iGeneration?

The assumption that an entire generation can defined by their technology and media usage is rash at best and racially and economically biased at worst, especially when labeling a generation the “iGeneration” (Rosen, 2011) due to the popularity of technological gadgets. If that is the case then why not call my generation – Generation X – the “Walkman Generation” or the “Cable TV Generation”? Why not call the Baby Boomer generation the “Television Generation”?

First of all, the use of computers – desktop or laptop – the internet, and internet technology is not cheap; therefore, it is not universally accessible to all students regardless of their popularity. Furthermore, technology statistics can be misleading. For example, a study by Wells & Lewis (2006) reported that 100% of public schools and 94% of classrooms had internet access; in addition, the student-to-computer ratio was a low as 3.8:1. However, working in a school with a high population economically disadvantaged students, I can attest that, although all classrooms have internet access, the majority of the classrooms have only one computer and students do not have access to those computers. Many of my students do not own cell phones and even fewer have smartphones. That is not to say that these students are not technology savvy, but technology and media use cannot be divorced from technology and media access.

Achievement is connected to opportunity and opportunity means accessibility. Research has linked the educational achievement gap in mathematics of economically disadvantaged and ethnic students to an opportunity gap experienced by this same demographic of students. Flores (2007) maintains that an opportunity gap exists because these students do not have equitable access to a quality education; data indicates disparities in access to quality teaching and funding. Lack of funding necessarily impacts access to and quality of technology available to students. Of course, opportunity does not guarantee achievement but without similar opportunities should we expect similar outcomes? Should we expect similar characteristics? Should we expect similar behavior? I do not have an answer because this problem does not have a simple solution.

We are responsible for providing our students with a quality education and technology is definitely a means of doing so. However, let us always keep in mind that our students do not have equitable access to technology. Therefore it is our responsibility to employ a variety of methods to ensure that learning is taking place. Do not get me wrong, I love technology. I also believe that, “the smartphone, the internet, and everything technological are not ‘tools’ at all – they simply are” (Rosen, 2011, p. 12).

References

Flores, A. (2007). Examining Disparities in Mathematics Education: Achievement Gap or Opportunity Gap?. High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.

Rosen, L. (2011). Teaching the iGeneration. Educational Leadership, 68 (5), 10-15.

Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994 – 2005 (NCES 2007 – 020). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Web 2.0 in a Constructivist Classroom

What is Web 2.0?



Web 2.0 in the classroom

In the 1990s, web technologies available to and used in the classroom had been limited mostly to information acquisition. Users browsed, read, and obtained information, with little place for creating knowledge and sharing that knowledge. Needless to say, these first generation web technologies, also known as Web 1.0, were very one-dimensional.

Moreover, the concept of knowledge remained unchanged. That is to say that knowledge had to be compiled and authenticated by “experts with substantial credentials in academic fields and disciplines” (as cited in Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). Still, with the classical education lecture model as the predominant practice utilized in the classroom, incorporating any technology into the curriculum was a step forward.

Fast forward to 2004 and we see the emergence of the next generation of the World Wide Web referred to as Web 2.0. In the Web 2.0 classroom we see significant shifts in the use of technology, the role of teachers and students, and the concept of knowledge. No longer are educational uses of the web limited to information retrieval. Applications of technology include computer-supported collaboration on a global scale and the construction of knowledge. Web 2.0 also provides a medium for sharing that knowledge, again on a global scale (e.g. Facebook, Ning, YouTube, Skype, wikis, podcasts, blogs, etc.). Now, students are producers of knowledge, no longer constrained to being recipients only.

The concept of knowledge has been set free if you will from the classical authoritarian constraints. As Greenhow, et al. (2009) declares:

Conceptually, Web 2.0 seems to embody “knowledge” as “collective agreement” that “may combine facts with other dimensions of human experience, such as opinions, values, and spiritual beliefs” (Dede, 2008, p. 80). Validity of knowledge in Web 2.0 environments is established through peer review in an engaged community, and expertise entails understanding disputes and offering synthesis widely accepted by the community (Dede, 2008, p. 80). In other words, knowledge is decentralized, accessible, and co-constructed by and among a broad base of users. (p. 247)

The role of the teacher and students has also changed. Teachers must co-learn, model, and facilitate if they are to support and supervise students in a Web 2.0 classroom. Students are no longer passive observers in learning but participate in the process. In agreement with constructivist learning theory, they create and recreate knowledge by gathering and structuring content provided by myriad different sources.

And this is only the beginning. If the funds are available, teachers and students are limited only by their own creativity and imagination.

References

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B, and Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research--What Path Should We Take "Now”?. Educational Researcher, 38 (4), 246-259.

Web 2.0

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Web 2.0! Follow along as I explore Web 2.0 tools that will open doors to endless possibilities for your students!