Commuter Students Using Technology was an extensive project that surveyed what types of computer equipment students used to access the internet, and how and where the equipment was being used. The survey also discussed availability and obstacles to access students might have in using equipment, and sought to understand the scholarly habits of students.
Information Computer Technology is the central theme that surrounds the 5W/1H of the survey which was years in the making and although ICT is embedded in and throughout our lives, the survey revealed how students might experience pressure in utilizing ICT for their work if they have access for a short time only or not at all. The survey also discussed ways in which the CUNY system attempts to solve the problem through access in labs, libraries and classrooms, but is this enough? Some teachers would tell students if they did not have access at home then come to school to get their work done – fair enough.
The survey also discussed student preference for using Google Books over academic databases for library research, relying on whatever information they can find without confirming accuracy of facts. Some students honestly revealed they were more comfortable using Google Books, felt frustrated using CUNY’s website and did not know how to cite correctly. Should workshops be made available during the freshman year to ensure accuracy of research work and citations so that students produce quality work throughout their years as students? Given the likelihood of enjoying quality immersive experiences through ICT, students should raise the bar in their own work and privilege the use of authors rather than settling for whatever writings they can find online. As we know searching for supportive information that helps build a writing is part of what creates a sense of pride in having completed a work beyond the student’s satisfaction. This is an easy fix.
So, what creates the digital divide? We think of children who were born during the rapid advance in ICT as digital natives. This study shows the shortfall that is inherent in the term especially when these digital natives do not fully utilize ICT as tools for academic growth but rather as tools for pleasure, just barely scratching the surface around what can be accomplished with ICT, rather than using these tools as assets and resources for knowledge. Although the study indicated that students used ICT to study while commuting, is this the blended experience educators are hoping their students have? Are students using available tools to collaborate around their work, to further research to increase their knowledge base, to gain interest in the work of others, or to use other available resources offered by the City to increase or enhance their curiosity around some subject? Educators could ensure that students experience a fully blended experience by developing specific requirements around the use of ICT and digital tools outside the classroom.
It would be an interesting survey if teachers were to reveal the ways in which they incorporate ICT into their curriculums or for administrators to share ideas around how to increase the levels of success throughout their schools through the use of ICT. What expectations would educators have if they taught children that more can happen beyond the scope of Microsoft’s products? As Hsieh points out, being able to work with digital tools (as well as to think outside the box) is part of what students need to enjoy fuller “life chances”. The student in the study who used “Bit Torrent” was thinking outside the box. I actually said to myself “bravo” this student is figuring out how to get what he needs in the way that is most comfortable for him. Imagine if that was a typical experience amongst Digital Natives (I am not advocating illegal activity just making the point that we need to get beyond typical usage) – now we are on the path to raising the bar as students, and with the guidance of teachers, finding new ways to experience immersive educations. That should be part of the challenge for educators and administrators – teach students how to use digital tools to solve problems, to create, to think outside the box.
All of this requires a sea change if we are to address the digital divide. We know that Wi-Fi will be integrated into schools within the next two years. As the survey indicated, more students are currently using tablets, and for those who do not have their own equipment, I think it is a good idea to implement loan programs. But what about administrators and teachers? How ICT and digital tools are utilized will determine if we can raise the bar in education, if we can use these tools to help students become creators, makers, builders, problem solvers. Teachers and administrators, are you up for teaching students how to realize the breadth of material available to support imaginative challenges? Then let’s use digital tools to make education fun. Let’s put certain rules in place though and then let’s recreate expectations – freshman year, teach the basics through workshops where students must present a working knowledge around how to research. Sophomore year take a dive into immersive academia and don’t come back up until seniors have earned their diplomas.
We can do it.


Rachel,
I’m really glad you brought up Joe’s point about asynchronous learning as a “leveler,” since it was a point that stuck me as well. To me, Joe’s assertion ran counter to a lot of what I’ve heard and read suggesting that the relative anonymity of the online environment makes it more dangerous–not safer–for students and faculty members. In true CUNY student fashion, I googled “cyberbullly online learning” and received a number of interesting hits. Walden University, an online university, did a study with (only 68 of) their faculty to find that 62% said they had never been cyber-bullied in an online classroom, and 34% said they had. (The rest weren’t sure). I also found the abstract of a paper from the Sloan Consortium conference on Online Learning in 2013 entitled “Cyber-bullying faculty in the Online Classroom,” which looks at the particular vulnerability of adjuncts who teach online classes. While I see Joe’s point that students who have disabilities, tattoos, accents, whatever, can be judged on the merit of their ideas not their looks/sounds, I think he was remiss not to acknowledge the flip side of this anonymity.
Sarah
At least two assumptions are at play in this week’s readings: that digital natives have access to technology 24/7 (and know how to use it) and that they know how to ‘best’ use ICT to learn/do research/etc.
I agree with Genevieve that Smale and Regalado’s suggestions for how institutions can help mitigate technology constraints for students, while important, are not enough. They address the first assumption. But what about the second one—the how to use ICT to learn/research? One of Smale and Regalado’s faculty member respondents hits the how:
“I think it’s something that we have to delve into more, and say: If they’re going to hit the Internet first, then we’re going to have to be responsible for guiding them through it somehow.”
For me, this appears to be the harder assumption to overcome (not in cyberspace, but in real life). And some instructors recognize this problem of the “how” and are solving it. But how do we broaden this dissemination of knowledge? Oh, and it seems as if (good) asynchronous instruction may be a strong model for how to teach students to ‘best’ use ICT in their everyday academic lives.
——
Something else that came up for me in this week’s readings, while not related to Genevieve’s response, is the thought of how socialization/identities formed in asynchronous learning environments play out in ‘real-life’ situation. Not all students who learn online will have the opportunity to forge real-life relationships with class members or instructors. But what about for those who do?
The idea that asynchronous learning environments may act as levelers—in that those who have marked identities (Joe writes about this) can develop alternative online identities (Joe call them “computer-mediated personalities”) that may or may not rely on these markers—is very appealing. It also seems to work. But what if I want to establish an in-person relationship with an online class member who knows me via a specific moniker/online identity? When/how do I reveal myself? Can I form successful online/real-life relationships with instructors and colleagues?
As Joe writes: “Again–computer-mediated personalities are different (in eliminating the physical, and changing the nature of time, as I described in my earlier comment), but they’re not necessarily inferior, less-nuanced, less-complex, or less important to master.”
Without privileging computer-mediated or real-life identities, can we think about how one (successfully) merges/amalgamates/mediates the two? As I write this, I remember that online learning is not the only platform where this can be an issue. Gamers, among others, may face the same issue.