that includes over 2,000 first year university students in Australia. This study observed how students use, have access to, and their preferences of types of technology. The findings projected that because this first year population is largely non-homogeneous, essentially there is a digital divide among this diverse group. Even though some students were active in using the technological tools tested, Kennedy et al. state “this is by no means the universal experience.” (Kennedy, et al., 2008, p.117) This study emphasized my observation that not all students are technologically savvy and there should be sensitivity to those who are not as digitally literate.
The next study deals with equity of technology. I wanted to find if there is a connection between students receiving equal access to computers and if it permits an increase of student use, and what that means in terms of student outcomes. The article Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings, from the Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment produced a study on four prior empirical studies that measured the effects of 1:1 student to computer access, and among the four studies, findings report that teachers and students both increased their use of technology, there was greater student interest and engagement, and slight increases in student achievement. A component of this study that relates to the questions asked in my perspective study is how teacher use of technology impacts student use. Bebell & O’Dwyer (2010, p. 8) report “Across the four empirical studies, it is evident that teachers play an essential role in the effective implementation of 1:1 initiatives and that the onus of responsibility for implementation often falls to the teacher.” Among the beneficial outcomes of equal access, this finding dictates that the success largely depends on how the teacher uses and directs technology use.
Lastly, an article that I found that reacts to technology availability to students and explains that the quantity of technology use is not as effective as the quality of how technology is used. Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes, a study from the British Journal of Educational Technology, examines the connection between student use of how much technology is used opposed to what types and how it is used. Student outcomes that were examined in the study included student academic achievement, technology proficiency, improved learning habits, and developmental outcomes, which consisted of self -esteem, life skills and attitudes. The categories of technology use that dictated the quality of technology being measured include general, subject-specific, social communication, construction, and exploration/entertainment technology uses. Participants of the study were seventh and eight grade students and teachers in a Northwestern middle school in the U.S. Methodology included a survey that was administered in the beginning and at the end of the school year, which inquired about demographic information and gender. A technology proficiency scale, and Likert scale were used to present questions to the participants. In addition to the survey, nine teachers and nine students were interviewed. The findings of the study report that the different categories of technology tested generally had a positive effect on all student outcomes, but had no significant effect on GPA. The results might have differed, though, if different assessment approaches were used. Jing (2010), explains that teachers in the study noticed that assessment methods were not modified to assess learning that occurred while using these different types of technology. Jing explains that one teacher noted “I don’ think we have a way to evaluate it yet, or we don’t ask the right questions to find out what they did.” (Jing, 2010, p. 467) This comment proves that the study might contain many inaccuracies, and that there is a need to develop assessment techniques that coincide with learning with technology.
Research Questions
This investigation will explore how students approach research on a culture different than their own, and how the option to use technology can impact student learning and understanding. The primary question that this qualitative study will address is how do students approach their research of a non-European culture? Other proposed research questions that may be answered through this study include:
· Do students use technology when researching other cultures? If so, what kind of technological tools to they use?
· Do all students have equal access to technology? Are there alternate methods to research that students use that don’t involve technology?
· Does technology use in research help students better understand the culture that they are researching?
· After research, are students able to relate artworks from their assigned non-European culture to previously learned European artworks?
· Do students feel that they can better relate with/understand students of other cultures on campus after research?
Design and Methodology
The research design chosen for this qualitative study is the grounded theory design. I chose this research design because I hope to uncover a theory that connects the use of technology and the internet to greater cultural awareness among students. Sampling methods that I plan to use prior to data collection include theory/concept sampling; I plan on using this procedure because it will hopefully help to expose a concept or theory that technology promotes the understanding or awareness of other cultures, and homogeneous sampling; I am using this procedure because I want to find how this specific chosen demographic conducts research of another culture. Lastly, I would like to include opportunistic sampling after I begin data collection because it is used to "take advantage of unfolding events that will help answer research questions". (Creswell, 2008, p. 216) The incorporation of this approach can lead to "novel ideas an surprising findings" as noted by Creswell. An example of this would be if I observed that one of the participants doesn't own a computer, or doesn't have access to one, or if one of the participants is proficient in working with computers/technology.
The setting for this study will take place at the Norwich Free Academy, an independent high school in Norwich, CT. The Norwich Free Academy has a large population consisting of approximately 2,500 students, and a wide range of cultures is represented, including 37 different spoken languages among the diverse student body. There is also a wide variation of socioeconomic classes represented among the population of the school. The participants chosen for this study are six Advanced Placement art history students, all of which are Caucasian, and from a middle SES class, and also take other AP classes. The reason why I chose this population is because I want to discover how this particular homogeneous classification of students proceeds in gathering information about artworks from a culture that is different from their own.
To begin, students randomly selected their non-European cultures by picking a folded piece of paper with the title of the culture on it from a container. A handout is given to each student with guidelines and requirements for the research project. The students are required to create a presentation of the artwork of their assigned culture to the rest of the class, and also compose an outline of the presentation to be handed in. Students are not required to choose a specific time period within the culture, and are given the option of focusing on painting, sculpture or architecture. Students are given an option whether or not to use technology (internet resources) in their research, the only requirement for research is that they must use credible sources, and they must be documented. The six students are given five weeks to gather information and to create their presentation, and will be given three days in class to work on their research projects. Work days will be distributed in the following manner: the first work day will be given during week one, week three, and the end of week four.
Data collection methods will include observation, interviews, and open-ended questionnaires. Observation will begin with the assignment of the research project, and will document the process of student research during the in-class workdays, and will continue through the presentation of the project. One-on-one interviews will be arranged with each student over the course of the first four weeks, in order to more intricately understand their research processes. A group interview will also be conducted at the end of week four in order to monitor how students can connect on particular elements of research about their assigned culture, and how tools used and their findings compare and contrast. Lastly, at the end of the five weeks, after the students have presented, they will complete an open-ended questionnaire that deals with the process of their research and views of other cultures on campus, as well correlations with their assigned culture’s art-making styles and practices compared to those of the Western world. From these methods, I hope to find a central phenomenon that connects student cultural understanding and awareness with technology use.
Results from this proposal will offer more research on the topic of how technology can improve student awareness of other cultures, so that research done in the future will further expand on and confirm positive correlations between cultural understanding and teacher-modeled student use of technology.
References
Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes & research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment. 9 (1) 6-15. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ873675)
Carano, K.T. & Berson, M.J. (2007) Breaking stereotypes: constructing geographic literacy & cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies. 98 (2) 65-70. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ767651)
Creswell, J.W. (2008) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krouse, K. (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(1) 108-122 (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ832712)
Lei, J. (2010) Quality versus quantity: a new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. The British Journal of Educational Technology. 41(3) 455-472 (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ880152)
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives. Digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf
The first article that I examined was very helpful in understanding American student perceptions of other cultures and some reasons why stereotypes of other cultures exist. Carano & Berson (2007) state that American students are not as geographically and culturally literate as students from other developed countries, and that much of this illiteracy creates misconceptions and stereotypes of cultures different from their own. Carano & Berson also explain that a root cause of the lack of focus on geography and study of other cultures in U.S. school systems stems from the rigidity of the standards movement, which requires a strong focus on reading and math. In turn, much of the information that students obtain about the rest of the world comes from the media. Carano & Berson mention a 2004 Pew Center poll revealing, “21 percent of people aged eighteen to twenty–nine years get their news from comedy programs such as The Daily show and Saturday Night Live,” (Corano & Berson, 2007, p.66) I found this to be especially saddening, and further underscores how and why stereotypes toward other cultures exist. Solutions that Carano & Berson offer include encouragement of educators to integrate technology into their curriculum, and also support online projects where students are interacting with students from other countries, “enab[ling] youths to engage in a variety of civic skills.” (Carano & Berson, 2008, p. 67). Berson also states, “ By using the computer, students can gain access to expansive knowledge links and broaden their exposure to diverse people and perspectives,” (Berson, 1996, 486) and “ Technology is expanding the walls of the traditional classroom.” Carano & Berson, 2008, p. 67). Lastly, Carano & Berson explain a series of “eight dimensions of a global perspective” that instructors can use in combination with technology, which can in turn enhance the development of the eight dimensions. In the appendix of the article, the authors also provide a list of internet global resources that promote cultural awareness and cross-cultural understanding, and include listing of the eight global dimensions that each website can help students reach.
An article that explains how technology is essentially “wired” into the minds of today’s students, and for this purpose must be integrated it into education, is Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants by Marc Prensky. I found this article to be helpful in understanding how technology might not only help students learn, but also the proposition that growing up in a technology immersed environment has structured students’ minds of this generation to be fundamentally different than those of the past. Some parts of the article are very informative, and help in understanding how today’s students learn and process knowledge; that our students are “Digital Natives”, they are used to receiving information in a fast-paced way, and that they “like to parallel process and multi-task,” and “ they thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards.” (Prensky, 2001, p. 2) Views in this article that don’t coincide with other research include the lack of need for differentiation, and the implication that all students are Digital Natives, and that all require technological tools and technological integration in order to learn successfully.
A response to the series of Prensky’s articles and his viewpoints, entitled First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray & Krause, 2008), examines Prensky’s claims that students are wired in such a way that they require technology in order to learn. This is a report of a study that was done in 2006 that includes over 2,000 first year university students in Australia. This study observed how students use, have access to, and their preferences of types of technology. The findings projected that because this first year population is largely non-homogeneous, essentially there is a digital divide among this diverse group. Even though some students were active in using the technological tools tested, Kennedy et al. state “this is by no means the universal experience.” (Kennedy, et al., 2008, p.117) This study emphasized my observation that not all students are technologically savvy and there should be sensitivity to those who are not as digitally literate.
The next study deals with equity of technology. I wanted to find if there is a connection between students receiving equal access to computers and if it permits an increase of student use, and what that means in terms of student outcomes. The article Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings, from the Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment produced a study on four prior empirical studies that measured the effects of 1:1 student to computer access, and among the four studies, findings report that teachers and students both increased their use of technology, there was greater student interest and engagement, and slight increases in student achievement. A component of this study that relates to the questions asked in my perspective study is how teacher use of technology impacts student use. Bebell & O’Dwyer (2010, p. 8) report “Across the four empirical studies, it is evident that teachers play an essential role in the effective implementation of 1:1 initiatives and that the onus of responsibility for implementation often falls to the teacher.” Among the beneficial outcomes of equal access, this finding dictates that the success largely depends on how the teacher uses and directs technology use.
Lastly, an article that I found that reacts to technology availability to students and explains that the quantity of technology use is not as effective as the quality of how technology is used. Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes, a study from the British Journal of Educational Technology, examines the connection between student use of how much technology is used opposed to what types and how it is used. Student outcomes that were examined in the study included student academic achievement, technology proficiency, improved learning habits, and developmental outcomes, which consisted of self -esteem, life skills and attitudes. The categories of technology use that dictated the quality of technology being measured include general, subject-specific, social communication, construction, and exploration/entertainment technology uses. Participants of the study were seventh and eight grade students and teachers in a Northwestern middle school in the U.S. Methodology included a survey that was administered in the beginning and at the end of the school year, which inquired about demographic information and gender. A technology proficiency scale, and Likert scale were used to present questions to the participants. In addition to the survey, nine teachers and nine students were interviewed. The findings of the study report that the different categories of technology tested generally had a positive effect on all student outcomes, but had no significant effect on GPA. The results might have differed, though, if different assessment approaches were used. Jing (2010), explains that teachers in the study noticed that assessment methods were not modified to assess learning that occurred while using these different types of technology. Jing explains that one teacher noted “I don’ think we have a way to evaluate it yet, or we don’t ask the right questions to find out what they did.” (Jing, 2010, p. 467) This comment proves that the study might contain many inaccuracies, and that there is a need to develop assessment techniques that coincide with learning with technology.
Research Questions
This investigation will explore how students approach research on a culture different than their own, and how the option to use technology can impact student learning and understanding. The primary question that this qualitative study will address is how do students approach their research of a non-European culture? Other proposed research questions that may be answered through this study include:
· Do students use technology when researching other cultures? If so, what kind of technological tools to they use?
· Do all students have equal access to technology? Are there alternate methods to research that students use that don’t involve technology?
· Does technology use in research help students better understand the culture that they are researching?
· After research, are students able to relate artworks from their assigned non-European culture to previously learned European artworks?
· Do students feel that they can better relate with/understand students of other cultures on campus after research?
Design and Methodology
The research design chosen for this qualitative study is the grounded theory design. I chose this research design because I hope to uncover a theory that connects the use of technology and the internet to greater cultural awareness among students. Sampling methods that I plan to use prior to data collection include theory/concept sampling; I plan on using this procedure because it will hopefully help to expose a concept or theory that technology promotes the understanding or awareness of other cultures, and homogeneous sampling; I am using this procedure because I want to find how this specific chosen demographic conducts research of another culture. Lastly, I would like to include opportunistic sampling after I begin data collection because it is used to "take advantage of unfolding events that will help answer research questions". (Creswell, 2008, p. 216) The incorporation of this approach can lead to "novel ideas an surprising findings" as noted by Creswell. An example of this would be if I observed that one of the participants doesn't own a computer, or doesn't have access to one, or if one of the participants is proficient in working with computers/technology.
The setting for this study will take place at the Norwich Free Academy, an independent high school in Norwich, CT. The Norwich Free Academy has a large population consisting of approximately 2,500 students, and a wide range of cultures is represented, including 37 different spoken languages among the diverse student body. There is also a wide variation of socioeconomic classes represented among the population of the school. The participants chosen for this study are six Advanced Placement art history students, all of which are Caucasian, and from a middle SES class, and also take other AP classes. The reason why I chose this population is because I want to discover how this particular homogeneous classification of students proceeds in gathering information about artworks from a culture that is different from their own.
To begin, students randomly selected their non-European cultures by picking a folded piece of paper with the title of the culture on it from a container. A handout is given to each student with guidelines and requirements for the research project. The students are required to create a presentation of the artwork of their assigned culture to the rest of the class, and also compose an outline of the presentation to be handed in. Students are not required to choose a specific time period within the culture, and are given the option of focusing on painting, sculpture or architecture. Students are given an option whether or not to use technology (internet resources) in their research, the only requirement for research is that they must use credible sources, and they must be documented. The six students are given five weeks to gather information and to create their presentation, and will be given three days in class to work on their research projects. Work days will be distributed in the following manner: the first work day will be given during week one, week three, and the end of week four.
Data collection methods will include observation, interviews, and open-ended questionnaires. Observation will begin with the assignment of the research project, and will document the process of student research during the in-class workdays, and will continue through the presentation of the project. One-on-one interviews will be arranged with each student over the course of the first four weeks, in order to more intricately understand their research processes. A group interview will also be conducted at the end of week four in order to monitor how students can connect on particular elements of research about their assigned culture, and how tools used and their findings compare and contrast. Lastly, at the end of the five weeks, after the students have presented, they will complete an open-ended questionnaire that deals with the process of their research and views of other cultures on campus, as well correlations with their assigned culture’s art-making styles and practices compared to those of the Western world. From these methods, I hope to find a central phenomenon that connects student cultural understanding and awareness with technology use.
Results from this proposal will offer more research on the topic of how technology can improve student awareness of other cultures, so that research done in the future will further expand on and confirm positive correlations between cultural understanding and teacher-modeled student use of technology.
References
Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes & research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment. 9 (1) 6-15. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ873675)
Carano, K.T. & Berson, M.J. (2007) Breaking stereotypes: constructing geographic literacy & cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies. 98 (2) 65-70. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ767651)
Creswell, J.W. (2008) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krouse, K. (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(1) 108-122 (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ832712)
Lei, J. (2010) Quality versus quantity: a new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. The British Journal of Educational Technology. 41(3) 455-472 (ERIC Reproduction Services No. EJ880152)
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives. Digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf