Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Kongresse
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Veranstaltungskalender Awards MyNewsletter Firmensuche
Kunden Login
Über Einzelzugang informieren
Über Unternehmenszugang informieren
Referenzkunden
Elektrische Antriebe und Energiesysteme 2025 | 26 + 27 März 2025

19. Internationaler MTZ-Fachkongress Zukunftsantriebe

Seien Sie bei der Konferenz dabei! Dort treffen Experten aus der Automobilindustrie, Energieerzeugung und Stromnetzbetrieb auf Vertreter aus Politik und Wissenschaft. Diskutiert werden wichtige Themen der Branche.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
TechTrends
Erschienen in:

25.07.2016 | Original Paper

Intended and Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology on Social Inequality

verfasst von: Andrew A Tawfik, Todd D Reeves, Amy Stich

Erschienen in: TechTrends | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

While much has been written in the field of educational technology regarding educational excellence and efficiency, less attention has been paid to issues of equity. Along these lines, the field of educational technology often does not address key equity problems such as academic achievement and attainment gaps, and inequality of educational access and opportunity. In this paper, we survey research regarding persistent inequality issues related to (a) educational access and (b) educational opportunity in the U.S. education system. Furthermore, we discuss intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social equality. We then conclude with a discussion of how educational technology researchers and practitioners should consider the broader social context in which their work is conducted and the intended and unintended consequences it might have on social inequality.
Vorheriger Artikel Incorporating Social Networking Sites into Traditional Pedagogy: a Case of Facebook
Nächster Artikel Review of Bonk, C.J., Lee, M.M., Reeves, T.C., & Reynolds, T.H. (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. New York: Routledge
Literatur
Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution of teachers: evaluating sources and solutions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(37), 1–46.
Anthony, A. B., & Clark, L. M. (2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban Education, 46(6), 1300–1331.CrossRef
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3–42.CrossRef
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality in US college entry and completion (No. w17633). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Barnett, W., & Lamy, C. (2013). Inequality and school resources: What it will take to close the opportunity gap. In P. Carter & K. Welner (Eds.), Achievement gaps start early: Preschool can help (pp. 98–110). New York: Oxford University Press.
Berliner, D. C. (2013). Inequality, poverty, and the socialization of America’s youth for the responsibilities of citizenship. Theory Into Practice, 52(3), 203–209.CrossRef
Bonk, C. (2011). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Hoboken: San Francisco.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.CrossRef
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333.CrossRef
Brown, M. G., Wohn, D. Y., & Ellison, N. (2016). Without a map: college access and the online practices of youth from low-income communities. Computers & Education, 92, 104–116.CrossRef
Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.CrossRef
Campano, G., Ghiso, M. P., LeBlanc, R., & Sánchez, L. (2016). “American hunger”: Challenging epistemic injustice through collaborative teacher inquiry. In J. Lampert & B. Burnett (Eds.), Teacher education for high poverty schools (pp. 33–52). New York: Springer International Publishing.
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727–742.CrossRef
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (2007). Outcomes of mentoring at risk college students: gender and ethnic matching effects. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(2), 135–148.CrossRef
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: when the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60(2), 149–160.CrossRef
Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2014). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? 10.​2139/​ssrn.​2350964
Clark, C., & Gorski, P. (2002). Multicultural education and the digital divide: focus on socioeconomic class background. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 25–36.CrossRef
Claro, M., Cabello, T., San Martín, E., & Nussbaum, M. (2015). Comparing marginal effects of Chilean students’ economic, social and cultural status on digital versus reading and mathematics performance. Computers & Education, 82, 1–10.CrossRef
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRef
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Inequality and school resources: What it will take to close the opportunity gap. In P. Carter & K. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 77–97). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.CrossRef
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. (2008). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.CrossRef
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? an administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179–215.CrossRef
Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 1–20.CrossRef
Du, J., Ge, X., & Xu, J. (2015). Online collaborative learning activities: the perspectives of African American female students. Computers & Education, 82, 152–161.CrossRef
Dworsky, A., & Pérez, A. (2010). Helping former foster youth graduate from college through campus support programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(2), 255–263.CrossRef
Farkas, G. (2011). Middle and high school skills, behaviors, attitudes, and curriculum enrollment and their consequences. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 71–90). Russell Sage Foundation
Freeman, B. (2012). Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 59(1), 50–62.CrossRef
Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2000). Longer term effects of Head Start. National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.​3386/​w8054
Grusky, D., Varner, C., Mattingly, M., Poulin, M., & Chou, A. (2014). State of the union: The poverty and inequality report. Stanford: Stanford University.
Guernsey, L. (2012). Technology in early education: building platforms for connections and content that strengthen families and promote success in school. The Progress of Education Reform, 13(4), 1–7.
Gyabak, K., & Godina, H. (2011). Digital storytelling in Bhutan: a qualitative examination of new media tools used to bridge the digital divide in a rural community school. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2236–2243.CrossRef
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.CrossRef
Jacob, B., & Wilder, T. (2010). Educational expectations and attainment (No. 15683). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRef
Jenkins, J. M., Farkas, G., Duncan, G. J., Burchinal, M., & Vandell, D. L. (2016). Head start at ages 3 and 4 versus head start followed by state pre-k: which is more effective? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 88–112.CrossRef
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445.CrossRef
Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013/2). Online learning across ethnicity and age: a study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43–51.
Killeen, K. M., Monk, D. H., & Plecki, M. L. (2002). School district spending on professional development: insights available from national data (1992–1998). Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 25–49.
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459.CrossRef
Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T. …, & Gàrate, A. (2010). Socioeconomic strata, mobile technology, and education: a comparative analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 465–486
Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2008). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups. Computers & Education, 50(1), 110–124.CrossRef
Lamont, M., & Small, M. L. (2010). Cultural diversity and anti-poverty policy. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 169–180.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: a descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.CrossRef
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3–12.CrossRef
Lowenhaupt, R. J., & Reeves, T. D. (2015). Toward a theory of school capacity in new immigrant destinations: instructional and organizational considerations. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(3), 308–340.
Ludwig, J., & Miller, D. L. (2005, October). Does Head Start improve children’s life chances? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.​3386/​w11702
Mares, M.-L., & Pan, Z. (2013/5). Effects of sesame street: a meta-analysis of children’s learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 140–151.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.CrossRef
Meyers, M., Rosenbaum, D., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Inequality in early childhood education and care: What do we know? In Social Inequality (pp. 223–270). Russell Sage Foundation.
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: the role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.CrossRef
Mouza, C., & Barrett-Greenly, T. (2015). Bridging the app gap: an examination of a professional development initiative on mobile learning in urban schools. Computers & Education, 88, 1–14.CrossRef
Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring students: conceptualizing and validating the multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 337–356.CrossRef
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.CrossRef
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.CrossRef
Payne, R. K. (2013). A framework for understanding poverty: A cognitive approach (5th ed.). aha! Process, Inc.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(2), 120–130.CrossRef
Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (2009). Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers & Education, 52(1), 113–125.CrossRef
Reeves, T., & Bonk, C. (2015). MOOCs: redirecting the quest for quality higher education for all. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 385–399.
Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J. (2013). Bolstering the impact of online professional development for teachers. The Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 13(1), 50–66.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: the self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 411–451.CrossRef
Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291–307.CrossRef
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: the challenge for urban high schools. Future of Children, 19(1), 185–210.CrossRef
Sun, C.-T., Wang, D.-Y., & Chan, H.-L. (2011). How digital scaffolds in games direct problem-solving behaviors. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2118–2125.CrossRef
Suppes, P., Liang, T., Macken, E. E., & Flickinger, D. P. (2014). Positive technological and negative pre-test-score effects in a four-year assessment of low socioeconomic status K-8 student learning in computer-based math and language arts courses. Computers & Education, 71(1), 23–32.CrossRef
Unrau, Y. A., Font, S. A., & Rawls, G. (2012). Readiness for college engagement among students who have aged out of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 76–83.CrossRef
Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education, 45(1), 35–55.CrossRef
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the facebook group as a learning management system: an exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428–438.CrossRef
Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Presented at the National Staff Development Council, Dallas, TX
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRef
Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Cipollone, K, Stich, A., Nikischer, A., Hanson, J., Ohle, S., & Dominguez, R. (2015). In the guise of STEM education reform: Opportunity structures and outcomes in inclusive STEM-focused high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1024–1059.
Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2015). Which STEM majors enroll in online courses, and why should we care? the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics. Computers & Education, 87, 285–308.CrossRef
Wohn, D. Y., Ellison, N. B., Khan, M. L., Fewins-Bliss, R., & Gray, R. (2013). The role of social media in shaping first-generation high school students’ college aspirations: a social capital lens. Computers & Education, 63, 424–436.CrossRef
Zhang, M. (2015). Internet use that reproduces educational inequalities. Computers & Education, 86(C), 212–223.CrossRef
Zucker, A. A. (2008). Transforming schools with technology: How smart use of digital tools helps achieve six key education goals. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Intended and Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology on Social Inequality
verfasst von
Andrew A Tawfik
Todd D Reeves
Amy Stich
Publikationsdatum
25.07.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
TechTrends / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0109-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2016

Educational Technology and Instructional Design in East Asia: Program Curricula and Career Opportunities

  • Column: ICT International

Graduate Students’ Readiness and Perceptions of the Pedagogical Application of Collaborative Video Logs

  • Original Paper

An Instructional Design Framework for Fostering Student Engagement in Online Learning Environments

  • Original Paper

Online Student Collaboration and FERPA Considerations

  • Original Paper

Editor’s Notes

  • Column: Editor's Notes

Online Group Work Design: Processes, Complexities, and Intricacies

  • Original Paper

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise