home _|_ concern _|_ investigation _|_ results
ethical issues _|_ ethical principles _|_ reflections _|_ references
Reflections
...about the methodology used in this study  
  One question about this study that may be raised is the role of the researcher in gathering this data, particularly since the data includes correlations with assessments by the same researcher.  This is a valid concern and suggests a replication of this study using data gathered from instructors unaffiliated with the research question at hand.
    Despite this concern, there is still some value to the current study due to the fact that, while the data gathered in the questionnaire and the assessment data were gathered during the same semesters, the idea of linking these two data sets to research the issues raised in this study came later.  While further replications are necessary to make the results here persuasive to a larger audience, I am personally convinced that levels of access were not considered in the prior grading of assignment.
It should also be noted that this study is not making a larger and more general claim about all student populations in all places.  The numbers of students in this study simply will not support such a claim.
...about what this study revealed     
  If this study cannot make broad and general claims about student populations and access, it may be asked what actually has been learned through the results here. Students at these particular schools differed in regards to access and in other significant ways, but what kind of general applicability does this study hold?
    In regards to access and assessment, the results here are suggestive, not definitive.  This was indeed a small study whose findings may not be generalizable, beyond saying that students' access to technology differ in significant ways.  It is possible that in courses, outside those examined, student outcomes are deeply and negatively affected by inequities of access.  It is not hard to imagine contexts where the tech-rich prosper and the tech-poor fail, indeed, the marketplace itself provides numerous obvious examples of this possibility. 

Nevertheless, combining the small scale results with the preceding discussion of ethical principles does reveal an important finding--that the classroom implementation of technology does not necessarily create gross inequities between students with varying levels of access, nor must it involve violations of basic ethical principles.  This is a finding of great importance to those heavily engaged in issues of classroom teaching and access.
...about the practical implications of this study     
  I would hope that those reading this far would not be left with the question, 'So what?'  But if so, let me suggest that the preceding study may have a number of implications for classroom instruction.  As a way of discussing these, I would like to mention a few of the ways I have attempted to help students receive equitable, respectful treatment and mitigate some of the challenges they might face with technology due to their memberships in differing social, racial, gender, or ethnic groups.
    First and foremost, regardless of the level of technology involved, I have tried to keep the focus on human learning and community.  This suggestion for a humanistic focus that does not become overwhelmed by techno-gimmicks or possibilities is not new, but it is basic to addressing ethical concerns.

Second, I attempt to use technology in a way that capitalizes on some of its most positive possibilities.  For example, while face-to-face classroom interaction provides opportunity for certain types of interaction and recognition, some forums of anonymous discussion/chat provide space for other students whose voices have somehow been silenced.  In such forums, these students may be heard as prominently as any other.

Third, I attempt to address issues of access frankly and honestly with my students, explaining the rationale of its use for particular assignments and the ways in which the learning that it should yield will be evaluated.  I do my best to give students all the information they will need to make informed choices prior to assessment.

Fourth, while I make students aware of university resources for further learning, I realize that many of them, for a variety of reasons, will not avail themselves of those opportunities.  To address this, I try to identify early those students who are struggling not only with the content of the course, but also its packaging, and I make myself available before class, after class, sometime even during class, to directly address their technology concerns.

Fifth, I have attempted to construct assignments that vary in the level of technology necessary for completion.  I have also weighted assessment measures in my courses so that low tech activities and learning receive as much value as high tech assignments.

Sixth, I have attempted to redress inequalities of access among my learners by helping those who are low on the continuum of access personally find ways of improving their situation.  For example, I have helped students uncover nonstandard resources by giving assignments that move them to think creatively about online access in their own community circle.

Finally, I have revised my own assessment practices, placing greater emphasis on using my professional, informed judgment of student ideas, learning, and work (i.e., content) than on using quick, but seemingly objective, responses to online quizzes or completion of online tasks (i.e., technological proficiency). 

Educators in differing contexts of instruction will find this comments more, or less, useful.  My hope is that this study continues to spur further discussion regarding matters of access, and especially regarding how we may ethically and equitably engage in classroom instruction given the varying levels of access that now exist. 
    A list of references used in this paper.