Abstract



Research Proposal: Socioeconomics of Home Computer Access as it Effects the Digital DivideLiz O’ConnorLoyola University MarylandED 670.51Professor Dr. Mark BrimhallTable of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc182220340 \h 3General Statement of Question PAGEREF _Toc182220341 \h 4Review of Literature PAGEREF _Toc182220342 \h 7Introduction PAGEREF _Toc182220343 \h 7Review of Census Data and Survey Results PAGEREF _Toc182220344 \h 8Digital Divide PAGEREF _Toc182220345 \h 12Technology Assistance Programs PAGEREF _Toc182220346 \h 16Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc182220347 \h 19Philosophical Foundations PAGEREF _Toc182220348 \h 20Methodological Choice PAGEREF _Toc182220349 \h 24Logistical Considerations PAGEREF _Toc182220350 \h 27References PAGEREF _Toc182220351 \h 29Appendix A PAGEREF _Toc182220352 \h 31Figure 1 PAGEREF _Toc182220353 \h 31Figure 2 PAGEREF _Toc182220354 \h 31Figure 3 PAGEREF _Toc182220355 \h 31AbstractAre Howard County students prepared to handle the technological demands of the Science Maryland State Assessment? The Howard County Public School System is currently advocating the use of the National Educational Technology Standards, in educating the students of Howard County, in preparation for the Science Maryland State Assessment. However, the question arises, are students of low socioeconomic backgrounds suffering, as a result of not having outside computer access? Are those students in Howard County who have home computer access advancing their technology skills beyond those students without home technology access? Using a survey of fifth grade students, as well as peer and family interviews of students from both socioeconomic backgrounds, I plan to learn the impact of the digital divide, as it relates to the technology skills of students taking the Science Maryland State Assessment.Keywords: Howard County, digital divide, Science Maryland State Assessment, socioeconomics, computers, home technology access, technology assistance programs, census, survey, interviewGeneral Statement of QuestionAs a classroom teacher in a Title 1 school, I have seen my share of students without pencils, without paper, without the general materials they need in order to be successful in a classroom. As a budding technology teacher, I constantly ask myself how students can be prepared to advance their technology skills if they do not have the necessary resources.I am a five-year veteran teacher of Howard County Public Schools, and in that time I have learned the considerable differences between the economic and racial backgrounds across the Howard County School district. According to the Howard County Board of Education (2011), the region is ethnically composed of 48.6% White, 20.6% African American, 16.0% Asian, 8.3% Hispanic, 6.2% identifying with two or more races, 0.3% American Indian/Alaskan, and 0.1% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. However, this public profile, administered by the Howard County Board of Education, fails to acknowledge the vast economic differences across the region. Howard County also fails to note the year from which these statistics are collected, therefore I recognize the unreliable nature of this data.As Howard County Public Schools defines Title 1 as “programs based on the percentage of students receiving free and/or reduced meals”(Howard County Public Schools, 2011), I find it interesting to learn that the eleven Title 1 schools in Howard County are located within a twelve-mile radius of the city center Columbia, MD. In contrast to the Howard County district spanning 252 square miles (US Census Bureau, 2011), the Title 1 population is centered within the geographical city of the region. This in turn indicates a vast economic disparity in the county. How does this economic disproportion affect the technological skills of Howard County’s growing student population?With today’s educational standards, students are to be well versed in accessing computer files, websites, and programs in addition to possessing the necessary skills to complete various tasks on the Maryland State Assessment. My county offers weekly computer classes, and as a member of the Title 1 community, my school has two permanent computer labs and one mobile computer station funded by the State of Maryland and regional board of education. However, the question remains, if students do not have the opportunities to learn outside the classroom, how are they expected to compete with other students across the state who do have access to computing resources at home.Therefore, I would like to determine the degree to which the digital divide impacts students already burdened by their socioeconomic conditions. By querying students’ current computer access and interviewing families that participate in a regional technology assistance program, I hope to determine whether outside technology education advances students’ classroom technology development. Following a Post-Positivist paradigm, I anticipate that my observations will coincide with statistical data and create a technology framework for which teachers can assess how much outside technology will hinder or develop student skills.Recognizing that current and past research reflects a clear digital divide based on socioeconomic conditions (Becker, 2000; Norris, 2001; DeBell & Chapman, 2003; Kent & Facer, 2004; Salpeter, 2006; Vigdor, Ladd, & Urban Institute, 2010), in my proposal I hope to address the following research question: How does increased home technology access, as a result of differing socioeconomic backgrounds or technology assistance programs, impact students in the classroom?In posing this question, I plan to look at students with home computer access (specifically computers capable of basic Internet connection) for those students preparing for the Science Maryland State Assessment. In my quantitative study, I will exclude outside sources of Internet like smartphones and gaming systems, in order to evaluate the preparedness of technology courses in Howard County elementary schools, in order to mirror what Howard County already provides inside the classroom. All Howard County computers are equipped with basic Internet packages, making it necessary that my study analyzes students with computer access and Internet at home.Review of LiteratureIntroductionIn 1999, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) released Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, which was the “third report examining which American households have access to telephones, computers, and the Internet, and which do not” (p. 13). This report by the U.S Department of Commerce served as a stepping stone for researchers to examine surveys and census data to determine the extent of the digital divide. In this report, Larry Irving, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, defines the digital divide as “the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without – is now one of America’s leading economic and civil rights issues” (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1999).As Irving identifies this issue to be a national concern, I find this data to be significant to my research proposal, in analyzing how technology is currently recognized in regards to education, in addition to what characteristics are associated with those impacted by the digital divide. My research led me to numerous surveys in which Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization (2001) and DeBell and Chapman (2006) further demonstrated the statistical data associated with the digital divide. Numerous authors detailed the impact of the digital divide including Becker (2000), Norris (2001), DeBell and Chapman (2003), Kent and Facer (2004), Salpeter (2006), and Vigdor, Ladd and Urban Institute (2010), who all drew similar conclusions that the digital divide is a result of household education, race, and socioeconomic conditions.In building my background of the digital divide, I conclude my research by looking into current technology assistance programs that will help alleviate the factors prolonging the divide. Both the Texas TIP (Texas Center for Educational Research, 2008) and the Comcast Initiative (Comcast, 2011) were created to help families impacted by the divide reach a higher level of technology development. These projects influence my proposal by combining both qualitative and quantitative research models and a quasi-experiment to alter household technology access.Review of Census Data and Survey ResultsThe National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) utilized the 1998 Census Bureau survey of 48,000 households representing all fifty states and the District of Columbia. After the Census Bureau categorized the data by specific variables, including “income, race, education level, household type, and age, as well as geographic categories” (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1999) it was concluded:Minorities, low-income persons, the less educated, and children of single-parent households, particularly when they reside in rural areas or central cities, are among the groups that lack access to information resources. (p. 13)This data supports my research proposal in which the students residing in the city center of Columbia, MD are likely lacking the necessary access to home technology. According to the Howard County Board of Education (2011) the Title 1 school population consists of approximately 63.4% minority population (34.9% African American and 28.5% Hispanic) in comparison to the 7.4% minority population (2.6% African American and 4.8% Hispanic) in the rural region of Howard County.Additionally, the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (1999) goes on to conclude:Groups that are already connected (e.g., higher-income, more educated, White and Asian/Pacific Islander households) are now far more connected, while those with lower rates have increased less quickly. As a result, the gap between the information “haves” and “have nots” is growing over time. (p.25)The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) also describes the need for a nationwide census survey noting:As the Internet becomes a more mature and pervasive technology, the digital divide among households of different races, incomes, and education levels may narrow. This pattern is already occurring with regard to home computers. (p. 26)Recognizing the growing need for Internet access, the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization (2001) conducted a national survey of schools and teachers titled Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998. I find this survey to be an excellent example of how to conduct a qualitative survey in which the schools were “purposively drawn with the greatest per-capita computer technology, and a purposively drawn sample of schools that were participating in some way in substantial educational reform efforts” (Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization, 2001). As I propose in my research proposal, I will investigate the technology access in three Title 1 schools and three affluent schools in Howard County, following a similar survey sampling as the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization (2001).Learning from another survey by DeBell and Chapman (2003, 2006) I have learned:Differences in home computer activities are, in part, a function of home access, and recent research has shown that income differences and race/ethnicity differences in home computer use activities are attenuated when home use is controlled. (p. 23)Debell and Chapman’s (2003, 2006) findings are in agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) survey conducted four years prior in which Debell and Chapman (2003, 2006) conclude:Students from two-parent households are more likely to use the Internet than those from single-parent households, and those living with a parent who has attended graduate school are more likely to use both technologies than those living with no parent who has graduated from high school. In addition, those living in households where a language other than Spanish is spoken are more likely to use computers and the Internet than those living in Spanish monolingual homes. Students in families with the highest incomes are more likely to use computers and the Internet than those in families with the lowest incomes. Students who live outside of central cities are more likely to use the Internet than those living in central cities. (p. 8)Therefore, I find it even more necessary to conduct my own survey of city and rural elementary schools in Howard County in order to determine if first, Debell and Chapman’s (2003, 2006) results hold true in this context, especially with regard to those families that speak primarily Spanish and secondly, whether those families with lower incomes are lacking the necessary tools to link to computers and the Internet.Shields and Behrman (2000) investigated a similar task in which they set out to determine “whether computers are increasing or decreasing the disparities between rich and poor” (p. 4). However, Shields and Behrman’s (2000) findings were inconclusive to the point that they stated “it is difficult to know whether a child’s academic performance reflects use of a home computer or a greater level of family income and education” (p. 9). I find it difficult to follow the tentative results of Shields and Behrman (2000), but did find it useful when thinking about my own research proposal when they cited another study:Computer-based after-school program demonstrating that children who participated in the program achieved small but significant gains in reading, mathematics, computer knowledge, and grammar, were better able to follow directions, and scored higher on school achievement tests, compared with nonparticipants. (p. 9)This further supports my proposal in which I hope to connect outside home technology access to increasing a student’s educational pursuits of technology in school, by providing an opportunity to discover a student’s achievement gains in relation to technology.Finally, in reviewing the statistical survey and census results of home and school technologies, I came across a survey conducted by Ortiz, Green, and Lim (2011):The study’s purpose was to examine parent perceptions of the importance placed on computer usage for themselves and their children. Findings suggest that parents place a high value on computer usage and see it as vital to job success and academic achievement. (p. 202)It quickly became apparent that this survey was filled with obvious bias and drew its conclusions based on a severely small sample size, not generalizable to any population. However, in the concluding discussion section of the report, I was able to learn that Ortiz, Green, and Lim (2011) would recommend a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative research for future models. Specifically, Ortiz, Green, and Lim (2011) say:The use of qualitative research methodology would allow a rich data set to be collected that could help provide deeper insights into parent responses. Thus, a follow-up study that includes individual and group interviews of parents who were part of the original study would be advised. In addition, any new studies conducted should use a mixed-method approach. (p. 210)This suggestion forms the basis of my research proposal in which I will be able to combine specific survey results with additional interviews in order to create an overall generalizable picture of Howard County Public Schools.Digital DivideAs mainstream American moves online in larger numbers, the problem actually becomes worse for those who are not connected. More and more information is shared through the Internet, and people begin to think there’s no problem. While access, by itself, is an essential first step. We can’t allow the privileged majority to be the only ones who have access to essential information. We need to extend this right to everybody. (Salpeter, 2006)As the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) first identified the growing division between the rich and the poor in correlation to technology, researchers have since solidified this data into describing the effects of the digital divide on education.Becker (2000) began by describing the conditions that affect how children experience computers. In schools, Becker (2000) narrowed these conditions down to six factors: “(1) availability of computers in the classroom, (2) teacher computer expertise, (3) teacher philosophy and objectives for computer use, (4) teacher collaboration and leadership, (5) teacher judgments of class ability, and (6) school SES level” (p. 53). Becker (2000) concluded:Nature of children’s experiences using computers in school varied greatly by subject and teacher objectives, and the data suggest that lower-income students use computers more often for repetitive practice, whereas higher-income students use computers more often for more sophisticated, intellectually complex applications. (p. 44)This carries over to what Becker (2000) describes as the “predictive factors of children’s use of home computers were the child’s age (older children 12-14 use computers more often) and the computer’s capabilities (hard drive, printer, mouse, Internet applications)” (p. 44).I find both Becker’s (2000) conclusions informative when thinking about the teacher pedagogy in Howard County Public Schools and how computers are being used to reinforce these skills at home. If Becker (2000) is correct, and “lower-income students use computers more often for repetitive practice” (p. 44), then my research will reflect a clear divide between the city and rural elementary schools, especially with regard to the Maryland State Assessments. If students of higher-incomes are being challenged more in schools, and have the capabilities to practice these complex applications at home, then they will have a serious advantage when compared to the lower-income students without home access.Additionally, Norris (2001) Debell and Chapman (2003, 2006) characterize this divide along demographic and socioeconomic lines. Debell and Chapman argue:Schools help bridge the digital divide. Many disadvantaged students use the Internet only at school. Among the group of students who access the Internet at only one location. (p. iv)Debell and Chapman (2003, 2006) include Figure 1 from the U.S. Census Bureau (2003) in which those in poverty are overwhelmingly using the Internet only at school verses those not in poverty are using the Internet primarily at home.The conclusions drawn by Norris (2001) and Debell and Chapman (2003, 2006) help me construct my qualitative and quantitative research proposal by supporting the statistical census data with more specific deductions in relation to school technology use.I was then drawn to the combination of quantitative and qualitative research models used by Kent and Facer (2004) in which they discussed:Young people’s perceptions of the differences between home and school use of computers and whether young people’s home and school use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) are really ‘different worlds’. (p. 440)I find Kent and Facer’s (2004) report statistically strong and specific in characterizing home and school computer use. I model my own research proposal from Kent and Facer (2004) who used “two large-scale surveys of computer use in the home and school as well as school based peer group interviews and home-based interviews and observations with young people and their families” (p. 441).Kent and Facer (2004) focused their survey on three questions: First, how frequently young people used a computer at school for a range of activities; second, how frequently they used a computer at home for a range of activities and third, how frequently they used the Internet at home for a range of activities. (p. 441)The survey responses were then organized into two peer groups “’high home computer user’ (defined as reporting home computer and Internet use on a daily or two to three times weekly basis) and ‘low home computer user’ (defined as reporting home computer and Internet use less than weekly)” (p. 442). I find the distinction between the two groups easy to identify, but I wonder whether the number of students in each peer group would fall along socioeconomic lines and thus be disproportionate in my own research proposal.As seen in Appendix A, Kent and Facer (2004) included two excellent graphs in the report, Figure 2 being the percentage of young people who reported ever experiencing activities at home or at school, and Figure 3 focusing on the percentage of young people who report at least weekly use of the computer (p. 444). I include both of these graphs in my analysis because Kent and Facer (2004) were able to conjecture:Schools offer opportunities for young people to experience a wide range of different computer activities, while the home tends to act as a site where more young people engage in regular use of the computer for most activities. (p. 444)I conclude my background on the digital divide by referring to Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) report which is a working paper on the correlation between home computer use and test scores in fifth to eighth grade students. Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) was the only source that I found that produces evidence to the contrary of the digital divide. Vigdor, Ladd and Urban Institute (2010) argue, “home computer technology exacerbates achievement gaps. While we have no direct measure of parent monitoring in the dataset, we have multiple indicators of student disadvantage” (p. 27).I find it contradictory that the results of Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) show a “score about 2% of a standard deviation higher on both reading and math test scores, conditional on a range of covariates” (p. 19). But they then dispute the increase by stating “students who obtain access to a home computer sometime between 5th and 8th grade tend to score between 1% and 1.3% of a standard deviation lower on their subsequent math and reading tests” (p. 19). Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) are still developing their hypotheses, but it is clear that for any positive outcome for home computer access to be productive it is with “effective parental monitoring, or in households where parents can serve as more effective instructors in the productive use of online resources” (p. 4). This claim supports my need for home-based interviews and further collaborates with the importance of qualitative and quantitative models.Technology Assistance ProgramsAs Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) connect the importance of home access to effective parental monitoring, my research turns to technology assistance programs for home technology access. In 2007, the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot (Texas Center for Educational Research, 2008) concluded its third year assessment to “evaluate whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion”(p. i). Similar to what I propose in my research, the Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) conducted a mixed methods approach of qualitative and quantitative data, with observations in several middle schools over four years, as well as teacher and student surveys (p. ii).The Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) determined overall:Technology immersion significantly increased students’ technology proficiency and reduced the proficiency gap between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students. (p. iv)The Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) had a greater focus on the technology immersion within the classroom, and focused the study on “technology-based learning resources” (p. i) providing schools with the necessary funds to purchase immersion packages from vendors including Dell Computer Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. With that said, the packages also included wireless laptops for home activities in which the Texas Center for Educational Research concluded:Students who had greater access to laptops and used laptops for learning to a greater extent, especially outside of school, had significantly higher Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) reading and mathematics scores. (p. vi)This conclusion supports my research proposal, that providing students with the necessary technology outside of school will not only diminish the digital divide, it will also provide the necessary academic supports outside of school to enhance their Maryland State Assessment scores.However, contradicting my hypothesis, the Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) was unable to make any significant correlations between its immersion program and student achievement on the TAKS exam. Not unlike my objective research proposal, the Texas Center for Educational Research proposed the pilot program in order to:Scientifically investigate the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students’ achievement in core academic subjects as measured by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). (p. i)Therefore, in determining the effectiveness of the program, the Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) had no conclusive data regarding reading, social studies, science, or writing achievement. The Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) does note “since TAKS tests for social studies, science, and writing are not administered annually, immersion effects for these subject areas cannot be replicated across cohorts and years” (p. vii). This suggests that my data may be inconclusive, because the Science Maryland State Assessment is only administered in grades five and eight. For that reason, I need to take the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot into consideration and possibly extend my research beyond fifth grade.On another note, the only conclusive data the Texas Center for Educational Research (2008) was able to provide, argued a positive, significant effect on TAKS mathematics achievement, “particularly for economically advantaged and higher achieving students” (p. vi). Therefore, my research proposal still has merit, as a means to objectively determine the effects of the digital divide in developing the technology skills for the Maryland State Assessment.After reading the results of the Texas Center for Educational Research (2008), and determining the positive impact of home computer access, I drew my research towards current programs to increase home technology access. The most recent program, launched in August of 2011, is the Comcast Initiative: Internet Essentials (Comcast, 2011).Comcast is making its broadband only service available to low-income families with children who are eligible for a free lunch under the National School Lunch Program, for $9.95 a month, a quarter of the typical rate. (p. 1)This program is specifically important to my research, in that I am interviewing students from three Title 1 schools, and as Howard County defines Title 1 as “programs based on the percentage of students receiving free and/or reduced meals”(Howard County Public Schools, 2011). Therefore, this program could be an ideal assistance to those families identified as not having home computer access.Broderick (2011) interviews Mary McLaughlin, Comcast’s senior vice president of the Western New England Region, who explains:Any household that qualifies during this three-year period [and continues to meet the necessary qualifications] will remain eligible to participate in the program until the household’s youngest child graduates from high school. (p.1)Comcast (2011) promotes its program as a means to close the digital divide and Broderick (2011) notes McLaughlin’s awareness of the “importance of Internet access [at home] is for education, career development and job search functions, and many low-income families lack that access” (p. 1).Additionally, Comcast (2011) publishes its program by “targeting bilingual information to schools and conducting training sessions” (p. 2). On top of the reduced rate, extended service, and training sessions, Comcast (2011) goes one step further as to offer “vouchers to purchase Netbooks, a low-cost computer” (p. 1) for eligible families. Even though my source is Comcast’s Internet Essentials homepage, and news reports found on the Comcast website, I find the program awe-inspiring, and definitely something I will recommend as a viable solution to decrease the digital divide in Howard County.ConclusionIn concluding my research, I turn back to my first, and most prominent source, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999), who stated:For some individuals it is an economic solution. Lower prices, leasing arrangements, and even free computer deals will bridge the digital gap for them. For high cost communities and low-income individuals, there are language and cultural barriers that need to be addresses. (p. 93)My research in the Howard County Public School District in Maryland will take both the high and low income communities into consideration. Not to mention, the language barriers that I expect to encounter and the possibility that my objective viewpoint will result in no conclusive data. As I learn from my predecessors, inconclusive data, even over years of quantitative and qualitative data, can recognize the digital divide, without bridging connections to academic achievement scores.Philosophical FoundationsEvery teacher is aware that no two students are alike. Teachers are expected to recognize every student’s background and develop his or her personal prior knowledge. Therefore, it is the role of the classroom teacher to identify these differing backgrounds and create a safe and welcoming classroom environment in which every student is receiving the same education. As I recognize the discouraging socioeconomic differences in Howard County, it falls to the classroom teacher to create a unified set of educational objectives no matter the regional location.I believe in the era of Positivism and the scientific methods that follow deductive reasoning based on observations in order to formulate a conclusion. By surveying the fifth grade students in this proposal, I can follow the same conclusions of Becker (2000), Norris (2001), DeBell and Chapman (2003), Kent & Facer (2004), Salpeter (2006), and Vigdor, Ladd, and Urban Institute (2010) and objectively determine that the digital divide is a result of socioeconomics, education, and race.I have chosen a research topic based on my experiences in the Howard County Public School system. In order to discover if the Howard County initiatives detailed in the Mission Statement: Goal 1 by the Howard County Board of Education (2011) that states:Each child regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, disability or socio-economic status, will meet the rigorous performance standards that have been established. All diploma-bound students will perform on or above grade level in all measured content areas.I must be willing to set aside my own assumptions and present standardized interview questions in evaluating the necessary at home computer conditions ideal for enhancing technology skills for the fifth grade students taking the Science Maryland State Assessment. According to Mertens (2005):This paradigm holds that objectivity is the standard to strive for in research; thus the researcher should remain neutral to prevent values or biases from influencing the work by following prescribed procedures rigorously. (p. 11)I believe in removing all biases from my research, in order to evaluate the necessary objectivity needed to attain the technology skills for the Maryland State Assessment.My research calls for objectivity because the Maryland State Assessments are objective. Every student in third through eighth grade, enrolled in a school in the state of Maryland, is required to take the Maryland State Assessment.The MSA scores show how well students learned the reading and mathematics skills in the State Curriculum. A norm-referenced score is also provided to show how students performed compared to other students across the nation. (Maryland State Department of Education, 2003)Therefore, no matter the educational objectives, or in this case, the technological objectives, achieved in each specific school, all schools are held to the same standard. The Maryland State Department of Education measures and reports the corresponding data, in order to determine the effectiveness of each school, and in turn each county’s education. The Maryland State Assessments are the same test, administered across the state, regardless of socioeconomic status, and students are expected to have the same technological capabilities to complete these assessments. Therefore, if the Maryland State Assessment is standardized, my qualitative and quantitative data must be objective and unbiased.By incorporating both qualitative and quantitative research methods, I am able to test my theories that the digital divide is continuing and is in correlation to the development of students within elementary education. I am using a mixed methods approach to evaluate the deep-rooted digital divide data, as well peer group and family interviews that will show student technology skills outside the classroom, that are being developed for the Maryland State Assessments, as well as add depth to my collected survey results. In order to develop the group analysis, I will need the quantitative survey data to create the peer groups. Without this comparative piece, my research will lack the socioeconomic breadth that Howard County displays across its 252 square mile region. My qualitative discussions will serve to discover how students impacted by the digital divide improve their technology skills outside the classroom, as well as the effect of the technology assistance programs that could better serve those disadvantaged students identified in the peer groups and survey data.Mertens (2005) argues the Post-Positivist paradigm can “conduct group comparisons based on these inherent characteristics of the participants”(p. 12). By surveying the fifth grade students and conducting surveys “following exactly the same procedures for asking questions of the respondents and for recording their responses” (Mertens, 2005) of six Howard County Public Schools, I will be able to generalize my data to the entire Howard County population.It is this generalizability within Howard County that will defend or argue against the Howard County Public School’s mission statement. I am biasing my results by limiting my data to Howard County Public Schools, but in order to evaluate the effectiveness of Howard County Public Schools technology education, I must first identify the outlying factors that inhibit or advance the curriculum.I shall remain objective with specific, unaltered interview questions and conduct my quantitative survey through short and explicit means, in order to produce data that can hold up to the objectivity of the Maryland State Assessment. Within my peer group interviews, I will be a known researcher, another limiting bias, but I will observe the student interactions and conduct my analysis outside the group in order to determine the degree of digital divide. Therefore, as a Post-Positivist I believe in observing students’ interactions in order to construct knowledge to enhance teacher pedagogy.Mertens (2005) contends that the critical paradigm is “research that should examine ways the research benefits or does not benefit the participants (Kelly et al., 1994)” (p. 25). A critical theorist would argue that my research proposal is based on my concern for Howard County’s technological skills, even more so, how it relates to my personal teaching pedagogy when administering the Science Maryland State Assessment. However, as a Post-Positivist I am more concerned with unbiased quantitative and qualitative data, no matter the outcome. By administering the survey and interviews at six public schools in Howard County, I hope to determine that my results show the persisting digital divide. If my results refute this hypothesis, then Howard County can continue to teach the National Educational Technology Standards as stated in the current county curriculum, without fear that the students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds are receiving altered educational experiences.Methodological ChoiceI am a Post-Positivist, and therefore, I am using the predominant quantitative methodology in conjunction with a qualitative research method (Mertens, 2005). My mixed methods design will be composed of a survey administered to fifth grade students in Howard County Public schools. Based on the survey analysis, I will then create a peer group of students who answered similarly to the time they spend on a computer outside of school.I believe in the Post-Positivist paradigm, and therefore, I am combining methodologies in order to analyze the historic digital divide data, as well as observe the role it plays on developing a student’s technology skills used in the Maryland State Assessments. If I were only to conduct a quantitative model, I would only reaffirm the census data cited in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999). However, as a Post-Positivist I must remain neutral and be cautious to observe the peer group discussions and follow the exact procedures stipulated in each home-based interview.Since I am creating data based on the Howard County Public School system, an ethnographic study or a case study would not be relevant because I am not analyzing a cultural phenomenon. In contrast, I am looking to observe and analyze data as a result of socioeconomics conditions. Likewise, a phenomenological research question is not appropriate because I am not interested in the “individual’s subjective experience (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003)” (Mertens, 2005). On the contrary, in order to evaluate the preparedness of Howard County students for the objective Maryland State Assessments I must remain objective in my evaluation and consistent in my qualitative procedures.Included in my research proposal I plan to survey fifth grade students enrolled in three public Title 1 elementary schools in Howard County and three Western elementary schools in Howard County. I have chosen to focus my data on fifth grade students registered for the Science portion of the Maryland State Assessment (the Science portion of the Maryland State Assessment is completed on desktop computers). The survey will be administered by paper and pencil to those fifth grade students at the aforementioned schools before embarking upon the standardized test. The survey will consist of three to five questions regarding the student’s use of computers outside of school, the location for which they most often access technology, and the amount of time spent on programs and websites that were explicitly learned in the classroom.Following the survey, I will then construct a peer group of several fifth grade students from each elementary school as well as conduct home-based interviews with the students and their families. The peer group will be composed of students who admitted to spending a significant amount of time on their home computer, students who more often accessed technology outside of their home, and students who were without computer access outside of school. Furthermore, the selected peer group will be compiled of volunteer students and families, and each family will need to sign a public release document.The peer group interviews will last approximately thirty minutes and will consist of several prompting questions but ultimately serve as an open forum for discussion on what technology is being implemented in the elementary schools compared to the technology that is being accessed outside the schools. Each peer group will be composed of students who chose similar answers on the survey and have similar socioeconomic backgrounds in which they can discuss time spent outside of school using technology.Logistical ConsiderationsThis proposal is explicit to the Howard County Public School System in central Maryland. By collecting data from multiple Title 1 schools and several affluent schools in the county, I am immediately limiting my generalizability. This limitation is appropriate when considering teacher pedagogy and the newest development of the National Educational Technology Standards being implemented in Howard County Public Schools.By submitting this survey before the Science Assessment, I am biasing my results under the assumption that students have already had rigorous training and practice with the computers. Before administering the test, teachers often spend several days reviewing the technical specs of the testing program as well as introducing parents to the intricate process. This assumption goes along with my proposal in which students in Howard County are receiving Technology Education in the classroom, however, outside technology practice is limited by the digital divide.Since the groups will be composed of selected students who then sign the necessary waivers I am submitting my proposal to another limitation. The study is a comparative study in which children of meager socioeconomic conditions are compared to those of more well-to-do families; thus by allowing families the right to not participate I am limiting my comparative results. Additionally, another concern would be the language barrier in which my home-based interviews would require a translator, thus accounting for a loss of validity if families do not understand the question and choose imprecise responses.Moreover, for those families identified as not having computer access and for those that are willing to participate in a technology assistance program each student and family would receive a follow up home-based interview. By helping families to complete the necessary steps in order to receive a computer in their home, I would return to those homes in the following year to re-assess the student interactions with technology.By allowing students to engage in an open discussion I am limiting my results to the discussions created by fifth graders. Therefore, if the students feel uncomfortable or unwilling to talk my results will be limited. As an observer, I will not interject my own opinions, but will bring to light several technology objectives students had experienced in order to promote further discussion.ReferencesBecker, H. (2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer technology. Future of children, 10(2), 44-75.Broderick, M. (2011, October 31). Comcast's initiative bridging digital divide. Hartford business journal. Retrieved from for research on information technology and organizations. (2001). Computer technology and instructional reform. In Teaching, learning, and computer: 1998 - a national survey of schools and teachers. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from . (2011). Internet essentials. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from , M., and Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in the United States, 2001 (NCES 2004-014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.DeBell, M., Chapman, C. (2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2006-065. Washington DC: National center for education statistics.Henderson, R., & Honan, E. (2008). Digital literacies in two low socioeconomic classrooms: snapshots of practice. English teaching: Practice and critique, 7(2), 85-98.Howard County public school system. (2011). Howard County public school system attendance area maps. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from County public school system. (2011). Howard County public school system frequently asked questions about title 1 services. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from County public school system. (2011). Howard County public school system profile. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from , S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of educational research, 100(1), 52-60.Kent, N. N., & Facer, K. K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people's home and school ICT use. Journal of computer assisted learning, 20(6), 440-455.Maryland State Department of Education. (2003). Testing. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from , D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Microsoft. (2011). Shape the future. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from publicsector/ww/programs/shape-the-future/pages/index.National Telecommunications and Information Administration (DOC), W. C. (1999). Falling through the net: defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. Revised. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Ortiz, R. W., Green, T., & Lim, H. (2011). Families and home computer use: Exploring parent perceptions of the importance of current technology. Urban education, 46(2), 202-215.Salpeter, J. (2006). Inside the divide. Technology & Learning, 26(8), 22-24.Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). Children and computer technology: Analysis and recommendations. Future of children, 10(2), 4-30.Snyder, I., & Angus, L. (2000). Investigating home and school computer-mediated communication practices in low socio-economic communities.Texas center for educational research. (2008, January). Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion pilot: Outcomes for the third year (2006-07). Austin: U.S. Department of Education.Trochim, W. (2006, October 20). Positivism & post-positivism. In Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from Census Bureau. (2011, June 3). Howard County, Maryland. In Howard County quickfacts from the US Census Bureau. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from , J. L., Ladd, H. F., & Urban Institute, N. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Working paper 48. National center for analysis of longitudinal data in education research.Whitney, J. D. (2007). The use of technology in literacy instruction: Implications for teaching students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. (Master’s thesis).Appendix AFigure 1Figure 2Figure 3 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download