Abstract
The desire to improve and modernize education through educational technology is met with a daunting wall, as educational technologies oftentimes reflect and exacerbate social inequities. This work explores the growth in United States’ educational inequity stemming from the interdependent relationships between education, the digital divide, and social inequities. Diving into three case studies, this paper addresses the privatization consequences that result from the disproportionate funding barriers that schools in marginalized communities face in purchasing Smart Boards, as well as the dangerous impacts of SMART Technologies’ techno-solutionist marketing in worsening educational inequities. In comparison, massive open online courses (MOOCs), which are designed with the goal of improving education equity, appear to circumvent the funding barriers that Smart Boards provide, but fail to address the more tailored educational needs of marginalized communities – ultimately landing at the same fate as that of Smart Boards in worsening educational inequities. Lastly, this paper investigates reading software related to improving education for students with reading issues and blind students. Massively popular and effective in helping these students be more engaged and independent in reading, reading software is overall successful in creating a positive push toward educational equity. However, individual reading software can easily fall to the same failures of Smart Boards and MOOCs in contributing to educational inequity.
Although improving educational equity requires a holistic approach, from a technology design standpoint, the following recommendations are made: (a) develop educational technology with the goals of improving education quality and equity, (b) circumvent as many barriers as possible to technology access through technology design, (c) work with marginalized communities to truly understand their needs and create a technology they will use, and (d) continue work toward equitable educational technology.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Tawfik, A.A., Reeves, T.D., Stich, A.: Intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social inequality. TechTrends 60(6), 598–605 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0109-5
Biddle, B., Berliner, D.: Unequal school funding in the United States. Educ. Leadersh. 59(8), 48–59 (2002)
Morgan, I., Amerikaner, A.: Funding gaps 2018: an analysis of school funding equity across the U.S. and within each state. The Education Trust, Funding Gaps, pp. 1–13 (2018)
Cramer, L.: Inequities of intervention among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Penn GSE Perspect. Urban Educ. 12(1) (2015). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1056724. Accessed 05 Dec 2020
Losen, D.J., Orfield, G.: Racial Inequity in Special Education. Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge (2002)
Beratan, G.D.: Institutionalizing inequity: ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disabil. Stud. Q. 26(2), (2006). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v26i2.682
Sciuchetti, M.B.: Addressing inequity in special education: an integrated framework for culturally responsive social emotional practice. Psychol. Sch. 54(10), 1245–1251 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22073
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., Stone, L.: Technology and equity in schooling: deconstructing the digital divide. Educ. Policy 18(4), 562–588 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266469
Selwyn, N.: Degrees of digital division: reconsidering digital inequalities and contemporary higher education. RUSC. Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 7(1), (2010). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v7i1.660
Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., Shafer, S.: Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: Social Inequality, pp. 355–400 (2004)
Buckenmeyer, J.A.: Beyond computers in the classroom: factors related to technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. (CIER) 3(4), 27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i4.194
An, Y.-J., Reigeluth, C.: Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 28(2), 54–62 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Dawson, K., Barron, A.E.: Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 65(4), 795–813 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9
Berger, M.J., Harriger, A.R., Dooley, A., Heck, C.: Obstacles to Alice adoption in the high school classroom. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Alice Symposium, New York, NY, USA, June 2009, pp. 1–5 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1878513.1878516
Federmeier, J.A., Clift, R.T.: Personal, professional, technical, and institutional factors involved in developing a computer-intensive english curriculum. In: Technology and Education: Issues in Administration, Policy, and Applications in K12 Schools, pp. 271–286. Emerald (MCB UP ), Bingley (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3660(05)08018-2
Pierce, D.: School IT support: overworked...and understaffed. eCampus News (2009). https://www.ecampusnews.com/2009/03/02/school-it-support-overworked-and-understaffed/. Accessed 25 Nov 2020
Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, p. 1060 (2018)
Akça, Y., Özer, G., Işık, A.D., Çelik, E.: The user characteristics effects to smart board usage on technology acceptance model variables: the sample of Bartin highschool teachers. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2017). https://doaj.org. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
Cabus, S., Haelermans, C., Franken, S.: SMART in mathematics? Exploring the effects of in-class-level differentiation using SMARTboard on math proficiency. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 48(1), 145–161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12350
Çoklar, A., Tercan, I.: Opinions of teachers toward the use of smart boards. Element. Educ. Online 13, 48–61 (2014)
Gürbüztürk, O.: Investigation of elementary education students attitudes towards the use of smart boards. Int. Electron. J. Element. Educ. 11(1), 55–61 (2018). https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018143961
Kirbas, A.: Student views on using smart boards in Turkish education. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 6(5), 1040–1049 (2018)
Mun, S.H., et al.: Active learning using digital smart board to enhance primary school students’ learning. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 13(7), 4–16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i07.10654
Korkmaz, O., Cakil, I.: Teachers’ difficulties about using smart boards. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 83, 595–599 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.113
Parks, A.N.: Smart boards, money and the pedagogy of watching. In: Clough, M.P., Olson, J.K., Niederhauser, D.S. (eds.) The Nature of Technology: Implications for Learning and Teaching, pp. 201–216. SensePublishers, Rotterdam (2013)
Replacement for broken SMART Board. The Spiceworks Community. https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2243820-replacement-for-broken-smart-board. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
Smart Boards Fall Out of Favor—and Off the Budget—In Duluth, Minn., Schools. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/Smart-Boards-Fall-Out-of-Favor-and-Off-the-Budget-In-Duluth-Minn-Schools.html. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
Collaboration Software & Displays - SMART Technologies. https://www.smarttech.com/. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
What keeps causing the SMART Boards to lose their ‘interactive’ability”. https://community.smarttech.com/s/question/0D50P00002sa7xBSAQ/what-keeps-causing-the-smart-boards-to-lose-their-interactiveability?language=en_US. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
Mooc.org. Learn About MOOCs - Massive Open Online Courses|An edX Site.” https://www.mooc.org/about-moocs. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
ASUx Free Online Courses from Arizona State University. edX. https://www.edx.org/school/asux. Accessed 06 Dec 2020
van de Oudeweetering, K., Agirdag, O.: MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21(1), 1–11 (2018)
Pollack Ichou, R.: Can MOOCs reduce global inequality in education? Australas. Mark. J. (AMJ) 26(2), 116–120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.007
van Dijk, J., Hacker, K.: The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inf. Soc. 19(4), 315–326 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487
Demographics of Internet and Home Broadband Usage in the United States. Pew Res. Center Internet Sci. Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Accessibility – Vision. Apple. https://www.apple.com/accessibility/vision/. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Microsoft Accessibility Features. Accessibility. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/accessibility/features. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Convert PDF and photo files to text - Computer - Google Drive Help. https://support.google.com/drive/answer/176692?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Lewandowski, L., Wood, W., Miller, L.A.: Chapter 3 - technological applications for individuals with learning disabilities and ADHD. In: Luiselli, J.K., Fischer, A.J. (eds.) Computer-Assisted and Web-Based Innovations in Psychology, Special Education, and Health, pp. 61–93. Academic Press, San Diego (2016)
Schiavo, G., Buson, V.: Interactive e-Books to Support Reading Skills in Dyslexia, p. 4
Zabala, J.: How does optical character recognition help kids with reading issues? https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/assistive-technology/assistive-technologies-basics/how-does-optical-character-recognition-help-kids-with-reading-issues. Accessed 30 Nov 2020
Screen Readers|American Foundation for the Blind. https://www.afb.org/blindness-and-low-vision/using-technology/assistive-technology-products/screen-readers. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Software Programs for Kids Who Struggle With Reading. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/assistive-technology/finding-an-assistive-technology/software-programs-for-kids-with-reading-issues. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Resources: Educational Technology. Arizona Department of Education, 09 June 2016. https://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/k-12standards/educational-technology-resources. Accessed 07 Dec 2020
Digital Divide: Connecting Portland during the COVID-19 Crisis. Smart City PDX. https://www.smartcitypdx.com/covid-19-digital-divide-response. Accessed 29 Dec 2020
Acknowledgements
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1828010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Darmawaskita, N., McDaniel, T. (2021). Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology on Social Inequity in the United States. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive Environments. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12769. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78094-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78095-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)