ecer2014-the changes of digital inclusion in rural communities
TRANSCRIPT
Luísa AiresCEMRI/Universidade Aberta
She has the computer, but what for?
The changes of digital inclusion in rural communities
Overview
- Research Questions and Context
- Theoretical Framework
- Empirical Study
- Discussion: Comparative analysis
- Concluding Remarks.
Goal & Research Questions
• Goal
To investigate common understandings and contradictions in digital inclusion in families and schools in rural communities.
• Research Questions:
‾ What are the experiences associated to the use of digital technologies and the Internet in everyday life?
‾ In what ways were changes in the routines of parents and teachers influenced by the use of laptops and the Internet at home and at school?
‾ What changes in the educational use of computers at primary school and at home can be identified over the past 4 years (ETP and after)?
Time: TPE
Technological Plan for Education(Magalhães/
Magellan Initiative)
2009-2010
2013
Places: ObLID Network
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Framework
Digital Ac
cess
• Refers only to the ease with which a subject can gain access to the technology.
• 1st digital divide: those who have and those who do not have (Warschauer, 2002; Hargittai, 2010).
Digital Inclusion
• Concerns the development of know-how and skills that enable individuals and groups to participate in collective life (Azevedo & Seixas, 2011; Cole, 1996; Warschauer, 2002; Hargittai, 2010; van Dijk, 2005).
• 2nd digital divide: refers to social participation, to cultural practices by which access is promoted, as well as the building and sharing of artifacts, contents, meanings.
Theoretical Framework
Domestication
• Emphasizes the integration of technologies into the family’s routines at home (Silverstone, 1992).
ACTIVITY THEORY
• Provides a flexible frame in which to study different aspects of educational technology (Blunden, 2013; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Sweeny, 2010).
• Focuses on the processes by which activities shape and are shaped by the context of use (Sweeney, 2010).
• Tension and contradiction - Relevant concepts in this study (Sweeney, 2010).
Empirical Study
Places: ObLID Network
• 2 Rural Communities• North of Portugal
Parents and Teachers Interviewed Interviewees
N Age Education Level Profession
1st phase: 2010
Mothers
Fathers
7
4
35–43
39–46
Year 6: 3Year 9: 2First degree: 2 Year 4: 1Year 9: 1Bachelor: 1First degree: 1
Unemployed: 2Domestic workers: 3Cleaning lady: 1Social assistant:1Driver: 1Bank clerk: 1Police officer: 1Technical designer:1
Teachers
13
35–54 First degree: 13
Total: 24
2nd phase: 2013
Mothers
Fathers
3
2
38–46
42–49
Year 9: 1Year 4: 1Bachelor: 1First degree: 2
Business women: 2Social assistant: 1Police officer: 1Technical designer: 1
Teachers
6
38–57 First degree: 6
Total: 12
Empirical Research Context
1st phase (2009-2010)• To give voice to primary school parents and teachers on
the uses of digital technologies, in particular the computer (Magalhães laptop) and the Internet, so as
• To understand the dynamics of appropriation of those technologies at home and at school.
2nd phase (2013)• To determine what had changed in the experiences with
technologies, at home and at school, in the time period between these two phases.
Comparative Analysis
First Field Experiences, 2009-2010
The place of technological devices at home
The early days of the domestication of the Magalhães
The views of parents and teachers on the use of computers
- The place of technological devices at home
Television: was part of the informants’ childhood memories; it occupies a place of emotions marking the organization of the family space, as well as the relationships;
Mobile phone: stood out for its utilitarian function;
Computers and the Internet: teachers and parents assigned them an important role in their daily family life; Internet was still not quite present in the daily lives of socially vulnerable parents.
- The early days of the “domestication” of the Magalhães
• The “Magalhães” laptop was mentioned as being an accessible device with a prominent leisure role at home.
On that day, he didn’t stop until he discovered everything he could, but then . . . you know . . . (P0478, 35, Year 4)
They love it, they really love the computer. It’s true, they were so happy (T11, 30, first degree)
• In some cases, the laptop enabled the first access to computers at home and a intergenerational collaboration
She really insists—“Mom, seriously, you have to press here and there to play”; that’s what she’s like . ” (P0485, 30, Year 6)
Low level of Internet access at home.
- The computer at school: from talking to doing
We found that there was a huge difference between the teachers’ positive opinions about the pedagogical value of the computer in teaching compared to the lack of concrete practices mediated by the laptop at school.
If everyone has one . . . Disadvantages, I don’t think so. . . . It has to be supervised, like any other activity.” (T10, 36, first degree)
Once a week I tell them to bring the computer and, there . . . we use it for . . . for the basics.” (T05,47, first degree)
- The views of parents and teachers on the use of computers: A mismatch.
The low level of the teachers’ involvement in the use of the laptop (Magalhães) at school and its intensive use at home were the topics of narratives in a setting of mismatched expectations..
She has a computer, but what for? If I ask her ‘What do you do with the computer?’—so far, the computer hasn’t been of any use to her.” (P0486, 46, Year 4)
I know that . . . I’m sure they use it a lot, at least the parents.” (T02, 52, first degree)
• Conflict and tension is an evident characteristic of these narratives.
• we find a conflict between the social, educational and leisure value of the laptop in terms of informal practices of technology domestication in the household and a devaluation of the laptop in school activities.
• In light of activity theory this tension may be an early stage achieving innovative activities with digital technologies (Sweeney, 2010).
Revisiting the field, 3 years later
New technological ecologies
Four profound changes had taken place affecting digital access, literacy, and domestication:
1. The distribution of the locally made, stand-alone Magalhães laptops had been halted due to a change of government.
2. 18 months earlier, new school centers equipped with digital technology and Internet connectivity had replaced the 1960s school buildings, and teachers had been given some training, albeit brief, aided by peer assistance.
3. Facebook and mobile networks had come into general use in our country.
4. The impact of the economic crisis had meant that many poor people could no longer afford access to Internet connections, thus widening the gap in digital access.
Internet Access and Web 2.0
The Magalhães laptop had lost its central position in the narratives of the interviewees, with a shift to activity on the web.
Practices associated with the Web 2.0, characterized by participation and collaboration in social networks, such as Facebook.
The higher income parents interviewed also referred to the use of mobile networks to access the Internet.
Suspension of the Magalhães Initiative
Both parents and teachers regretted the cancelation of the Magalhães Initiative, especially for those from low-income families:
I think it’s wrong [the suspension of the Magalhães], for the kids it is more harmful, they lose out on a lot because of that. . . . With the computer at home, they’ve studied things which the teacher didn’t teach them, that’s why it was good for them. (P0486, 49, Year 4).
They’re no longer covered by the Magalhães. . . I think that’s just not right. . .It’s not right that . . . students don’t have a Magalhães. It doesn’t help, does it? It was a way for them to get some computer skills, right? If they don’t have one, they’ll have to acquire those skills much later in life.” (T04, 49, first degree).
Contradictions and Tensions
Final Remarks
1st phase
Strong connection that families with no previous contact with digital technology had made with the device.
The laptop gained major importance in the family’s leisure time.
Parents and children explored the laptop together and used it to play and, in some cases, to develop technical skills.
At school, the laptop was used only occasionally and teachers had little commitment to the program.
A lack of pedagogical competencies for the use of computers in learning.
Final Remarks
2nd phase
Significant increase in the use of the Internet and digital devices at school (in a instrumental ICT perspective).
Optimistic voices with regard to the integration of the technology in teaching and learning practices.
Ending of government investment in the distribution of laptops to children, combined with decline in the already low level of Internet access at homes - stalled the progress of digital inclusion.
Both parents and teachers regret the suspension of Magalhães initiative, for poor families, in rural communities.
Final Remarks
• In the face of worsening inequality of digital access, measures that aid the domestication of computer technology in economically and educationally deprived households can contribute to digital and social inclusion.
• Urgent shift on policies and conceptions about technology at school: moving from ICT perspective to a knowledge and learning perspective about digital technologies, framed by an inclusive learning paradigm (Sancho, 2008).
References• Aires, L..; Dias, P.; Azevedo, J.; Rebollo, M.A.; García, R. (2014). “Education, Digital Inclusion and Sustainable
eLearning Communities” In Caeiro, Leal-Filho & Azeiteiro (eds), E-learning and Sustainability. Peter Lang (in press).• Bakhtin, M. (1981).The dialogical imagination. Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin, Austin: University of Texas.• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology. A once and future discipline. U.S.A.: Harvard University Press.• Hargittai, E. & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet.
Communication Research, 35: 602–21. • Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the «Net Generation».
Sociological Inquiry, 80 (1), 92-113. • Jenkins, H. ; Clinton, K. ; Purushotma, R. ; Robison, A. & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of
Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf; Retrieved July 14, 2010.
• Lemke, J. (2004). “Learning Across Multiple Places and their Chronotopes”, Symposium: Spaces and Boundaries of Learning (M. Cole, Organizer). San Diego: AERA.
• Livingstone, S., &; Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people, and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9, 671–696.
• Sweeney, T. (2010). Transforming pedagogy: Using activity theory to understand tensions in practice. Australian Educational Computing, 24, 28–34.
• Scribner, S.; Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. USA: Harvard University Press.• Seale, J. (2009) Digital. Inclusion: a Research Briefing by Technology Enhanced Learning. Phase of the Teaching
and. Learning Research Programme. University of Southampton. Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf
• Silverstone, R. (2009). “Domesticando a domesticação. Reflexões sobre a vida de um conceito”, in Anabela Sousa Lopes (Org.) Revista Media & Jornalismo nº 16.
• Smagorinsky, P.(2011). Vygotsky and Literacy Research. A Methodological Framework. Sense Publishers. • Street, B. V. (2004).Academic Literacies and the 'New Orders': Implications for research and practice in student
writing in HE‘. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences 2004 Volume 1:1 pp 9-32.• Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
