Emerging Technology, the Digital Divide, and Social Justice
Emerging technology is disrupting America’s classrooms (Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Horn & Staker, 2015). Will emerging technology replace the traditional factory model of learning that has entrenched our educational system for centuries? Yes and no. In some cases, online learning is combined with traditional classrooms in a blended approach and can improve the traditional classroom. In other instances, online education is disrupting traditional education altogether and replacing the factory model of schooling.

Blended learning had its advent with Scholastic’s READ 180 reading intervention program and Sal Khan’s Khan Academy model of instructional video and interactive exercises. Blended learning has been a disruptive innovation to traditional education. It has replaced traditional instruction in many instances. It differs from online learning in that only part of the learning process is conducted online, the other part is conducted in a physical building. Further, blended learning differs from online learning in that it is an integrated learning experience; there is an online and a face-to-face component in course delivery. Blended learning is also different from technology-rich instruction. Technology-rich instruction occurs in the traditional model of the classroom and supplements traditional education. However, it has more control over learning as to the timing and pace of individual learning. It is a revolution in education in the 21st-century and is known as a disruptive technology, disrupting the traditional methods of teaching. It foreshadows what will likely happen in the future when pure online education will become the predominant disruptive technology. Howbeit, currently, online learning is not an immediate solution to our nation’s education needs (Horn & Staker, 2015).


Which form of education is better, online, blended, or factory model? There is not a clear answer to this question. It depends on what the goals of schools are and what they hope to achieve. The factory model of education is unlikely to disappear, particularly in elementary and early childhood schooling. In addition to teaching in the factory model, schools also serve as a necessary childcare component for society. For this reason, elementary and early childhood schooling cannot go completely online. Nevertheless, the blended learning model is proving quite successful in attacking tough problems that the factory model has difficulty resolving, such as improving learning in core subjects as math and reading.

At the middle and high school levels, though, online education is disrupting the traditional factory model of education. Many school leaders are intimidated by the use of technology, yet if leaders do not start the transformation to blended learning now, more and more children will miss out on the benefits of transforming their educational career. According to the ancient proverb, “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now,” as quoted in Whitaker, Zoul, & Casas (2015). There are many advantages of blended learning. Included in these advantages are combinations of increased student engagement, a personalized education with adaptive content, higher academic achievement, fewer student absences, access to inaccessible courses and opportunities that are not found locally, and the improvement of a school system’s financial health (Horn & Staker, 2015).

Nevertheless, technology in schools is not all bliss. Schools commonly make the mistake of becoming enamored with technology. This can lead to a phenomenon called “cramming” where schools layer new expensive technologies (like interactive whiteboards, for example) on top of the existing traditional model of schooling. The hope is to integrate fancy technology into existing practices of education. On the contrary, “cramming” does not provide fruitful results. It just adds costs but does not improve student academic results (Horn & Staker, 2015).
Blended and online learning are buzzwords in the 21st-century. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks to this disruptive technology. These innovative learning practices can be useful in the K-12 classroom, as this population of students belongs to the same generation of digital learners. Notwithstanding, trying to apply blended and online learning in higher education has more complex implications. Currently, in today’s university classrooms, the student population is comprised of four generations (Pacansky-Brock, 2013). Therefore, there needs to be greater care taken when integrating emerging technologies into higher education classrooms. Obstacles include older students not being familiar with how to use technology and not owning personal technology devices of their own.

Pacansky-Brock (2013) describes how to build a solid foundation of emerging technology in higher education classrooms. There can be high student frustration with integrating technology into the university curriculum. Therefore, professors must listen to their students and communicate the rationale for integrating technology into the curriculum and how it will benefit learning. By providing clarity and clear expectations to students who are insecure with the use of technology, the likely results are a student environment that is comfortable and participatory. If great care is not taken in considering student concerns, student engagement is at risk as well as high-risk students dropping out of courses and students with disabilities struggling to keep up. Proper pre-course planning with emerging technologies will have the benefits of integrating technology into students’ lives who were previously technologically illiterate. Students will no longer feel marginalized by technology and will have the skills to participate more fully in society.

Problems with technology are not only a concern with multi-generational college students. As Eubanks (2011) describes, the low-income women she worked with at the YWCA community center experienced problems with technology as well, yet in a different way than university students encounter. These low-income women had a love-hate relationship with technology. They view technology as an abusive element in their lives that traps them in low paying jobs. Yet, at the same time, they need to learn technology to obtain higher paying jobs. They want to improve themselves; they want to put into practice what they learn but are kept down by low self-esteem and abusive relationships and situations. They often work in the information technology field in the low-wage workforce. They do not lack technology in their lives, but technology has a direct relationship to the poverty that they face. Either they work with technology, or they encounter technology in the social service system and feeling alienated by people who work behind computers. While schools and the economy see technology as a direction towards the future, Feenberg (1991) states that “Technology is not a destiny but a scene of struggle” (p. 14) as illustrated by low-income workers all across this nation.

The aforementioned examples of university students and low-income women are a problem of the digital divide that pervades the United States. Herein lies a problem with the equity of access to technology and is deeply tied to poverty and the achievement gap. Today, in the 21st-century, many low-income and rural areas in the U.S. lack access to broadband internet. As technology is not readily accessible to students in their homes, using technology in the classroom can compensate for inequitable access only if poor and rural schools have adequate technological resources. However, many schools, both urban and rural, lack broadband internet and sufficient technology, making technology and the digital divide a double edged sword. Most students and adults in the US have mobile phones, and most low-income students and families have smart phones, more so even than higher socio-economic classes, though using cell phones to do homework and classwork use up expensive data and is unaffordable to many.

Ladson-Billings (2013) firmly states that addressing the inequity in all aspects of society, including education, is something that we all should understand. Further, we all need to share the responsibility in addressing inequities in education, such as the digital divide and the achievement gap. By sharing in the responsibility for inequities in education, we also share the responsibility for coming up with pragmatic solutions, beyond Band-Aid measures.

The inequity and problems caused by the digital divide are political and has prompted action by the U.S. government. The F.C.C., which has an existing subsidy program entitled ‘Lifeline’, which provides subsidies for cell phones to low-income persons, has expanded this program to include subsidies for internet services for low-income families. This expanded program is called ConnectEd. ConnectEd plans to connect nearly all U.S. students to high speed internet in their classrooms by 2018. This political initiative proposes to help alleviate the digital divide and help students and low-income persons look for jobs and do their homework (Council of Economic Advisors, 2015). While this initiative is hopeful, there is a long way to go to bridge the digital divide in our nation’s poorest and rural communities.

The digital divide affects educational attainment and the achievement gap. It affects low-income persons and persons in rural communities. Therefore, for change to happen in this country, first of all, the infrastructure of broadband communication systems must be updated. Further, education must disrupt the factory model of education that has prevailed in this nation for more than two centuries. The factory model should not be replaced, at least in the short term, but needs to be disrupted by blended and online learning models in classrooms across the US. Blended and online learning are innovative 21st-century constructivist pedagogy that that are disrupting the factory model of didactic 20th-century pedagogy towards progress and change.

References

Council of Economic Advisers. (2015, July). Mapping the digital divide (Issue Brief). Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_issue_brief.pdf
Eubanks, V. (2011). Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). “Stakes is high”: Educating new century students. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 105–110.

Pacansky-Brock, M. (2013). Best practices for teaching with emerging technologies. New York, NY: Rutledge.

Whitaker, T., Zoul, J., & Casas, J. (2015). What connected educators do differently. New York, NY: Routledge.