Gurmeet singh
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: divided democracy in the age of social media.
Princeton University Press.
As the Internet grows more sophisticated, it is creating new threats to democracy. Social media companies such as Facebook can sort us ever more efficiently into groups of the like-minded, creating echo chambers that amplify our views.
Sobaci, M. Z., & Hatipoğlu İ
ahim (Eds XXXXXXXXXX). Sub-national democracy and politics through social
media (Ser. Public administration and information technology, volume 29). Springer. https:
doi.org/10.1007/ XXXXXXXXXX
This book analyzes the impact of social media on democracy and politics at the sub-national level in developed and developing countries. Over the last decade or so
Arthur, C. (2021). Social Warming: The Dangerous and Polarising Effects of Social Media.
Simon and Schuster.
An impassioned exploration of the ways in which social media has manipulated us all. Facebook didn't mean to facilitate a genocide. Twitter didn't want to be used to harass women.
Scott, D. M XXXXXXXXXXThe Political Candidate Social Media Divide.
EContent, 33(4), 40.
In this article the author talks about the use of social media in campaigns and cites the Obama for America program which yielded millions of connections on the Facebook and MyBO accounts of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Lukes CA XXXXXXXXXXSocial media. AAOHN Journal, 58(10), 415–417.
https:
doi-org.trexler.idm.oclc.org/10.3928/ XXXXXXXXXX
Various social media sites, including Facebook, have become part of everyday life. They are used by individuals of all ages and are even favored by companies and organizations as a promotional mechanism. Professional organizations, including the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc., would be remiss to overlook the potential of social media.
Student Paper
CS 475 – Ethics and Technology
Research Paper – Educational Technology and Reducing Achievement Gaps
Throughout the United States, large achievement gaps exist between students of higher-
socioeconomic status and those of lower socioeconomic status, often with several grade levels of
achievement separating students from these different groups (Groeger, Waldman, & Eads, 2018).
American schools have increasingly turned to digital technology, such as the use of SmartBoards
and iPads as well as general computer usage, to supplement the learning experience. However,
students of higher socio-economic status are more likely to have access to digital technology at
home than are those who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which can give them
an advantage over students without access to such resources. Students in impoverished schools
also tend to have less access to educational technology opportunities, both in-school and without.
This phenomenon is known as the “digital divide”, and it has received attention from several
policy-makers and ethicists. The digital divide has many implications for the effort of ensuring
that all students receive equal and adequate educational opportunities that will allow them to
each their full potentials and, as St. Francis de Sales said, “be who [they] are and be that well”.
Many school districts across the United States have implemented various educational
technology policies, such as one-to-one laptop initiatives, in an effort to close the digital divide
etween students from various socioeconomic backgrounds. The hope is that by providing
esources and opportunities through such programs, not only will the digital divide close but
achievement gaps will as well. However, a consideration of such initiatives implemented until
the present day shows that while they have generally increased overall academic achievement,
they often affect members of various demographic groups differently such that achievement gaps
may actually increase.
2
One example of an educational technology program aimed at reducing the digital divide
is the Tech Goes Home initiative, described by DeGennaro XXXXXXXXXXin her article “Opening
Digital Doors”. The Tech Goes Home initiative is a program in lower-income communities of
Boston in which students and teachers help parents learn technology skills after regular school
classes are finished for the day. These technology skills are specifically oriented towards
helping parents be involved in their children’s educations and towards helping both students and
parents succeed in the workforce. DeGennaro provided several examples:
[W]e have parents practice using Microsoft Word and Excel by keeping a record of their
child’s progress in school and of their own progress in learning computer skills. Kids
teach parents web searching strategies by helping them pursue information about their
career goals. (para. 15)
Once a family has completed twenty-five hours of this training, they may purchase a computer
for fifty dollars and then keep this computer at home to use for schoolwork and other purposes.
Since the implementation of this program, testing scores in both language arts and
mathematics have risen. DeGennaro reported,
Between June 2008 and July 2009, for instance, the number of 6th graders failing math at
Frederick [a Boston middle school implementing the program] decreased by almost 50
percent and the number of 7th graders failing English language arts decreased by 20
percent. (para. 27)
This seems to show that the program has had significant positive results in improving
achievement in at least one mainly low-income school in which most students come from
minority racial / ethnic backgrounds. Some aspects of this program that may have been
particularly instrumental in achieving this result ought again to be emphasized: the partnership
3
etween students, parents, and educators and the way that the program is oriented towards
identifying and fulfilling the needs and desires of the participants.
The need for educational initiatives to consider the individual needs of the persons they
are intended to serve has been shown in various other ways as well and is in keeping with a
personalistic approach to equalizing educational opportunities. For example, Eglash, Gilbert,
Taylor, and Geier XXXXXXXXXXelaborated on this need in their article “Culturally Responsive
Computing in U
an, After-School Contexts: Two Approaches”. The article weighed the effects
of two different types of educational technology tools on the achievement of minority
populations. Specifically, both types of educational technology referenced the cultures of
minority demographic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Native
Americans, to try to more fully engage such students and have them perceive the concepts taught
as more relevant and applicable to them. The article showed the importance of cultural
sensitivity when designing educational technologies meant to help
idge the digital divide and
increase the achievement of racial / ethnic minority populations in the United States.
The first type of program, African American Distributed Multiple Learning Styles
Systems (AADMLSS) involved a na
ative program steeped in u
an vernacular culture as a way
of teaching mathematics. Culturally Situated Design Tools (CSDTs), the other program
introduced, worked to teach mathematical concepts such as fractal geometry through references
to geometric patterns and structures found in traditional African, Hispanic, and Native American
art and architecture. The authors of the report identified the difference between the two
approaches: “In reverse from AADMLSS history, which began with an educational system
attempting to develop math/culture connections, CSDTs began with a culture/math connection –
and the question was then how to apply these rich relationships to education” (p XXXXXXXXXXBoth
4
were found to be associated with “statistically significant improvement in math and computing
performance and attitudes toward computing careers in some controlled studies” (p. 641), again
showing the need for programs to consider well the needs and situations of their participants.
Other studies have shown that not all programs introduced have been equally successful
in improving student outcomes, however. For example, Falck, Mang, and Woessman (2018)
conducted an empirical study of data collected from countries worldwide on the impact of
classroom computers on academic achievement. Their article “Virtually No Effect? Different
Uses of Classroom Computers and Their Effect on Student Achievement” found that the use of
computers to look up information positively affected students’ overall achievement, but the use
of computers to practice skills, at least while learning mathematics and science, actually
decreases students’ achievement. The authors reported,
The effect sizes suggest that in 4th grade, a one-standard-deviation increase in the
intensity of computer use to look up ideas and information increases student achievement
y XXXXXXXXXX% of a standard deviation (depending on the included controls) in maths (and
an insignificant XXXXXXXXXX% in science). By contrast, a one-standard deviation increase in
the intensity of computer use to practice skills and procedures decreases achievement by
1.2-1.9% of a standard deviation in maths and by XXXXXXXXXX% in science. (p. 22)
It is interesting to note the especially negative effect of computer use on science achievement.
This may seem counterintuitive, as one might think that science concepts would be much easier
to practice and learn online in comparison with mathematical concepts (due to the difficulty
involved in displaying and inputting mathematical symbols in digital environments). However,
perhaps it is the loss of the hands-on aspect of science education that can account for the overall
negative impact. The results found in this study imply that educators and policy-makers must
5
carefully consider whether digital educational technology truly will improve students’ academic
achievement more than traditional learning and teaching methods will.
Educators and policy-makers must also consider the effects of proposed policies on
achievement gaps, keeping in mind the common good of society. Closer analysis of the effects
of many programs intended to close the digital divide between students from various socio-
economic backgrounds reveals that they may affect these different groups of students to different
extents. For example, the paper referenced above found that the use of computers in education
has stronger effects (both positive and negative) on the academic performance of high-
socioeconomic status students than low-socioeconomic status students (p. 25), with the number
of books available in a student’s home used as a measure of socioeconomic status. Thus, it
seems that students of high socioeconomic status are more sensitive to technology than are those
of low socioeconomic status. Tawfik, Reeves, and Stich’s XXXXXXXXXXarticle “Intended and
Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology on Social Inequality” noted that this is
due to various concerns such as “proficiency in the language of the software, ability to interpret
output, or understanding of how to apply the technology to increase learning” (p XXXXXXXXXXThe
authors thus cautioned that prior knowledge regarding technology, which is stratified across the
members of different socioeconomic groups, plays a significant role in the effectiveness of
digital education initiatives.
For this reason, educational technology initiatives intended to
idge the digital divide
and provide equal opportunity to all may in fact increase achievement gaps rather than na
ow
them. Smith XXXXXXXXXXresearched this phenomenon in his dissertation “Leveling the Playing Field:
Using a One-to-One Laptop Initiative to Close the Achievement Gap”, an empirical study of the
effects of a one-to-one laptop initiative (a program in which each student has access to a laptop
6
in school for educational purposes) in the Mooresville Graded School District of Mooresville,
North Carolina. He found that a conversion to digital technology na
owed the achievement gap
etween female and male students but actually increased the achievement gap between black and
white students and between students who were proficient in English and those who were not.
For example, regarding the mathematical achievement gap between black and white students
efore and after the initiative, the author reported,
The average scale score for black students before the one-to-one laptop initiative was
XXXXXXXXXXThe average scale score after the implementation year was XXXXXXXXXXThere
was an average scale score increase of XXXXXXXXXXfor black students. The average scale
score for white students before the one-to-one laptop initiative was XXXXXXXXXX, compared
with an average scale score of XXXXXXXXXXafter the implementation year. The average
scale score for white students increased by XXXXXXXXXXfrom before to after the one-to-one
laptop initiative. (p. 72)
Thus, the one-to-one laptop initiative had an almost ten times greater effect on the mathematical
achievement of white students than on the mathematical achievement of black students.
The preceding discussion shows that educational technology initiatives intended to close
achievement gaps must be considered and evaluated very carefully. We have noted two factors
that should be taken into consideration: different effects of technological initiatives on students
from various backgrounds, due to differing prior knowledge of the technology involved in such
initiatives; and the importance of cultural sensitivity when designing such programs.
Especially important is a consideration of whether educational technology initiatives will
truly
ing about a fairer and more equal society. This points to the larger question of whether
equalizing educational opportunity or equalizing educational outcome should be prioritized. On