When talking about the ability of students to access technology, one of the key factors is their socioeconomic status (Ross, 2013). This simply means that a disparity exists between students of high socioeconomic status whose ability to access education is different from students of low socioeconomic status. Therefore, Ross (2013) said that one has to ask whether the socioeconomic status of students has the ability to influence the implementation of an innovation in schools. And because the socioeconomic status of students is demographic, that is, related to their background, Ross (2013) claims that the point of departure should be the homes and not the schools of students.
In his study, Battle (1999) found that student academic achievement is positively influenced by access to technology at home. In other words, when students’ ability to access technology at home is high, their academic achievement also tends to increase. Moreover, he reported that students of high socioeconomic status manifest more benefits in terms of schooling than students of low socioeconomic status.
Recently, however, studies that deal with the implementation of technology in schools have given priority to exploring the relationship between student access to technology in schools and their socioeconomic status. For example, an earlier study by Anderson (2005) reported that “many students living in areas affected by socioeconomic disadvantage have only one ‘shot’ at using ICT to enhance their educational development, and that ‘shot’ is at school” (p. 148). This means that the only place of opportunity for students of low socioeconomic status to harness their technical know-how of mobile devices is at school. This is particularly the case because they lack access to technology at home brought about by their low family income.
Interestingly, some earlier studies have reported that while learning institutions for students of low socioeconomic status implement technology in school entirely to develop technology knowledge and skills of students, there are learning institutions of the same nature which utilize technology to harness the critical thinking skills of students (Dewitt, 2007; Straubb, 2009). In his study, Straubb (2009) made a comparison between schools for students of high socioeconomic status and schools for student of low socioeconomic status. Findings of his study show that the center of transformation for both schools is the same, that is, they both prioritize the implementation of technology in school with the belief that utilization of technology inside the classroom allows students, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, to embark on a search or inquiry higher in terms of level.
Furthermore, Passey (2010) found that in learning institutions where students are of high socioeconomic status, new technologies are used in a way that they are prepared for higher level of education or schooling and that the decisions of the school leaders relative to technology implementation are congruent to the expectations of the students. Brown and Warschauer (2006) articulated this result and explained that “if a school has high expectations for its students, for example the expectation that students will progress from school to university as opposed to the workforce, the school will integrate technology in a way that prepares students for the university” (p.8).
In other words, the goal of the school related to technology adoption is aligned with the policy that it implements. This, however, is not always the scenario because students at affluent learning institutions are not always of high socioeconomic status.
References
Anderson, T. (2006). Higher education evolution: Individual freedom afforded by educational social software.
Battle, P. A. J. (1999). Home computers and school performance.The information society,15(1), 1-10.
Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14(3), 599.
DeWitt, S. W. (2007). Dividing the digital divide: Instructional use of computers in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 277-304.
Passey, D. (2010). Mobile learning in school contexts: Can teachers alone make it happen? IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 68-81.
Ross, K. (2013).Teacher Implementation of “Bring Your Own Device” At a Suburban High School Serving High SES Students(Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
By: Jocelyn Quimlat | Morong National High School
