| |
Home-School Study
How young people’s home environments influence
their emerging digital literacy
In a suburb outside New York City, a 12-year-old
boy sits down to do his homework. The computer he works on is his
own, one of
several in the home, and it sits on a desk in his bedroom. Before
beginning his math assignment—a business simulation in which
he uses the Web to track the performance of a stock over the course
of a year—he logs on to AOL’s Instant Messenger (IM)
to see which friends are online. After perusing some financial
Web pages to check up on his stock’s performance, he records
the information in a Microsoft Excel chart. Then he goes back online
to check out some Web sites promoting his favorite bands and discovers
a song clip he likes from a newly released CD. He IMs friends to
learn if anyone has bought the CD yet, and enjoys a lengthy exchange
on the merits of the band’s new sound. He also learns that
a friend has already downloaded some songs from the Web and asks
him to burn a CD for him too. Before heading downstairs for dinner,
the boy spends some time playing a new computer game, and jots
an e-mail note to his uncle, a software developer, with a question
about where to find a good price on a CD burner.
In a working-class
neighborhood in New York City, another 12-year-old boy sits down
to the computer to finish his homework. His computer,
granted to his family as part of their participation in an innovative
school technology program, is the only one in his household, and
it sits on a corner of the kitchen table. After spending the afternoon
at an after-school program, the boy begins putting the final touches
on a research report that is due the next day, while his mother
prepares dinner. He tries to download some images from an online
encyclopedia to enliven his report, but encounters some trouble.
He e-mails his computer science teacher with a question about downloading
images from the Web, but doesn’t expect to hear from him
until the next day, too late to include the pictures in his report.
His mother asks him to get offline for a few minutes so she can
make a phone call. Then his younger brother uses the computer to
type a homework assignment. After dinner, both boys help their
mother design a flyer for an upcoming church event. Then they all
write a note to their uncle in Mexico City, who recently got an
e-mail account. The boys stay up for another hour playing computer
games together before their mother insists they turn off the computer
and get ready for bed.
These composite sketches, drawn from lives
of real middle school students, suggest some of the ways in which
the home environments of young people can profoundly influence
how they come to use and understand technology. The family’s finances and
expenses, where a computer is placed in the home, how many family members are
competing for time on it, how much leisure young people have to explore the computer,
and what sort of technical expertise they can rely on from parents and others
close to home are just some of the factors that shape the experiences young people
have with computers.
Working from the assumption that digital literacy, like
print literacy, reflects the cultural norms of the homes and communities where
it takes hold, researchers
at EDC’s Center for Children and Technology
(CCT) designed a study to
take a close look at the home-computing practices of 9 low-income and 10 middle-income
middle school children. They hoped to learn more about what types of technology
practices were emerging in these communities, and what significance these distinctions
might have for technology programs in schools, after-school programs, and community
technology centers.
Their report, Children’s Emerging Digital Literacies:
Investigating Home Computing in Low- and Middle-Income Families, results
from this one-year comparative
study. The researchers decided to use a small sample size because they felt
it would give them an opportunity to explore the young people’s relationships
to their computers in some depth. As a result, “the report is less
definitive than generative,” says study co-author Bill Tally. “It
doesn’t
answer all the questions, but it does generate deeper thinking and better
categories for understanding how kids are relating to their computers.”
The
children selected to participate in the study represented a range of
educational achievement and ethnic diversity. All were in the seventh
or
eighth grade and
had at least one Internet-connected computer in their home. The low-income
children each attended one of Computer for Youth’s (CFY) partner
schools, in which all students and teachers had received a CFY home computer,
training,
ongoing
technical support, e-mail accounts, and tailored Web content. The middle-income
children each attended one of two schools and had acquired their home
computers on their own.
Researchers visited each family two or three
times during the course of their investigation and drew data from interviews
with the young people
and their
parents and observations of the students at work. For instance, on
one visit, researchers
sat with the young people and asked them to draw pie charts indicating
how much time they spent doing different activities on their computers
at home
in order
to learn the relative importance of each activity. On another visit,
researchers
asked the young people to take them on a tour of their computer. “We
said, ‘Imagine
we are visiting your neighborhood and you are asked to show us around—where
do you hang out, what are the important places . . . ? Now imagine
the computer is your neighborhood; what would you show us?’” explains
Tally. “We
wanted to get a sense of how they related to the computer—were
they developing personal strategies for using the technology—really
making it their own—or
were they relying solely on received operating strategies?”
Researchers
observed a wide variety of differences and similarities across the
whole set of young people, but they also saw some broad
distinctions
emerge between
the two communities. “Some parents in both groups were really
modeling rich and varied uses for the computer, while other parents
in both groups didn’t
know what to do with it,” says study co-author Harouna Ba. “We
observed that parents in both affluent and low-income communities
want kids to learn computing—but
the parents in the underserved communities need support in doing
this.” For
instance, maintaining stable Internet access was a constant challenge
for many of the low-income families in the study because a credit
card is required for
Internet access. “Well, everybody these days has a credit card,
right? No. In fact, many low-income families don’t have credit
cards,” says
Ba. “In the middle-income homes, there were also more computers
and bigger houses with more rooms, so kids tended to have more privacy
around their computer
use,” explains Tally. “They also had more robust technology
resources—better
Internet access and parents who liked to update the equipment with
digital cameras, new software programs, IM, Napster, burning CDs
to share with
friends.”
In those middle-income families with very involved
parents focused on high academic achievement, researchers also
observed a lot of
talk between
parents
and children
about the computer and its uses. “There were conversations
about how the computer worked, about a new software package, about
how you can’t always
trust what you read on the Web, that sort of thing,” says
Tally. “It
was interesting to see to what extent the kids had developed a
vocabulary of their own to talk about computers. At some point
it does become
important to
have a language for talking about your operating strategies and
for making distinctions. We saw a real range in this, largely determined
by whether
or not the kid had
a social environment to support this kind of talk.”
In the
low-income communities, researchers found that there was a heavier
emphasis on schoolwork. Families had many fewer computing
resources—limited Web
access, no IM, no capacity to download music or burn CDs. Also,
parents generally lacked the professional or educational backgrounds
that would have prepared them
for the same level of critical talk about the computer and its
uses that their middle-income counterparts had. “In middle
class homes, the workplace really provides a lot of invisible supports
for family home computer use and technical
literacy,” says Tally. He cites one example of a single mother
in the middle-income group who took the family computer into the
law office where she worked to have
the computer department fix it for her, free of charge.
By contrast,
the children in the low-income group relied almost completely on
their school and CFY for technical support. In addition,
many
of the low-income children were more knowledgeable about technology
than
any
other member of
the
family. Interestingly, this knowledge gave them more opportunities
than their middle-income peers to interact with family members,
helping parents
troubleshoot
the computer, for example, or helping siblings with homework assignments. “Programs
that serve low-income communities need to be aware of these kinds
of differences,” noted
the study. “As novice computer users, they are not able to
rely on siblings, parents, neighbors, or workplaces for support,
so programs
like community technology
centers and after-school technology programs are crucial in providing
this kind of support, at least until they build up some technical
capacity themselves.”
The number and placement of computers
was also different in the low-income families. Because the school
computer was the only computer
in the
home, it tended to be
kept in the kitchen or in the living room, and all of the family
members would have to take turns. Some families worked out a schedule
for computer
use, while
others negotiated a more ad hoc arrangement. As a result of this
more communal style of use, researchers observed more instances
of the family
working
together on the computer, often pursuing activities that reflected
a shared interest.
In one case, the children were helping the parents produce a flyer
for a church event. In another, the family found and printed songs
from their
native
country.
Another family used the Internet to locate Spanish-language news.
The role that the schools played in fostering robust computer
and critical-thinking skills also emerged as a major issue in the
study. “We
learned that expectations are different,” says Ba. “For
the low-income kids, the main goal was using the computers at home.
But the middle-income kids were already doing
media literacy—they had classes that were giving them sophisticated
assignments to do on the computer.” Tally agrees about the
importance of school assignments in fostering digital literacy: “When
it comes to technology, there is an interaction that goes on between
schools and families—this interaction
can be at cross purposes, without coordination, or in concert.
In the middle-income homes, they were basically pushing in the
same direction.
Library and media people
were teaching how to do searches and how to cite and evaluate material.
Parents were also talking about some of these issues at home. But
in the low-income community,
the schools were pushing more toward getting the homework done,
with less attention to the evaluation piece.”
Both Ba and
Tally caution that middle-income students’ fluency in commercial
applications like IM and Napster might give them an advantage over
their low-income peers who didn’t have the same kind of access.
But both are quick to note that those masteries don’t necessarily
translate into depth of knowledge or critical-thinking skills. “Knowing
how to find a favorite band’s
Web site, or download music from Napster and burn it onto a disk,
or negotiate a seven-way conversation on IM are different from
knowing how to locate and evaluate
a range of resources for a paper on the Civil War, or online medical
information about an illness in the family, or [how to] express
yourself creatively in a
new medium,” says Tally. “We all say this is a young
person’s
medium and we’re impressed with kids’ skills in using
it, but all uses don’t necessarily lead to critical-thinking
skills. If you ask most kids [regardless of economic background]
to make sense of what they are reading
or seeing, or if you ask them to pursue a topic in depth with careful
reading comprehension, evaluation, and use of sources, you will
find much less facility.
But kids who are taught to read critically can and do make a lot
of use of written material online. Some schools and some parents
know how to encourage this sort
of critical thinking; others simply don’t.”
The School
Study
For Tally and Ba, the obvious next step in their research
is to learn more about what school- and community-based programs
can
do to support
the kind
of critical
literacy that transcends media and prepares both middle- and low-income
children for advanced study, high-wage employment, and engaged
citizenry. In their
follow-up study, The Ecology of Children’s Computing, they
are working with seventh graders in two urban schools. One school
has adopted a project-based program
where technology is integrated into the curriculum, while the other
has adopted a more traditional approach in which technology is
an adjunct to the regular
curriculum, a tool for information delivery. In the course of their
two-year investigation, they hope to learn how these different
approaches to educational
technology affect student relationships to computers both inside
and outside of school. In the process, they hope to develop a more
refined sense of what
school and after-school environments can contribute to deepening
young people’s
technical literacy.
From the CCT Report
Recommendations
Based on our findings, we believe that policy-makers and
private funders can do a number of things to support children’s
acquisition of digital literacy. They can:
- Fund programs that provide low-income families with
home computers and the skills to use them.
- Encourage home computer programs to train parents, not
just children, in “computer literacy.”
- Insist that home computer programs not only provide technical
support to the communities they serve, but help them build
their own troubleshooting strategies.
- Help schools become aware of the large roles they play
in children’s computing.
- Support schools in using computing tools to strengthen
family-school connections.
- Fund programs that help parents understand more about
the ways they can keep their children safe online.
- Support research and programs that can help families
in low-income communities maintain consistent Internet
connectivity.
- Help replicate the CFY model of providing all students
and teachers in a school with home computers and comprehensive
services.
- Fund additional research on the development of digital
literacy among low-income children.
- Fund additional research on understanding the intricate
relationship among family income, social capital, and technology
use in different social settings.
|
For questions or comments, contact mosaic@edc.org.
Copyright 2000-2003
Education Development Center, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|