student technology access in an urban stem high...
Post on 04-Apr-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
1 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
Student Technology Access in an Urban STEM High School:
The Missing Variable
Brian L. Sersion
Cincinnati Public Schools
Douglas M. Stevens
University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Public Schools
ABSTRACT This case study focuses on school technology access for low-income students enrolled in Hughes
STEM High School, a large urban science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
secondary school. In order to meet the high expectations of the STEM curriculum, students need
access to information and communication technology (ICT) outside of school, especially at home. Our
objective is to develop a better understanding of the expectations that schools have for students
regarding the use of technology, the level of access students have outside of school, and whether
students feel they have adequate access to and training in the appropriate technologies to meet the
expectations of their teachers and school.
Teachers, staff, and school administrators need to be aware of the technology access limitations
of their students to complete work. Our findings describe the technology access gap (TAG), a missing
variable in educational technology research, and highlight results from an innovative student
technology survey and school administrator interview.
Keywords: STEM, Conference Proceedings, Assessment/Survey, Technology
INTRODUCTION The research school in this case study is Hughes STEM High School, a newly established 7-12
secondary school in a large, Midwestern urban public school district. The science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) school relies on technology to achieve a project-based and
outcome-driven curriculum. Effective use of technology as a learning tool suffers greatly when access
to information and communication technology (ICT) is inadequate. ICT refers to technologies that
provide access to information via telecommunications media, such as the internet, wireless networks,
computers and computing devices, such as “smart” phones (TechTerms.com, 2012). The potential
technology tools have for transforming education is evident in the findings of multiple studies. The
importance of educational technology is clear in the meta-analysis findings of Sivin-Kachala (1998),
who found that when computers were used for instruction, the attitudes of students toward learning
improved, along with their own self-concept. Positive effects in student achievement were shown in all
major subject areas for those being educated in technology rich environments. In their research on
technology-based education, Ringstaff and Kelley (2002) found using technology-based methods have
a positive impact on student achievement. Robyler and Knezek (2003) consider access to technology
for pedagogy essential for a quality education. The sociological significance of our study is evident in
Frederick and Shockley who conclude, “The utilization and reliance on computer technology in society
has a devastating impact on many African-American students, who have limited access and/or limited
experiences using computer technologies” (2008, p. 3). This opens the door to the question of equity in
education and the so-called digital divide. Students with inadequate access to technology could easily
be forced to the sidelines of the 21st century playing field.
One of the goals of STEM education is to promote science, technology engineering and
mathematics literacy, defined as “an individual’s ability to apply his or her understanding of how the
world works within and across four interrelated domains” (Corn et al, 2010). How is this possible if
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
2 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
students don’t have adequate access to technology beyond the classroom? When a technology access
gap exists, students are at a disadvantage, particularly when there is a deficiency at home. Motivation
for learning suffers when students are frustrated by inadequate resources to complete their school work.
For this reason, it is important for educators to be aware of the technology access gap, which compares
student access to technology at school and away from school. With this knowledge, educators can
avoid unrealistic expectations and unnecessary frustration for students. But awareness is just the first
step. Once awareness of the gap is established, teachers can then work to understand what constitutes
realistic expectations and what support mechanisms are needed to aid students with lower levels of
access.
The impact differential access to technology resources has on student learning is described
through a mixed-methods approach. The qualitative assessment tools used in this study provide a
deeper understanding through a student survey and a semi-structured administrator interview.
Quantitative analysis and validation through other studies provide additional descriptive information in
support of the qualitative findings. Educators at the research school will be in a better position to know
the technology capacity of their students and classroom as a result of this case study.
BACKGROUND The research school was founded in 2009 as a teacher-led school after a team of teachers, in partnership
with a local university worked outside the classroom for over a year planning the new program in
conjunction with business community partners and the Ohio STEM Learning Network. STEM-focused
schools tend to share four characteristics: small size, project-based learning, integrated-curriculum, and
a focus on serving underrepresented groups (Hanover Research, 2011). Unlike other STEM secondary
schools in the state, this school has an open enrollment policy with no selective application process.
The district’s high schools, with a handful of historic exceptions, are “schools of choice” and as such,
operate on a first-come, first-served basis for enrollment. The student population is predominantly
African-American, and the vast majority of students receive free or reduced price lunch, which is the
standard used by the State of Ohio to identify economically disadvantaged students.
The school was designed using a scale-up model. Starting in the fall of 2009 during its first
year, the school served ninth grade students only. In the fall of 2010, the initial cohort of students
moved up to the newly formed tenth grade and another group of ninth grade students enrolled. Most
recently, in the fall of 2011, that initial cohort began their junior year, while grades seven and eight
were also added as the district restructured some of its elementary schools. The long-range plan for the
school is to complement the kindergarten through sixth grade primary structure of many of the district’s
elementary schools with a seventh through twelfth grade secondary structure.
Significant organizational structures within the school involve interdisciplinary teams at each of
the grade levels, strong teacher leadership, and a democratic framework with strong ties to the
surrounding community, businesses, and post-secondary institutions. The school’s curriculum makes
heavy use of project-based learning (PBL), and has a custom, articulated curriculum which weaves not
only content areas together in purposeful ways, but also integrates technology and 21st Century Skills
into the STEM curriculum.
Our project began with the design and implementation of a student technology survey. The
survey includes scales for 21st Century Skills, use of technology for learning, and home access.
Existing research regarding teacher adoption of technology (Knezek & Christensen, 2008) indicated
that home access to the internet was critical to the adoption and mastery of technologies. Technology
access requires the availability and reliability of computer resources, including the internet. Internet
access can be a limiting factor to a student’s capacity to participate in the 21st century learning
environment. Furthermore, internet access can be viewed as a form of social capital, separating the
“haves” from the “have nots” (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001). Our objective is to develop a better
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
3 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
understanding of the expectations schools have for students regarding: the use of technology, the level
of access students have outside of school, and whether or not students feel they have adequate access to
and training in the appropriate technologies to meet the expectations of their teachers and school.
LITERATURE REVIEW The research study originated after identifying an omission in the educational technology research
literature. Little research was found in the area of student access to technology outside of school. It
became clear the “black box” needed to be opened to fully understand the technology access domain of
students. This requires describing the overall exposure students have to technology. The case study
concentrates on the student access aspect of educational technology at the research school.
Technology Access
Students in urban schools have long struggled to gain access to technology (Walker, 1997).
Partnerships are one way that schools can increase student access, but partnerships are initially
dependent on the individuals who form them. Institutionalization of the roles of those involved in
partnerships is required for them to become ingrained in organizational cultures. Nevens (2001)
describes a framework for understanding and describing levels of technology access in schools. The
four stages in this framework are: early tech, developing tech, advanced tech, and target tech. Early
tech schools have very limited access to computers and the internet, with computer to student ratios on
the order of one to ten. Developing tech schools have slightly better access, but the technology tools
are mainly used for accessing reference information. In advanced tech schools, student access
increases but more importantly, teachers develop curriculum with technology woven into the
curriculum not only as a research tool, but as a tool for collaboration and presentation. Target tech
schools approach a one-to-one level of computer access, and have a wide range of technology tools
beyond networked computers including digital cameras, scanners, video editing suites, and technology
for data collection in the mathematics and science content areas.
Technology access in urban schools with high poverty levels still falls well behind schools in
districts with higher property values because of, among other reasons, school funding formulas which
are outdated (Garland and Wotton, 2001). Public-private partnerships can assist schools, but it will be
difficult to close the gap without some type of government intervention. Legislators continue to resist
wholesale changes to school funding structures, even when they have repeatedly been ruled
unconstitutional by state supreme courts (Phillis, 2005). Downes and Pogue (1994) published
extensive calculations of the additional cost for educating low-income students and determined that
amount to be nearly $800 per year per student, and this amount has certainly increased due to inflation
since their research was published. With current technology costs, simply one year of investing this
money into the families of low income students could provide these families with the access they lack.
Technology access and ethnicity are hard to differentiate from accompanying societal factors such as
peer group dynamics and socioeconomic status (Clifton, 2006). Becker (2000) describes the need to
expand technology resources for low income families. The need for universal broadband internet access
appears as a common theme in the literature. The definition of technology access is extended beyond
hardware and software to include use, training, experience and application in Chisholm, Carey and
Hernandez’s (2002) discussion of the importance of information technology skills in a pluralistic
society.
Assessing Technology Access Work began on a general student survey in early 2011 as part of a related research project focusing on
classroom technology. Previous research in the area of educational technology (Carstens & Pelgrum,
2009) and 21st Century Skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) established a foundation for the
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
4 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
survey. Composition of the student technology survey involved a thorough review of contemporary
student technology surveys through educational technology journals, online resources and personal
archives. While working on the first version of the student technology survey, no instrument was
found covering the construct of ICT access and use outside of school. A parallel set of questions was
added to complement existing questions for student technology use in school, resulting in two
constructs at this stage of development. Two additional constructs were identified and found to be
important for assessing how students experience and relate to ICT. As a result, questions were added
for 21st Century Skills (Corn et al, 2010) and use of technology for learning (Panhandle Area Education
Consortium, 2011). The survey design process resulted in a comprehensive student survey covering
four constructs: student technology use in school, student technology use and access outside of school,
21st Century Skills, and use of technology for learning.
Methodology
The educational technology literature suggests a logic model for exploring access to technology,
developed through use of technology and ultimately concluding with outcomes (Warschauer &
Matuchniak, 2010). The single descriptive case study presented here concentrates on the technology
access aspect of this model. In particular, the study concentrates on student access to computers and
the internet. The principal methods used are case study and sequential explanatory research designs,
supported by a student survey and school leader semi-structured interview.
Using a mixed methods case study framework provides a mechanism for triangulating data to
support conclusions and validate findings. One of the benefits of the mixed methods case study method
is that it produces data from multiple sources, including researcher notes, documents, tables, narratives,
and archival materials (Yin, 2008). Evidence was collected from the research school in a database with
relevant materials presented as supporting documentation for the descriptions and accounts of the case.
One of the limitations of the singular case study method is that results can’t be generalized beyond the
research school. In addition, since survey responses are self-reported, there is the possibility that
students did not respond honestly. The fact that the school is composed of grades seven through eleven
could make it hard to compare these findings to other STEM schools having a different structure.
The following propositions were evaluated and they directed the initial phase of the research:
Student use of ICT is controlled by access limitations.
Student access to ICT differs based on the availability and location of resources.
Realistic teacher expectations are informed by understanding the overall technology
exposure of students, thereby grounding expectations in the students’ reality.
Course and project requirements should be aligned with student access limitations, or
accommodations should be made to promote student access.
These initial propositions were expounded upon after identifying a technology access gap (TAG) at the
research school - the access students have to technology at school is significantly greater than it is away
from school. TAG is not defined clearly in educational technology research and is therefore introduced
here as a missing variable. Further inquiry was guided by two principal research questions, which are
the key drivers for the data collection and analysis stage of the study. Is the TAG relevant to educators,
and if so, how can this information be used to improve pedagogy?
Student Technology Access and Use Survey
The relevant issues for student technology access were enumerated through the survey design process,
which helped define the context for the case study. For example, the researchers determined it was
insufficient to simply ask about technology access “at home” since it omits possible exposures
elsewhere. Since access to technology in the school was already known through school administrators,
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
5 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
asking students about this aspect of technology access was excluded from the final survey. The Student
Technology Access and Use Survey (STAUS) covers four constructs, as previously described (see
Appendix A).
Survey testing began a few months prior to administering the survey. The feedback received
from school administrators, teachers and students during testing helped refine the survey. Student
comments resulted in better defined terminology and response scales, and other comments clarified
item ambiguity. Subsequently, the skip logic in the survey was revised and response scales were
simplified, resulting in reduction in the overall length of the instrument. The time to complete the
survey using an online survey tool (Sersion & Stevens, 2011) was approximately ten minutes. The
survey was administered to students at the research school during their regular technology class over a
three week period in late 2011. After administering the survey, a computer software package was used
for data analysis and reporting purposes (IBM SPSS Statistics, version 19).
School Leader Interview Protocol
The school leader interview protocol was developed to facilitate a semi-structured interview with either
school principals or other school leaders. The research school culture emphasizes teacher leadership
and therefore the focus was not solely on traditional models of administration and leadership. The
questions assess the selection of the student population, school resources including both hardware and
software, 21st Century Skills, and networking of the school to the larger community (see Appendix B).
FINDINGS
Student Technology Access and Use Survey The research school is located in a large urban district and has a student population of 31,989 students.
It is located in a district composed of 40 elementary, twelve secondary (some with grades seven
through twelve) and three kindergarten through grade twelve schools. The research school is composed
of grades seven through eleven, it is the only STEM school in the district, and has a student population
of 774 students. This is somewhat larger than the average secondary school in the district, which has a
median enrollment of 690 students. This study concentrates on the results from African-American and
White students, representing over 95% of the total population. Other ethnicities are not described
because their contribution is negligible. The final data set used in the analysis contained valid records
for 570 students. This represents a 73.6% response rate.
The results indicate the research school and district are somewhat dissimilar in terms of
demographics. In particular, the percentages of African-American and economically disadvantaged
students at the research school are significantly higher than the district averages; 19.3% and 8.3%
higher respectively. The research school is located in a state that uses free and reduced price lunch
records as a measure for student socioeconomic status, which may result in under-reporting of
economically disadvantaged students since the information is self-reported and requires parents to
complete and return paperwork in order to be included in the program. Gaines (1996) found
“Inequities of class, gender, ethnicity and economic disparity correlate highly with denied or restricted
access to the tools of technology” (p. 1). The last demographic variable considered is mobility, which
is used to measure the number of students moving between schools during an academic year. In the
district, 17% of students enrolled at the beginning of the year changed schools before the end of the
year, some of which may have moved multiple times. The research school has significantly lower
mobility at 6.8%, indicating a more stable student population compared to other schools in the district.
Key demographics for the school and district are summarized in Table 1.
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
6 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
Table 1: Student Demographics
Demographic School * (%)
District ** (%)
African-American 86.5 67.2 White 9.1 24.4
Economically Disadvantaged
78.2 69.9
Students with Disabilities
23.2 20.4
Mobility 6.8 17.0 Sources:
* research school (November 2011)
** 2010-11 District Needs Assessment (May 2011)
The following variables were evaluated to describe technology access in school: computer to
student ratio, computer reliability, and internet access. A wide range was found when comparing
computer to student ratios in the district (results include Macintosh and Windows-based computers),
from low access (six students per computer) to high access (one computer per student). Two schools,
including the research school, technically have a one to one ratio. However, students are not carrying
computers with them throughout the day and not every classroom is set up as a computer lab. When
discussing computer access it is also important to consider the reliability of computers. Age of
computers was used to describe this aspect of in-school access. The median age of computers for the
district during the period of this study was six years old. The median age of computers at the research
school was better than average at five years old. Based on this profile, the research school is
considered a target tech school (Nevens, 2001).
Technology access away from school was evaluated using results from the student technology
survey. The student technology survey provides two indicators by first asking students if they have
adequate access to computers and then asking if they have adequate access to the internet. The results
of the survey provide firsthand evidence of student access to technology resources away from school.
Survey results indicate that 76.5% of students at the research school have a computer at home
(Question 2). A closer look by ethnicity shows that 86.1% of White students have a computer at home
compared to 75.5% of African-American students. When asked “How often do you use a computer
outside of school” (Question 4), 21.1% of students responded “Less than weekly.” Less than weekly
computer use is considered to be a drastically low level for 21st century learners. Comparing student
ethnicity on this response shows little difference between White and African-American students but on
the other end of the response scale there is a great difference. Overall, 40% of students responded they
use a computer outside of a school on a daily basis: 39% of African-American and 55.6% of White
students. These findings are partially validated by national census results, although the question was
asked differently (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). Families without home internet were asked
why they did not have internet access. Select STAUS results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1.
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
7 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
Table 2: Student Technology Access and Use Survey, Select School Results
Ethnicity
Question 3: Students that have enough
computer access to complete school
assignments
Question 5: Students that have enough
computer access to complete school
assignments outside of school
Question 7: Students that have internet
access at home
African- American
71.4% (n = 360) 65.1% (n = 330) 73.4% (n = 372)
White 75.0% (n = 27) 55.6% (n = 20) 91.7% (n = 33)
All Students
72.3% (n = 410) 64.9% (n = 370) 75.3% (n = 429)
Figure 1: Student Technology Access Locations for School
Survey results indicate a significant difference in internet access for students based on ethnicity.
We found 91.7% of White students from the research school had internet access at home, compared to
73.4% of African-American; 18.3% internet access gap. Comparing this to national results from a few
years prior shows a similar gap for all comparison groups (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). For
the high school subgroup, 93.2% of White students had internet access at home, compared to 77.0% of
African-American; 16.2% internet access gap (see Figure 2). The similarity in results between the
research school and national comparison group is striking.
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
8 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
73.4 77.078.6 81.0
91.793.2 92.9 92.9
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
School * HS Only PreK - 12 All Persons
Pe
rce
nt
African-American White
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2009 and STAUS 2011*
Figure 2: Internet Access by Ethnicity
School Leader Interview
Despite the challenges to technology access outside of school for some students, both survey results
and the school leader interview indicate high levels of technology integration during the school day.
Ninety-nine percent of Hughes STEM High School students reported using technology most or every
day, as compared with only 45% of the district-wide population. This is tempered by the fact that
conversely, only 68% of students in the school use a computer outside of school, compared with 71.5%
district-wide. This pervasiveness of technology partially accounts for what we describe as the
technology access gap. The district student survey indicated that most students have better technology
access at home than they do at school. However, students at the research school have 40% greater
technology access at school than at home compared to the district average. This means that although
the research school is far more successful in giving students access to technology during the school
day, this has only exacerbated the lack of access outside of school.
The administrator interview with the program facilitator revealed that project-based learning is
the foundation for the use of technology at the research school and the 21st Century Skills of critical
thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are evident in the projects students participate in
to demonstrate their learning to authentic audiences. In addition to traditional software packages like
Microsoft Office and Adobe Design Premium Creative Suite, students use software as a service
resources. For example, Wikispaces allows students to collaborate asynchronously and develop
interdisciplinary presentations for a local museum. Students use Google SketchUp during the process
of building and designing an ecologically green town for their STEM Foundations class project. Field
science experiment toolkits contain digital cameras, Livescribe pens, and laptops in a single digital
backpack and allow students to learn outside the school, collecting data and creating presentations in
the field and with community partners. At the end of their sophomore year, students must create a
Gateway presentation in which they petition to enter into one of four career pathways for their junior
and senior years. This presentation empowers students to creatively choose from any of dozens of
digital presentation techniques they have learned in their curricular projects to advocate for their future.
Based on Nevens’ technology adoption framework, the research school is clearly in the “target tech”
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
9 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
phase of adoption with both its wide range of technology tools as well as the seamless integration of
technology through multidisciplinary, project-based learning.
CONCLUSIONS In order to advance pedagogy, researchers need to provide educators with relevant information to help
advance practice. It is important to obtain a complete picture of student technology access by
understanding how and where students access ICT away from school. Students can access computer
technology in many locations outside of school, including home, relatives’ or friends’ computers, the
public library, community centers, and virtually anywhere else they have access to the internet through
smart devices (i.e. “the cloud”). Increased access to technology in education is a double-edged sword,
resulting in greater opportunities and advantages for those students with adequate resources to
participate. As teacher expectations increase with the expansion of technology-based tools, the
pressure on students to competently use these tools also increases. The pressure may even be greater
for students that have limited access to technology. Knowing a student’s technology exposure at
school provides limited information for understanding how students are exposed to technology in their
everyday lives. Teachers have the power to close the technology access gap by using assessment tools
to understand the resource limitations of their students. Knowing their students beyond the classroom
will enable teachers to adopt realistic expectations for technology access away from school and enable
students to reach their potential.
This case has identified a missing variable in educational research by describing technology use
and access at a large urban STEM high school, and answered the principal research questions initially
postulated. The Technology Access Gap (TAG) is relevant to any educator concerned with
understanding the ICT limitations of their students and it can be used to improve pedagogy.
Improvement is possible by educating teachers who need to know about the technology resource
limitations of their students. Teachers are already familiar with the process and utility of making
accommodations for students with disabilities. A similar practice could be followed for limited
technology access students. In the 21st century learning environment, learning options are required to
meet the diverse needs of students, and this condition is extended to students having limited access to
technology. Once the need for accommodations is established at the school level, the scope for
accommodations can be broadened to the district level. Accommodation programs, such as free Wi-Fi
and laptop check-out, and creative solutions such as flexible transportation to allow students to stay
after school, are necessary to fill the gap so that educators provide equitable access to information and
communication technologies. This is an important step towards opening the playing field for all 21st
century learners.
SUGGESTIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES In a high poverty urban school, it is difficult to overestimate the amount of effort that is necessary to
support a modern, project-based STEM curriculum. Downes and Pogue (1994) document the
additional costs associated with educating disadvantaged students, but even their analysis is based on a
traditional academic curriculum and not a STEM-focused one. Any STEM school needs to build
equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement costs into its budget, as well as costs for subscriptions
to internet-based software and services. Our survey suggests, however, that accommodations also need
to be made for students lacking ICT access outside of school. Through partnerships with businesses
and universities, grants or donations may be able to cover some of the costs of properly resourcing
students.
In order for schools to know what technology support and services are needed and by whom,
some type of survey or assessment should be conducted. STAUS offers schools a tool to assess
technology access and use at school and away from school, in addition to measuring integration of 21st
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
10 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
Century Skills. The school in this case study provides high levels of technical support to both students
and staff. This is critical to avoid frustration and encourage innovation. The hiring process for staff at
the research school included assessing prospective teachers’ comfort with adoption of technology and
collaborative skills. Other STEM schools would do well to have similar hiring filters in place.
Write-in responses on STAUS indicated students’ frustration with not being able to take
technology from school home with them. The initial cohort of students at the research school was told
that part of the STEM program involved permission to take laptop computers home. Although the
business community has been generous in providing the school with laptop and desktop computers,
there is not yet a process in place for students to take equipment home. In order for a check-out
program to be successful, efforts should be made to expand the existing partnership with a local
university and tap into ICT resources such as undergraduate assistants. Additional grants could cover
the cost of developing and maintaining a check-out program for low-income students and upper class
students from the research school could be trained for leadership positions to handle much of the
program in-house.
FUTURE WORK Although the implemented technology access survey produced the desired results, examination of the
findings has still left us with an incomplete understanding of student’s technology access. Additional
work is needed to understand in greater detail both the problems leading up to the lack of student
technology access, and we need to learn more about teachers’ understanding of student technology
access and how accommodations are being made to fill the gap.
Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with students and teachers would help to create a richer
description of technology access issues. From the perspective of the researchers, we would be able to
more fully describe teacher implementation of accommodations for students with limited access to
technology. Currently, the school offers study tables after school three days a week, during which
students have access to computer labs. Teachers also make individual agreements with students to
increase their technology access in more creative ways. However, because the research school is open-
enrollment and students come from a large urban area, not all students can stay late due to
transportation limitations. Still other students are unable to stay late because they have younger
siblings to care for after school. The process of conducting interviews would serve to increase teacher
awareness of student technology access issues.
A clear extension of the current study is to explore the other constructs of the student
technology survey which were not covered in this case study. Completing a validation study of the
Student Technology Use and Access Survey (STAUS) would enhance educational technology practice
by providing a validated instrument for researchers’ use. In addition, defining the technology access
gap as an educational metric would contribute to educational research by providing a standard measure
for educators, allowing comparisons across schools and districts. Initial thoughts in this line of
research include exploring ICT exposure scales and the fact that conceptually, the “gap” may be better
understood in terms of a balance.
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
11 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
APPENDIX A - STAUS INSTRUMENT
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
12 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
13 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
14 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
15 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
APPENDIX B - ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY QUESTIONS
Technology Access and Use at an Emerging Urban STEM High School
Principal/Program Facilitator Interview Questions
1. How are students selected for this school?
2. What prerequisites are there for students attending this school?
3. How did this school acquire the technology that students use?
4. Describe the major pieces of hardware used on a regular basis by teachers and students.
5. Describe the major software packages used on a regular basis by teachers and students.
6. What 21st Century Skills does this school incorporate into the curriculum?
7. What support mechanisms are in place for students needing additional time or training
with the technology? 8. What is the documented poverty rate at your school? How does this impact instruction?
9. Describe your school’s connections to the statewide and/or national STEM networks
of schools. 10. What are some of the major project-based learning (PBL) activities for students at
your school which integrate technology?
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
16 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
REFERENCES Becker, H. J. 2000. Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer
technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75.
Carstens, R., Ed, & Pelgrum, W. J. 2009. Second information technology in education study:
SITES 2006 technical report. Amdsterdam, NL: International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement.
Chisholm, I., Carey, J., & Hernandez, A. 2002. Information technology skills for a pluralistic
society: Is the playing field level? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 58.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. 2008. Self-report measures and findings for information technology
attitudes and competencies. In (pp. 349-365). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-
73315-9_21.
Clifton, N. S. 2006. An examination of home and school technology access and usage in relation
to urban high school students and the achievement gap. Harvard University).
Corn, J., Stallings, T., Stanhope, D., Townsend, M., Patel, R., Argueta, R., & Kleiman, G. 2010.
Governor Perdue's North Carolina student learning conditions (SLCS); survey validation study - phase
II. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. 2001. From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying
internet use as penetration increases. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural
Policy Studies.
Downes, T., & Pogue, T. 1994. Adjusting school aid formulas for the higher cost of educating
disadvantaged students. National Tax Journal, 47(1), 89-110.
Frederick, R. & Shockley, K. 2008. Culturally responsive uses of technology: A
portrait of three teachers working in urban schools. Electronic Journal for the Integration of
Technology in Education, 7(1), 3-21.
Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S. E. 2002. Bridging the digital divide in public schools. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 30(2), 115-23.
Hanover Research. 2011. K-12 STEM education overview. Washington, DC: Hanover Research.
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. 2008. The importance of information technology attitudes and
competencies in primary and secondary education. In International handbook of information
technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 321-331). Boston, MA: Springer US.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_19.
Nevens, T. M. 2001. Fast lines at digital high. IEEE Spectrum, 38(4), 16-17.
doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2001.915196.
Panhandle Area Education Consortium. 2011. Student technology survey.
http://www.paec.org/teacher2teacher/studentnetssurveyt2t.pdf .
Phillis, W. L. 2005. Ohio's school funding litigation saga: More money and some new buildings
but the same unconstitutional school funding structure. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 313.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. 2002. The learning return on our educational technology investment: A
review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA.
Roblyer, M., & Knezek, G. 2003. New millennium research for educational technology: A call for
a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 60.
Sivin-Kachala, J., Bialo, E. R., & Langford, J. 1997. The effectiveness of technology in schools:
'90-'97 report. New York, NY: Software Publishers Association.
SPSS Statistics 19. 2011. Release Version 19.0.0, SPSS, Inc., 2009, Chicago,
IL, (available at: http://www.spss.com).
TechTerms.com. 2010. from http://www.techterms.com/definitions/ict
2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 1-1
17 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012
Sersion, B. L., & Stevens, D.M. 2011. Student technology access and use survey (STAUS).
http://www.zoomerang.com.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Current population survey. Washington, DC: Census
Bureau.
U. S. Department of Education. 2006. Computer and internet use by students in 2003: Statistical
analysis report. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
U. S. Department of Education. 2010. Transforming american education: Learning powered by
technology. national education technology plan, 2010. (No. ED512681). U. S. Department of
Education.
U. S. Department of Education. 2011. Digital nation: Expanding internet usage. Washington,
D.C.: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Walker, V. A. 1997. The great technology divide: How urban schools lose. The Education Digest,
62(6), 47.
Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. 2010. New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence
of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
AUTHORS INFORMATION Brian L. Sersion is a program evaluator and research analyst at Cincinnati Public Schools, Research
and Evaluation Department. He holds a MS in Quantitative Analysis from the University of Cincinnati
(1999) and BS in Geological Sciences from Ohio University (1988). Brian is an ASQ Certified Quality
Engineer and his leadership in the Statistics Division has led to numerous awards from the Society. He
can be contacted at: sersiob@cps-k12.org.
Douglas M. Stevens is a doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati in educational studies and
teaches English and technology at Hughes STEM High School, part of Cincinnati Public Schools. His
current research focuses on technology access and equity, student voice empowerment, and school
organizational culture with a focus on relational theory and teacher leadership. He can be contacted at:
stevend@cps-k12.org.
top related