skip to main content


Title: Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology on Social Inequity in the United States
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.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1828010
NSF-PAR ID:
10344398
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
23rd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2021) - Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive Environments
Volume:
12769
Page Range / eLocation ID:
41–51
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. In this paper, we outline how science teachers might engage in the work of creating educational equity. While acknowledging the historical inherent inequities associated with issues of access, opportunities to engage in science learning for individuals of marginalized identities (e.g., BIPOC individuals and women), and achievement, we broaden this definition to include social justice as a framework by which we can develop opportunities for the fostering of students' affinity identities with science. To this end, we draw on theorizations of equity within educational research, specifically discussed as excellence, equality, fairness, a zero-sum game, and most recently, social justice. Additionally, we utilize McKinney de Royston and Nasir's (2017) Racialized Learning Ecologies framework. This framework provides a useful lens to notice the layers of (in)equity within education. We then extend this ecological model into science education and present three lenses (i.e., layers) through which equity operates within science teaching and learning. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of doing the work of equity, that is, recognizing, interpreting, and redressing inequity in science classrooms. Ultimately, we provide an actionable definition of equity that has the potential to facilitate transformative and socially just science teaching and learning. 
    more » « less
  2. Team- and project-based pedagogies are increasingly normative in engineering education and beyond. Student teamwork holds the promise of developing collaborative skills deemed essential for new engineers by professional accreditation bodies such as ABET. The emphasis on these models, furthermore, reflects developments in pedagogical theory, stressing the importance of experiential learning and the social construction of knowledge, repositioning the instructor as a facilitator and guide. Teamwork in an educational context differs from that in professional contexts in that learning outcomes for all team members – both in terms of technical knowledge and team-working skills – are a primary goal of the activity, even while more tangible task-related outcomes might be the main concern of the students themselves. However, team-based learning also holds the potential for team members to have negative experiences, of which instructors may have little or no awareness, especially in real-time. Teams may achieve team-level outcomes required for successful completion, in spite of uneven levels of participation and contribution. Reduced participation on the part of an individual team member may have many causes, pro-active or reactive: it may be a deliberate refusal to engage, a lack of self-confidence, or a response to hostility from other members, among other possibilities. Inequitable team interactions will lead to uneven uptake of desired learning outcomes. Fostering equity in interactions and identifying inequitable practices among team members is therefore an important part of implementing team-based pedagogies, and an essential first step in identifying and challenging systematic patterns of inequity with regard to members of historically marginalized groups. This paper will therefore explore ways in which equity in group decision-making may be conceptualized and observed, laying the foundations for identifying and addressing inequities in the student experience. It will begin by considering different potential manifestations of interactional equity, surveying notions derived from prior education research in the fields of health, mathematics, engineering, and the natural sciences. These notions include: equity of participation on the basis of quantified vocal contributions (in terms of words, utterances, or clausal units); distribution and evolution of interactional roles; equity of idea endorsement and uptake; distribution of inchargeness and influence; equity of access to positional identities and discourse practices; and team member citizenship. In the paper’s empirical component, we trial measures of equity taken or developed from this literature on a small dataset of transcripts showing verbal interactions between undergraduate student team members in a first-year engineering design course. Some measures will be qualitative and others quantitative, depending on the particular form and manifestation of equity they are designed to examine. Measures include manual coding of speech acts and interactional ‘bids’, statistical measures of utterance frequency and length, and computational approaches to modeling interactional features such as social impact and receptivity. Results are compared with the students’ own reflections on the interactions, taken immediately afterward. Recommendations are made for the application of the measures, both from research and practice perspectives. Keywords: Teamwork, Equity, Interaction, Design 
    more » « less
  3. The National Science Foundation (2019) points to Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Island peoples as underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) college majors and professional pathways. This underrepresentation results from an interplay of representation and process, meaning that it in part results from STEM opportunities and programming that do not reflect the experiences of racially and ethnically diverse people, offer insight into the needs of diverse communities, nor address barriers that prevent participation (McGee 2020). One way that institutions of higher education (IHEs) and community organizations try to address inequities in STEM is through pre-college programs aimed at supporting racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) youth. These pre-college STEM programs (PCSPs) work to foster increased STEM awareness and support students in achieving academic milestones that make college pathways more viable. Out-of-school learning (OSL) and informal STEM programming have the potential to fill gaps in STEM K–12 education, as well as complement and support connections with K–12 STEM by offering REM youth opportunities to connect STEM with their lives and influence both their capabilities and dispositions toward STEM (Kitchen et al. 2018). Studies have pointed to positive connections between OSL STEM participation and outcomes such as high school graduation, sustained interest in STEM, and matriculation to university (Penuel, Clark, and Bevan 2016). PCSPs may also support IHE’s development of infrastructure to increase admissions of REM students into college STEM programs. For PCSPs to be an effective element of reducing inequities in STEM, they must successfully engage with and recruit REM youth to participate. In this article, we focus on the recruitment of REM youth into STEM OSL to better understand what is effective for REM youth and their families, as well as highlight connections between OSL and in-school STEM opportunities. Our goals in this work are to (1) identify program practices with the aim of broadening STEM educational and career pathways for REM youth and (2) support strengthened pathways between STEM in K–12 schools and IHEs. 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Technology has the opportunity to assist older adults as they age in place, coordinate caregiving resources, and meet unmet needs through access to resources. Currently, older adults use consumer technologies to support everyday life, however these technologies are not always accessible or as useful as they can be. Indeed, industry has attempted to create smart home technologies (e.g., Microsoft HomeOS, Intel CareNet) with older adults as a target user group, however these solutions are oftenmore focused on the technical aspects and are short lived. In this paper, we advocate for older adults being involved in the design process - from initial ideation to product development to deployment. We encourage federally funded researchers and industry to create compensated, diverse older adult advisory boards to address stereotypes about aging while ensuring their needs are considered. We envision artificial intelligence (AI) systems that augment resources instead of replacing them - especially in under-resourced communities. Older adults rely on their caregiver networks and community organizations for social, emotional, and physical support; thus, AI should be used to coordinate resources better and lower the burden of connecting with these resources. Although sociotechnical smart systems can help identify needs of older adults, the lack of affordable research infrastructure and translation of findings into consumer technology perpetuates inequities in designing for diverse older adults. In addition, there is a disconnect between the creation of smart sensing systems and creating understandable, actionable data for older adults and caregivers to utilize. We ultimately advocate for a well-coordinated research effort across the United States that connects older adults, caregivers, community organizations, and researchers together to catalyze innovative and practical research for all stakeholders. 
    more » « less
  5. While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review. 
    more » « less