The pre-survey we took on the first day of class was a very good benchmark that showed how little I actually knew about digital technology.  I remember answering the question “How will you use digital media in the classroom?” with ”I will use movies and music”, but after taking this class I have realized that digital technology is so much more than knowing about how to use basic computer functions.   Digital technology is complex, and the issue of digital equity is a vital element of the education system in our country that needs to be addressed.

While digital equity is important, I believe that there are ways to make it work, and ways that are impractical.  Programs, like the one-to-one laptop program we read about in a previous blog article, do not seem practical to me.  It is expensive program and is at the expense of the public.  It does not seem right that one be forced to pay for other childrens laptops when one has needs of his/her own.  While this may seem a bit negative, I do think there are ways to make digital equity work.  I believe that teachers are the most important part of the process.  Resourceful teachers can make things happen with a good idea, initiative, and persistence.  They can find ways that technology can be successfully integrated into an important part of a child’s education, meanwhile diminishing the achievement gap as a whole.  This is much harder to make work, and much more involved, but I believe it is practical.  There are plenty of schools that have access to technological resources, but these opportunities go to waste when teachers do not utilize them in a productive manner.

Digital equity as a whole is a hard issue to resolve because there are so many variables involved that could go so many unexpected ways; nevertheless teachers in and entering the education system need to be educated, aware, and thinking about what they/we can do to help improve the education of our children in this country.  Do you think complete digital equity can be accomplished?

I think this latest blog article sounds really good, but lacks depth.  While reading I saw numerous fancy words and ideas that sound good, but they all are very vague.  I don’t feel like this article really explains much, but instead tries to captivate the reader with sugarcoated points. With that being said I don’t think this article was a complete waste of time to read; I did actually like what it had to say about technology with regards to assessment and teaching.

I think that using technology in assessment is vital.  Our focus on standardized testing forces children to spend hours doing drills at their desk, and taking pencil and paper tests; I believe this not productive at all.  Children today are used to playing video games, watching television, or even playing on the computer.  Integrating technology into assessments, and taking standardized tests on specialized software would create a much more engaging environment for children, I believe it would also create a much more reliable outcome of student scores.  Software could be created for test taking that personalizes tests to individual students; what would it look like if we used a program like Siri to administer and evaluate standardized testing?  Using technology for assessment would also provide immediate feedback, which allows students to know how they did and what they got wrong right away.

I also liked how the section on teaching focused on how teachers will play a huge role in integrating technology with education.  I think the suggested actions at the end are quite sensible and really would help teachers integrate technology in a productive way.   I especially like the suggestion of using social networking platforms to help teachers learn and grow technology-wise throughout their entire career.  I believe that integrating technology is not a simple two-step process, and teacher will need to constantly evaluate and improve what they are doing, and how they are doing it.

I think that Mark Warschauer’s view on ways to increase and improve issues related to the digital age are very thoughtful, and could be very effective.  I like how he points out at the beginning of the essay the five digital differences that impact learning and teaching, and includes the issue of a gender gap.  I had never even thought about that, and I found it really interesting.  I think that the research he points out regarding computer usage between genders might be a little out of date though.  With the rise of Facebook I think that maybe boys and girls use the computer to interact socially more equally than in 2005, but more research should be done on that issue.

I also found the generation gap he talks about to be very interesting, and actually something I am experiencing this semester.  My biology professor is old enough to be my grandmother (her words), and does not use technology in her classroom at all.  Since middle school I have become accustomed to teachers at least using PowerPoint to give lessons, if not making even more use out of technology.  I find it really difficult to learn and study now without the use of this technology; I didn’t the realize extent of how much I gained from digital technology until it was taken away.

Warschauer’s explanation of why intense research projects work well, like Project Fresa, is very well thought out.  After reading this essay I think that projects like this make perfect sense.  I also really like idea of one-to-one laptop programs.  I can say from personal experience that having a laptop gives me a much higher opportunity to succeed in my classes.  I just wonder, from an economic standpoint how can we make one-to-one programs more accessible to more communities?  I can imagine that these programs are expensive, and do think they should be used more, but I can’t think of a good way to finance it.  I think that taxing more is a bad idea, but I wonder what other option there are?  I hope that more communities can find an answer to this question because I think that one-to-one programs could solve a lot of problems surrounding education and the digital media age.

I thought this article had a lot of good and relevant points that were communicated very well.  I liked the way that Jenkins used real world examples to illustrate the points he was making; it helped solidify his ideas.

I think Jenkins’ argument for why we should teach students how to use the media is very compelling and thorough, but one of my biggest questions that arose from reading the article has to do with the laizze faire approach Jenkins seems to points his finger at. Are the problems Jenkins points out really caused by a laizze faire approach?  I’m not sure I agree with him.   Is educating students about media literacy the same thing as imposing regulations?  Maybe I am just being nit-picky with his word usage and am taking it to far, but I feel like he is being a little biased.

In my opinion, the ethics problem Jenkins discusses is one of his most compelling points.  I think there are many similarities between the use of the Internet and driving. While driving we feel safe in our cars, and protected from all the strangers we are driving next to; this create a sense of isolation.  Because of this isolation we feel more anonymous; we are more likely to cut someone off or tailgate them.  In a face-to-face situation I think that most people would act in a much more polite and civilized manner because they are not isolated and anonymous from one another.  I believe the Internet causes this same dilemma. People become more anonymous under screen names, which seems to blur the lines of what ethical behavior should be.

I think it is important to help students understand this problem, as well as understand how to act in an ethical and civilized manner in a place where the appropriate actions are sometimes vague.