Computer technology in education and issues of power and equity

Abstract

This study aims to use a€˜techniques of power' classified (based on Foucault's work) by Gore in order to illustrate power relations between supporters (or non-supporters) of computer technology and teachers. For this purpose, six out of eight techniques of power (surveillance, normalization, exclusion, classification, distribution and regulation) is used in formulating thoughts about computer technology and issues of power and equity. In this study, these techniques of power were discussed more detailed both to exemplify how supporters (or non-supporters) of computer technology exercise power over teachers (preservice or inservice) by using of major techniques of power and to show how they are related to the issue of equity.

Keywords

• Computer Technology, Education, Power, Equity

References

1. Alliance for Childhood (2007). “Fool's gold: a critical look at computers and childhood.” Retrieved on
2. December-2008, from
3. http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold
4. Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (1998). The child and the machine: why computers may put our children’s education at risk. Toronto: Key Porter.
5. Beisser, R. S. (1999, February 28-March 4). Infusing technology in elementary social studies methods. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego.
6. Bell, R., & Tai, R. (2003). Transforming science instruction with technology. In D. A. Sheekey (Ed.), How to ensure ed/tech is not oversold and underused. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
7. Bennett, L. (2000). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 1-11.
8. Bennett, L., & Pye, J. (1998, February 18-22). Technology: Creating a community of thinkers. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO.

9. Berson, J. M. (2000). Rethinking research and pedagogy in the social studies: the creation of caring connections through technology and advocacy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(1), 121-131.
10. Braun, A. J. J. (2000). A baker's dozen: Ideas and resources in social studies teacher education. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 12-30.
11. Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1998). New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: imagining teachers as Luddites In/Deed (September, 5). Retrieved on 29-March-2009, from http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/gentech/ luddites.pdf.
12. Carvin, A. (2000). Mind the gap: the digital divide as the civil rights issue of the new millennium. Multimedia Schools, 7(1), 56-58.
13. CEO Forum (1999). “Year 2 report professional development: a link to better learning.” Retrieved on 14-February-2001, from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.htm.
14. Conlon, T. (2002). Rewiring schools versus re-schooling society (January, 8). Retrieved on 15-March-2009, from http://www.spd.dcu.ie/cesi/TomConlon.htm.
15. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
16. Cummings, C. A. (1998). Teacher attitudes and effective computer instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419 512). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
17. Darby, J. (1992). The future of computers in teaching and learning. Computers Education, 19, 193-197.
18. Diem, A. R. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493-501.
19. Easley, L., & Hoffman, S. (2000). Creating the electronic classroom a practical guide. International Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 80-93.
20. Fielding, R. (2003). IT in schools fails to raise standards (January, 15). Retrieved on 15-March-2009, from http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2121247/schools- fails-raise-standards.
21. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: an introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.
22. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2
23. nd ed., pp. 208-226).
24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Gaillard, F. D. (2001). Understanding the digital divide as it relates to electronic commerce. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University.
26. Gore, J. M. (1998). Disciplining bodies: on the continuity power relations in pedagogy. In T. S. Popkewitz & M. Brenman (Eds.), Foucault's challenge: discourse, knowledge, and power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Gross, N. (1997, May 5). A notebook for every student? How Microsoft and Toshiba are scrambling to stoke the education market. Business Week.
28. Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children ’s minds — and what we can do about it. New York: Touchstone.
29. Huinker, D., Fuller, H., & Ellwood, C. (1995). “Landscape of mathematics and science education in Milwaukee. A study of the Milwaukee public schools.” Milwaukee, WI: Center for Mathematics and Science Education Research, Wisconsin University.
30. Hurd, J. M. (1988). Technology: an agent for change in education for information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(5), 323- 336.
31. Keiper, T., Mhyre, O., & Pihl, P. (2000/2001). Enhancing school-university collaboration through technology. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 62-75.
32. Kent, W. T., & McNergney, F. R. (1999). Will technology really change education? From blackboard to web. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33. Kleiner, A., & Farris, E. (2002). "Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2001.” National Center for Educational Statistics (September, 17). Retrieved on 19-March-2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? pubid=2002018+.
34. Mason, L. C., & Berson, J. M. (2000). Computer mediated communication in elementary social studies methods: An examination of students' perceptions and perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 527-545.
35. Mason, L. C., Berson, J. M., Diem, A. R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1).
36. Misfeldt, R., & Stahl, W. A. (1991). Attitudes toward computerization in Canadian universities. Technical paper #4. Ottowa: Canadian International Development Agency.
37. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997). Task force on technology and teacher education. Washington, DC.: Technology and the new professional teacher: preparing for the 21st century classroom.
38. O'Farrell, C. (1997). Foucault resources. Retrieved on 25-March-2008, from http://www.qut.edu.au/edu/cpol/foucault/.
39. Popkewitz, T. S., & Brenman, M. (Eds.). (1998). Foucault's challenge: discourse, knowledge, and power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Postman, N. (2000). Will our children only inherit the wind? Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 580-586.
41. Robertson, H. J. (1998). No more teachers, no more books: the commercialization of Canada's school. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
42. Ross, E. W. (2000). The promise and perils of e-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 482-492.
43. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
44. Seymour, L. (2000). Teachers online but disconnected; many in area lack the time, training to use computers in class. Washington Post, pp. A.01.
45. Southwick, K. (1997, March). Are corporate technology initiatives more PR than philanthropy? Electronic School, p. A13.
46. Stoll, C. (1999). High-tech heretic. New York: Random House.
47. Tausz, A. (1996, October 15). How tech firms court the key education market. Globe and Mail, pp. C6.
48. Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection. (1995). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.
49. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995).
50. Van Dijk, J. (1999). The network society. Social aspects of new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. VanFossen, P. J. (1999). An analysis of the use of the Internet and World Wide Web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana. International Journal of Social Education, 14(2), 87-109.
52. Whitworth, S., & Berson, J. M. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: an examination of the effectiveness literature 1996-2001. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 472-509.