Gender Equity in Technology Education

My enhanced podcast on Gender Equity in technology education.

In the past week and a 1/2 we have been looking at equity and equality in technology education.  Many things that I hadn't really put much thought into before.  I teach in a small district that has gone 1:1.  In essence the thought was when we gave each student a computer that the discussion of inequity or inequality had disappeared.  It is clear after this weeks readings and my further studying for the podcast we can not write it off that easily.  Giving students the computer was really the easy part.

My focus on gender equity made me think a lot about my classroom and my own children at home.  Have I encouraged boys more than girls to use technology?  I really don't feel like I have, but as Jo Sanders points out in her research- most teachers have no idea they are doing it!  I've been thinking through the gender differences in my classroom.  Do boys use the technology more than girls?  Or are they just using it differently?  I think it's probably the latter of the two.  In my research I found several studies that found boys and girls generally spend a similar amount of time on the computer, but boys are spending more than 400% more time playing video games.  Jo Sanders cited this, but also said that there isn't really a definite answer as to whether or not that is giving boys a large advantage.  This was a study that I could totally relate to and it didn't really surprise me at all.  In my classes I can recall maybe 2-3 girls total over the years who have talked about playing video games or computer games.  I will say however in recent years I have heard more girls talking about games such as minecraft or minesweeper which are problem solving games.

The discussion of software for "girls" brings up the point of talking about if there is no gender inequity then why is it necessary to market for "girls"?  This leads one to believe that the other marketing of software must be aimed at boys.  The question I had at the end of my research and creating of the podcast is how can we begin to move girls in the direction of technology?  Do girls simply need more experience or support in technology?  Gatta and Trigg conducted a study on women in technology related jobs and educational programs and talked about the need to provide these young women with both role models and mentors in the program.  This becomes difficult when the program may have only 10% or less of it's faculty that are women.  We in education need to make sure that we are giving our young students people in the field to look up to and admire and also to turn to when they have questions.  IT and computer science can often feel like a "boys club" and this may inhibit girls from attempting to join in, but I think given the right circumstances and support we could help girls be successful in the field.

Ethics and Morals and TPACK

This week's topic was an interesting one to think about for me.  As was discussed in the lecture it is hard to think that there is the possibility that technology has effects and consequences that are not positive.  I think about technology in the classroom and ways I want to or have already incorporated it and I'm not sure if I see any ways in which it's immoral or unethical.... BUT I'm also not sure that I've really looked very deeply into it.

Do I need to do more thinking about what I'm doing?  Are there some unintended consequences that I'm not seeing.  I really think this is something I need to delve into further.

The part of our week that I really enjoyed reading about and discussing the most was the TPACK article.  I am currently on our districts tech team and we are working hard to figure out how to support teachers in the implementation of technology into their classrooms.  I found the article very insightful into the ways that technology really fits into the areas of teaching we already identify with.  Teachers can pretty easily see the importance of having a deep content knowledge in their specific area, or as in elementary teachers their grade or perhaps grade span.  I appreciated the way this article paired that content knowledge with technology.  Discussing why they are both important as separate entities and also as a pair.  You need to have a good grasp on your content before you can really use technology at a deep level.  If you are not sure of the content in your class or subject area, I'm not really sure you will pick technology that matches your needs in the best possible way.  If you do have a deep content knowledge I think it becomes easier and more feasible to search for technology to support the work you are already doing in the content.

I have share this article with others on the team and administration and it is something we are going to take a deeper look at.  Helping teachers to see that technology is an important piece of this puzzle, but it is just one piece.  A good handle on pedagogy and also content knowledge should and really must be present before one can move to that step.  I'd like to take a closer look at this and help teachers see how they all go together.  This may help alleviate some fears of teachers who feel like they are going to be asked to add technology for technology's sake.  Really focusing on that strong content knowledge and pedagogy will help teachers to see where technology should and could be added and where it would be unnecessary. 

Week 2

This week our discussion has been centered around two different schools of thought interpretivism and objectivism.  The article we read for our discussions were helpful in pulling out some key pieces to each theory.  I found a chart located in the Willis article to really help me to see the difference between the two.

Interpretivist                                                                Objectivists

ID process is non-linear/chaotic                                  Process is sequential and linear

Top down/systematic planning                                    Reflective/Collaborative planning

Objectives emerge as you go                                       Objectives are stated at the start

Experts are crucial                                                       Experts are a myth

Personal understanding/meaningful                            Teaching of sub-skills/Sequencing

Formative Eval most important                                   Summative Eval is most important

Subjective data is most valuable                                 Objective data is most important- the more data the better.

                                                                                    Delivery of preselected knowledge

                                                                                    I could see myself relating to parts of each of these theories.  I think if I really look deeply I am probably more of an interpretivist, but I can see some piece of the objectivist point of view as essential as well.  A large part of our group's discussion was about the need/want for linear and sequential steps in the learning process.  Some of the teaching in learning in the classroom is achieved more successfully when we follow steps and a process.  Math comes to mind when I'm thinking of this.  There are certain concepts of skills that are necessary to learn in a sequencial order.  My question to myself and other teachers is how many skills need to be taught this way?  AND do all students need to be taught this way?  Can we step away from that order for some students and some skills?  Are we doing some students a disservice by making them sit through the teaching of all parts of a skill?  Some students come to me in 3rd grade already knowing how to do something and yet I have made them sit through the instruction for another time.  Why?

                                                                                    I am also a lover of data, BUT we are very good at my school at using the data we collect.  Especially in recent years.  I think data takes on a whole new meaning when you know you are going to dig into it and make changes to your teaching and programs based on what our students know.  I do think that I need to work a lot more on using formative data as I go along to inform my teaching.  How do I create and use assessments that are quick and informal that will help my students on  daily basis?  This is something I need to work on as I move forward.

                                                                                    I wonder too about the objective piece.  Do they need to be known from the start or can we develop them as we go along? We have discussed in our PD this year of starting with the end in mind- so clearly stated objectives, and then build your lesson around that.  I think there is something to be said about the flexibility to change and develop those objective along the way though.  Flexibility is key in the classroom.  We have to be able to change along the way based on what our students need from us.  I keep thinking in my head that I can combine the two theories for my own hybrid??  Not sure if that is an option or not..... but I feel like it's what I do on a daily basis :)

I can't seem to fix the format on this blog post..... I'll work on it.....

Week 1 Reflection

Week 1 has really gotten me thinking about the different schools that I have been a part of over the course of my educational experiences.  Both as a teacher and as a student.  I have mostly had experience with smaller more rural school districts so I'm sure that has shaped my experiences differently than others who have had more experience with larger districts.  I feel like for the most part the systems I have known have been there for the purpose of preparing students for their future- be it a job or college education.  When I was in high school it was just assumed that you would be attending a college.  The question was never "are you going to college?"  but rather "where". 

My current district however has felt a shift in our focus to more student centered learning.  The push has been to give students more voice and some control in their learning environments.  We have been studying the Structure for Instruction model this year during PD and working on when it is appropriate to be in a whole group setting and when our students should be working in small groups or individually.  There has also been a lot of discussion about how to analyze when students are ready for the different steps in this structure.  To me we are moving away from some of the "traditional" methods of teaching that many of us grew up with.  The lessons are more individualized and we are really creating an individual learning package for each student.  We are not all the way there yet, but we are making progress.

Another thing I have found really interesting this week in discussions is different individual's reactions to the Core.  The way it has been presented and discussed in our district it has truly not felt threatening in any way to me.  Has it been overwhelming at times?  YES!  But it has produced a lot of great discussions between team members and also across different grade levels.  I think it's going to be a great tool for helping us to align our curriculum across grade levels and throughout our school district.  We all know what it is that we need to cover and how we get there is more up to us in the classroom. 

It is thought provoking to think about different experiences that I have had in a classroom or in a school district and reflect on who's philosophy it really was in place.  Is it possible to have an entire district under the same philosophy?  Can we all really be on the same page?  And if so how do we get there?  There are so many factors that go into a philosophy both individual and district wide and I wonder how exactly we align all of those while still giving teacher's some individuality. 

This first week has given me a lot to think about in regards to the foundations of our systems and how we are changing or not changing as we go along.  Do we need to change?  If so what and where and when??