Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

DIGITAL INEQUALITY ASSIGNMENT: Our Group Project

WHAT I LEARNED:

For this assignment, I not only learned about digital inequalities, I experienced it. When the due date changed, it put me in a very difficult position; I was going on vacation for two weeks which had been planned and paid for last fall. So I packed my laptop for the trip, but when I arrived I did not have internet access for the first five days, then I did for two days, then I did not again for three days and then finally did have access for 3 more days as the due date was approaching. This was a true example of a digital inequality as my group members were starting and I could only text message one other group member to receive and give input. So now my family and I are back at home and all restoration of internet access and equipment has been restored.

But this isn’t the case for students who may have a permanent digital inequality. These students are at a huge disadvantage and I can completely relate to any and all of their frustrations. One of my favorite parts of the presentation is to provide free wireless service for everyone everywhere. This would have solved my issue when I had the necessary equipment but no internet access.

Another thing I enjoyed about this assignment was learning about the three main things that hold back many in our society from being technologically sufficient: having the equipment, having internet access and learning how to use it all. I think I have personally hit a roadblock at any of these three things at one time or another while completing this EdTech 501 course. And I have the resources to overcome any of the three limiting factors. But imagine someone who does not have the money to purchase the technology, or doesn’t have internet and/or the money to pay for it, or opportunities to learn how to use it all. Any student in this situation is at huge disadvantage within the educational system. As a society, we must figure out a way to stop limiting technology between those that have and those that have not.

WORKING WITH MY GROUP:

What an awesome group! Because of the organizational set up and start by Kim and Rashell stepping up to do the narration and Tyler setting up the power point and dealing with the downloads, I was able to step in when I did have internet access to help edit, polish and finish the group project after reading the research. I was very worried about working with a group on the internet, never seeing anyone face-to-face and being on vacation.

My original plan before the due date change, was to use my one late pass for the individual tech trends assignment since I knew vacation was going to severely interfere with my ability to access the internet. But thanks to how this group naturally laid out the duties for each group member, it was a huge success. My largest contributions were helping to get pictures for every slide, dealing with the difficulties of the authorstream embedding (Thanks to Barbara for helping with this!), and aligning the AECT standards for the group.

HERE IS THE RESULTING PRESENTATION:

AECT STANDARDS:

The following standards are relevant to the Digital Inequality Assignment for the subsequent reasons. Like the Tech Trends Lesson Plan, this week’s assignment includes a vast array of standards that were addressed.

Standard 1.2 is applicable due to the more difficult planning involved to physically plan and present this assignment with a group involved over long distances.

Also, standard 2.2 is appropriate since the final document included audio and visual technologies to deliver the message our group was presenting. In addition, computer-based technologies from standard 2.3 are frequently valid whenever a student delivers materials using a micro-processor.

Because the Digital Inequality Assignment involves adopting our group’s plan to reduce the digital divide and digital inequalities in Washington State, therefore standard 3.2 relates. And the presentation includes actions to help develop state policy as standard 3.4 discusses.

Standard 4.2 and 4.4 should both be included because the presentation involves planning, monitoring and controlling technological resources provided for the general population, especially those in need or without any technology.

Finally standard 5.4 applies because the presentation involves long-range planning. The ordering of the plan discusses what needs to be done immediately, in the near future and beyond.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 1.2 Message Design, 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, 4.2 Resource Management, 4.4 Information Management, 5.4 Long-Range Planning, EdTech 501

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s