In the spring of 1995 Washington State University's College of Education's Virtual Professional Development School created the 1995 Virtual Science and Mathematics Fair. (See Holden, 1995; Wilson, 1995; McDouough, 1995; Johnson, 1995; & Sommerfeld, 1995.) The Fair was predicated on use of the Internet to conduct all facets of a scientific meeting. The idea was to offer students in K-12 settings opportunities to do research, present their findings and defend their work as young scientists through the Internet. The Fair announced a call-for-papers which lasted from May 15, 1995 to October 6, 1995 aimed at eliciting responses from teachers and their students. Over one hundred respondents were guided to ask intriguing questions and prepare scientific posters. These were then posted on the Internet and visitors were invited to participate in poster sessions through late November and early December by entering into discussions with the student-author-scientists.
There were many indications of successful interaction and learning, but as good as we felt about providing high quality educational opportunities, a question nagged at us. Does the Internet exclude women, minorities, or the disabled?
Do the educational opportunities offered on the Internet provide ample opportunity for all individuals to participate and learn equally? This question has two dimensions.
First, the opportunity to use the Internet is exclusive in the sense that only the students with access to equipment are able to participate. Districts without sufficient funds or interest are limiting the opportunities to their students. There is evidence that in this dimension, there are inequities (Department of Commerce, 1993). But in this manner the inequities are imposed by the fiscal system of the local school district and not the technology. These inequities could be real and significant but they are beyond the scope of this paper.
The technology of distance communications via the Internet is the second dimension that could have been exclusive. During the 1995 Virtual Science and Mathematics Fair we paid particular attention to the interface of Internet and children to see if any biases were detected in participation.
In 1993, Noden & Moss, argued that the benefit to students participating in Internet revolved not around the technological components of computer work but around the reading and writing components brought about by email, and Internet interactions. I agree with this position and have witnessed this increase in language skill in my science classrooms and in the language skills classrooms of others and agree that the understanding of the technology for technology's sake is of secondary importance. If language skills acquired in elementary educational are the critical outcomes of Internet interaction then it is vital that we address the equity issues involved surrounding Internet interfaces.
During a recent collaboration, (Facemyer, Franz & Peterson; in press) local teacher Kristi Franz echoes these views and concerns. She teaches a multiage classroom of children from 6 to 8 years of age on the Palouse (a rural area in eastern Washington) and asserts that the use of Internet technology in her classroom is aimed at promoting literacy. Her children embrace the technological aspect of her teaching in a natural, transparent and assumed fashion.
"In the classroom, the weaving together of real and virtual is appearing to be seamless for children. They accept the tools of technology for the learning and journeys it provides them. They make the connections between the processes, contexts and contents of email messages, network text conferences, websites, live video conferencing around the globe, lumaphone conversations and software programs with the processes, contexts, and contents of traditional classroom resources of books, maps, globes, manipulative materials, paper and pencil writing, classroom discussions and classroom hands-on activities." (Franz, 1996)
The technology fits into her classroom along with her quilts and chlidrens' art in a natural, blended way. It is very hard to point to any technology education, or education about computers for computers sake. This approach relegates the Internet technology to that of a simple tool. To the extent that pen, crayon, and paper are inert and nonexclusive technologies, the use of Internet in this classroom is nonexclusive. And to the extent that it opens doors, it is very inclusive.
"As we write and read from our global journeys, we are learning who we are and what our community is as well as learning about others. [The use of Internet for sharing childrens' art and writing] is creating a social context for learning with access to knowledgeable classmates and teachers extending beyond our classroom to classrooms on many continents." (Franz, 1996)
Kristi's use of Internet technology is a very inclusive tool for generating cultural sensitivity and understanding. Kristi's success is no guarantee that the tool couldn't be misused, but it is strong evidence for the positive possibilities. It is the counterexample or these negative possibilities we must next examine.
There is a claim that the information superhighway (Internet) may cause division of skills and benefits away from specific ethnic groups. In 1994, Slater describes a gap in the difference between the preparation of African-Americans surrounding the use and ownership of "information" capital. Slater makes the claim that African-Americans may be less equipped to participate in the coming information society based on previous inequities. This is an important consideration, because if language development is one of the key uses of Internet, then how will this technology contribute to the widening the "gap in technology" experienced by African-Americans? Or will it contribute to the closure of this gap?
Counter to Slater's views, Ronald Taylor's (1995) article "The Great Divide," states that technology is acting to ameliorate the differences in technological skills. He cites that the number of new Web sites at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) has soared from zero in May 1994 to 32 [@ press time was mid November 1995]. Taylor cites this statistic in support of the claim that Tepper Gill, Director of the Computational Science and Engineering Research Center, makes, "It's a footrace to the future and we're running. Now that we have been given the opportunity, Blacks are doing well." Unfortunately this positive note is clouded by testimony from Dr. Wade Nobels (Taylor, 1995) describing the inappropriate use computers are being to by some public schools. He states: "Most schools [K-12] aren't equipped for the proper use of computers. In many places they are being used as typewriters, instead of to access the Internet." It is clear that there are still mixed opinions about the "technology gap.'
Getting away from the Internet access issues, and the use patterns, there are convincing arguments about the nature of technology and how it manifest itself in our teaching and how this might contribute to inequity, based on the question: "Does societal bias contribute to the differential utility of the tool based on prejudicial design, or does societal bias predispose some participants to ineffective uses of the tool?"
To explore this question I cite work which suggests that the tools reflect the cultural aspects of the environment of the designers and that it is incorporated into the design of the tool, rather than that the tool is differentially usable by different cultures. In 1995, Greenberger & Kumon published a dialogue between the two authors describing the future of multimedia in America and Japan. The conclusion of which is that the technology created mimics the cultures. For instance, Japanese approaches to multimedia have typical features of linearity, formality and rigidity; features brought about perhaps by the centrality and control of the Monbuscho, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Industry. While the Western counterpart views American multimedia as reflecting typical American features of individuality and creativity with a less rigid, decentralized control. It is clear that these features arise from their environments rather than contribute to them. For instance it is clear that nonlinear multimedia did not contribute to America's individuality or creativity, but was a product of it whether by marketing pressure or pervasive ideology of the design team. Where as Japanese linear approach to multimedia may allude to and embrace the "mastery of the Known" concept dating back several centuries to the introduction of Confucism into Japan in the 13th century. Clearly for the Japanese, Confusim came first.
The question is whether the reciprocal participation in these multimedia environments by students will contribute to their mimicking or learning of the features present in the policies and tendencies exhibited in the media they contact. Clearly, Greenberger & Kumon agree that the cultural context of technological development is imprinted on the technological products. But little argument is made for the reciprocal imprinting of the participants by the technological artifacts, so in this case the outcome of technology use is neutral. Meaning that if inequities exist they will be transmitted, not created.
Contrary to this strand of thought about the possible detriment to nonwhite culture based on Internet, there are advocates from nonwhite noneuropean cultures that stress technology as a possible route to salvation of their culture. Ambler, (1994) explores the increasing importance of technology in an article called Telecommunications: Where the Red Road meets them Information Superhighway. The article presents a balanced view of the role of the Internet but tends to focus on the possible (and in fact present) benefits accruing to American Indian institutions. Benefits include increased interaction between rural communities, more advanced up-to-date information on employment opportunities, educational opportunities, research services, and more direct access to federal agencies. In a similar manner to the American/Japanese views af technology, there is in this article an acknowledgment of the necessity of "policies to reflect various Indian concerns including privacy of data, cost sharing, safeguarding traditional tribal beliefs and values, and encouraging Indian people to become producers of media as well as consumers". Cautions of the abuses of this technology, cultural intrusion, consumerism, are included but are viewed as less important than the possible of benefit.
In this instance there is a nonwhite culture embracing Internet technology. The willingness of Native Americans to participate in this venture is no indication of its utility, but the message that this culture is embracing this technology is evidence for the "perceived" benefit.
These scant examples form an introduction to the different views that specific authors have about technology and its role in the lives of diverse populations. While there was little evidence to prove that there is a rift between different cultures and the accessibility of Internet technology, there was also not conclusive evidence suggesting that this technology was causing greater rifts to arise. The data for technology in aid of women is also not conclusive.
In 1994, Koch explores and discusses girls' use of Internet. Koch finds what many researcher have found before; evidence that girls' use of computers is different than that of boys of similar age. That they are often discouraged and lose interest, Koch claims, is evidenced in their decreased participation in hard sciences and engineering but little analysis of what causes these gaps is scant. The argument that the gap was caused by technology is specious in that the gap has grown nothing but smaller since the advent of computers, and their integration into networks. That there is gender bias in computer games is perhaps the best finding tendered in this report in that this may save the girls from the trivialities of gaming.
In our work with the vSMF there is direct evidence contradicting these findings. In both quality and quantity, females, were the predominant participants. In the posters submitted in the science sections, women were slightly more numerous, but in quality of participation, females were significantly higher. This is not proof that there is not a bias against females using the Internet, but my interest in diversity and equal representation springing from our Fair seems satisfied across the gender dimension.
The final dimension of equity I'd like to address is that of people with disabilities. This is a hard dimension to analyze. There will be differential participation base on peoples specific disabilities and the technology is insensitive to this. Text transmission is predominantly predicated on the visual dimension that reading implies. (Although, this is now easily circumvented with "over the counter" software and hardware.) And it is reading transmitted text that is the primary feature of Internet technology. So rather than attempt any type of objective analysis concluding with what level of exclusivity there is, let me just share two stories with you.
First is the work of Sheryl Burgstahler (1994). Sheryl is the director of the University of Washington's Disabilities Opportunities Internetworking technology (DO-IT) program designed to facilitate Internet access to the disabled. In her work there is evidence that the Internet is a life-quality enhancer. Rather than a barrier, Internet has become a significant and valued feature of the lives of the people she works with. (Disclaimer: The testimony that follows is inspirational, but as I stated at the start of this section, I am sure that for each of these students who's lives include Technology and Internet, there must also be students who are not a part of this technology and fell alienated by technology and by the Internet.)
In DO-IT Snapshots (University of Washington 1995), Mark, a person with Muscular Dystrophy, talks about how technology and the Internet helps him: "I use Head Master so I can access the computer and the Internet using my head. My interests are astronomy, art and writing." In many ways this description suggests that technology and the Internet are critical features in this students life and the benefits he receives are indisputable. It is hard to imagine someone with a severe dystrophy even entertaining writing as an interest, yet with the special software and Internet forum, Mark is not just participating in the coming age, he is shaping it. (Burgstahler, 1994)
Beyond hobbies and interests, there are several individuals with severe disabilities who view the Internet as critical to their career plans. Enter Mitch, a person with spina bifida. Mitch wants to become a scientist and work in the biotech field. For Mitch, work with technology ". . . has exposed me to the opportunity to experience first hand what it is like to be a scientist. On the Internet I have access to a whole world of people and information." Or listen to Anna a cellular and molecular biology major, blind since five: "I use email a lot . . . to look up abstracts on Medline for my research project." Anna is working on the type of cancer that took her vision. Anna is using the Internet to expand her world and perhaps to cure our world of another type of cancer. These are exceptional individuals who seem to be using technology and the Internet, not just to better their lives but maybe all of ours
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND A STORY
I would like to close with a description of another individual's entry into the Internet and describe how this maybe the consummate example for the possibilities offered by technology and the Internet.
Brad Rand is autistic. He has never spoken and is now 19 years old (Rand, 1995). In his own 'voice' he has posted on the Internet a glimpse into the workings of his specific type of unusual mind. In that posting Brad has potentially communicated to more people than a healthy mind might in years of conscious effort. Brad learned to write on a computer in 1992. that in itself was not a step toward communication. It took the Internet to bring him into, and become a part of a world he can control and communicate with. With no special training in communicating with autistic people, I read in awe, as Brad communicated clearly and effectively about the differences between his world and mine. It is clear that in this instance the Internet is not an exclusive technological environment.
That experience with Brad, more than any other, describes the awesome possibilities offered by Internet. It tends to drown out the critic's bickerings about specific uses, learning styles and control of the future. The other issues of diversity and representation are critical and important, but for me, the possible good that Internet may do far outweighs its ability to create inequity. It is up to you, the reader, to decide whether the benefits described here outweigh the possible inequities (which seem to have existed independently of Internet) caused by technology and the Internet.
Ambler, M. (1994). Telecommunications: Where the Red Road meets them information superhighway. First Nations Development Institute's Business Alert, 9 (1), 1,11-14.
Burgstahler, S. (1994). Increasing the representation of people with disabilities in Science, Engineering and Mathematics. Information Technology and Disability, (1) 4.
Dublin, P., Pressman, H., & Barnett, E. (1994). Integrating computers into your classroom: elementary science. New York: Harper Collins.
Dublin, P., Pressman, H., & Barnett, E. (1994). Integrating computers into your classroom: elementary science. New York: Harper Collins.
Facemyer, K. C., Franz, K. R., & Peterson, N. S. (in press). Real Outcomes from a Virtual School. SITE 96 Conference Annual. Annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, a Division of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Phoenix, AZ, March 13-15, 1996.
Franz, K. R. (in press). Real Teaching in the Social Context of the Virtual School. SITE 96 Conference Annual. Annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, a Division of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Phoenix, AZ, March 13-15, 1996.
Greenberger, M. & Kumon, S. (1995). East meets west: A multicultural look at multimedia. Educom Review, 30(1).
Holden, C. (1995). Virtual Science Fair. Science, (270). 239.
Johnson, C. (1995, October 1). WSU seeks kids to get caught up in the Web. Spokesman, pp. B1, B5.
Koch, M. (1994). No Girls Allowed. Technos, 3(3), 14-19.
McDouough, T. (1995, September 26). WSU puts fair on the Internet. Moscow-Pullman Daily News, p. 5A.
Noden, H. & Moss, B. (1993). Virtual schools: Reading and writing (Professional Development). Reading Teacher, 47(2), 166-68.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage.
Rand, B. (1995). Brad Rand: Pamphlet. [on line] Available: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/people/cpadak/autism/autism.txt or: elowell@ix.netcom.com (Ernest Lowell ).
Slater, R. (1994). Will blacks in higher education be detoured off the information superhighway? Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 3, 96-99.
Sommerfeld, M. (1995, November 15). A 90's kind of science fair. Education Week(25)11, p. 5.
Steiner, P. (1993). (A cartoon.) The New Yorker Magazine.
Taylor, R. (1995). The great divide. Black Issues in Higher Education, (November 16, 1995) 22-23, 25
University of Washington. (1995). DO-IT Snapshots. Seattle: University of Washington.
Wilson, D. (1995, October 20). Science Students Present Projects in Online Science Fair. The Chronicle of Higher Education (42)8. p. A25.