An official website of the United States government
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
Can Program Structure Advance Equity in Graduate Education?
Abstract The importance of creating diverse and equitable environments in higher education has gained growing recognition in recent years (Allen, 2005). While individual-level bias training has shown limited efficacy, this study proposes that program structure—characterized by clear, transparent, and uniformly applied standards, expectations, and norms—may be a more effective route to equity. Leveraging data from a large U.S. public university, we present evidence from multi-level modeling that demonstrates the positive relationship between program structure and equity-related outcomes, including psychological well-being and academic performance. Notably, these effects appear to disproportionately benefit women and underrepresented minority students, suggesting that structure may be particularly impactful for marginalized students, who are often excluded from informal informational networks within their departments. This research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on practical strategies for achieving equity in higher education, offering an alternative to individual-focused interventions. We discuss the theoretical implications for research on marginalized groups and provide actionable recommendations for practitioners. The study highlights the potential of structural approaches in fostering more equitable and inclusive learning environments in higher education.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2015104
- PAR ID:
- 10591154
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Innovative Higher Education
- ISSN:
- 0742-5627
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract The purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine the effectiveness of a comprehensive, integrated curricular and co-curricular program designed to build community, provide academic and social support, and promote engagement in academically purposeful activities resulting in more equitable environments for historically underrepresented, low-income science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) information technology (IT) students. The study also focused on the role that the sense of belonging and academic hope play in enhancing persistence to degree completion. Program participants had significantly higher persistence rates compared to a matched comparison group. Additionally, STEM-specific belonging and academic hope significantly predicted students’ intentions to persist to degree completion in IT. A major finding was that STEM domain–specific belonging was a stronger predictor of persistence than general belonging. Our investigation has implications for the role that cohort-based programs, industry engagement, peer mentoring, proactive advising, undergraduate research opportunities, career preparation, and leveraging need-based financial aid play in ensuring equity in STEM.more » « less
-
Who makes decisions about what K-12 computer science education(CSed) should look like? While equitable participation is a central focus of K-12 CSed, the field has largely thought about equity through the lens of providing access to inclusive and robust CS learning. But issues of who has a "seat at the table" in determining the shape of those experiences, and the larger field that structures them, have been largely under-explored. This panel session argues that equitable CSed must take into account questions of participation in decision-making about CSed, with such issues of power themselves a key dimension of equity in any education effort. We highlight efforts engaging stakeholders from across the education landscape-parents, educators, community members, administrators, and students-exploring how decision-making is structured, how voices that are usually marginalized might be elevated, the tensions involved in these processes, and the relationships between participation and equity.more » « less
-
IntroductionThis study was undertaken to explore the potential of developing a working theory of improvement for creating a more equitable system of science education at the level of a US state. We ask: How can tools from a long-term research-practice partnership support a state team in initiating improvement research toward promoting a more equitable system of science education? MethodsThis design study took place in winter 2024 in a single state. External partners supported leaders of a single state in the US Northeast to support a process of articulating aims, specifying primary and secondary drivers, and identifying change strategies to promote a more equitable system of science education in the state, grounded in the vision ofA Framework for K-12 Science Education(National Research Council, 2012). In this paper, we rely on descriptive analyses of joint meetings and a focus group with state leaders describe the tools supporting the process of development, the team’s use of the tools to generate an early draft of the Driver Diagram, and issues surfaced while developing it with a team of interest holders in the state. ResultsTwo meanings of equity emerged as significant within the series of meetings: that of the importance of universal access to professional learning and the importance of students having opportunities to experience culturally relevant instruction. The issues surfaced highlighted the need for infrastructures for professional learning to reach a diverse group of interest holders in science, including teachers, school leaders, and district leaders across the state. They also saw curriculum materials that connect to students’ everyday lives and community priorities as key drivers for equitable change in the system, around which professional learning activities should be organized. The team also surfaced several policy changes needed to implement change strategies, only some of which team members felt they had some authority. DiscussionWhere past researchers have observed that equity can disappear as a focus during implementation of reforms, this study found that developing an aim statement and driver diagram helped energize and refocus a team’s implementation efforts geared toward a vision for science teaching and learning that is focused on ensuring all students can engage in meaningful science learning that is culturally and locally relevant to them.more » « less
-
Research in science education with multilingual learners (MLs) has expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion can be situated within a larger dialogue about what it means to provide minoritized students with an equitable education. Whereas some conceptions of equity focus on ensuring all students have access to the knowledge, practices, and language normatively valued in K‐12 schools (equity as access), increasingly prominent conceptions focus on transforming those knowledge, practices, and language in ways that center minoritized students and their communities (equity as transformation). In this article, we argue that conceptions of equity provide a useful lens for understanding emerging research in science education with MLs and for charting a research agenda. We begin by tracing how conceptions of equity have evolved in parallel across STEM and multilingual education. Then, we provide an overview of recent developments from demographic, theoretical, and policy perspectives. In the context of these developments, we provide a conceptual synthesis of emerging research by our team of early‐career scholars in three areas: (a) learning, (b) assessment, and (c) teacher education. Within each area, we unpack the research efforts in terms of how they attend to equity as access while pushing toward equity as transformation. Finally, we propose a research agenda for science education with MLs that builds on and extends these efforts. We close by offering recommendations for making this research agenda coherent and impactful: (a) being explicit about our conceptions of equity, (b) paying attention to the interplay of structure and agency, and (c) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.more » « less
