Article #4 Diversity Education and Identity Development in an Information Technology Course

Trauth, E., Johnson, R., Morgan, A., Huang, H., & Quesenberry, J. (2007). Diversity Education and Identity Development in an Information Technology Course. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (111), 81-87. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Summary:

                This article explores the challenge of incorporating diversity in technology education in light of an expanding global labor force and how to best prepare students from universities that are not located in areas of rich demographic diversity for the challenges they will face in the technology sector after graduation. This article focuses on a class designed by Eileen Trauth titled “Human Diversity in the Global Information Economy,” which is a career preparation course that focuses on issues of diversity such as gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, and age. Within the class, 37 students were enrolled and 23 participated in the research, which focused on three learning outcomes which were analysis of the link between increased productivity and diversity, evaluation of the self as an agent or target of discrimination, and identification of challenges and needs of diverse populations in an IT context. 80 percent of participants achieved the first outcome and all students made progress toward the second and third outcomes. One of the major findings of the research was that participants were more receptive to diversity training when presented in the context of another discipline, rather than being presented as the main focus.

Reaction:
               
              The way in which this class seems to be designed is evidence of a paradigm shift in education in actuality, which incorporates educational philosophy into the heart of the curriculum, rather than treating diversity as a subject relegated to theory. The students were required to correspond electronically with students from other countries and design a “web-based information tool for users in that country” (p.82), which put the theory into practice and made participants engage with individuals of other cultures, think about the issues, and solve problems. With our increased lines of communication and increasingly worldwide economy, due to technological advances, the world has definitely become a “smaller” place and issues of diversity and their consequences need to be addressed head on. This study, while entirely too small to draw sweeping conclusions from, gives a good starting point from which these issues can be dealt with in the context of education. The way in which theory is put into practice to achieve a real result is on the right track.

Article #3 Performance of a Generic Approach in Automated Essay Scoring

Attali, Y., Bridgeman, B., Trapani, C., (2010). Performance of a Generic Approach in Automated Essay Scoring. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10 (3), 1-15. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=jtla

Summary:

                The purpose of this paper was to compare automated scores of essays on the GRE and the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) using e-rater, a program that aggregates features of writing and weights their significance in a score, with scores on the same tests that were derived from human grading. E-rater is a relatively sophisticated program that is able to pick up on conventions in written language and factors grammar, mechanics, style, usage, organization, development, vocabulary, and word length into a final assessment and score. This study used an enormous sample (205,566 essays for the TOEFL) and correlated scores between human scores (H1) and e-rater scores (G) and also between human scores and a second set of human scores (H2) on the same essays. Surprisingly, the coefficient between H1 and G was higher in many instances than between H1 and H2, which may be due to inadvertent subjectivity in the human scorers. This study shows that automated essay scoring may be approaching levels of sophistication and accuracy that can be used institutionally, such as on the GRE, SAT, and TOEFL instead of primarily as a regression tool to predict test scores and scoring accuracy of humans.

Reaction:

                This is interesting. I never thought that automated essay scoring could really exist, due to the difficulty computer programs generally have in evaluating or understanding content. The e-rater program has some of this built into it; it has specific vocabulary it looks for depending upon the writing prompt and also evaluates worth depending on certain words used and length of paragraphs etc. So I wonder what they use as a model essay for the prompts because it must have some kind of analog to refer to. If this is the case, it remains subjective in terms of content, structure, and organization because it begins in a subjective place that assigns worth depending upon values that may or may not materialize in the writing of the average essayist. Only from this baseline of subjectivity can any objective assessment of writing take place. I can understand employing automated programs such as e-rater out of economic considerations and time constraints, especially for national or internationally taken tests, but it seems as if the art of writing, even though it is something as trivial as a test essay, has become cheapened and the human connection between emotion, experience, and meaning is becoming lost in conventions and vocabulary that a only dry academia finds worthwhile. I could be wrong, but I certainly hope that essay scoring is not moving in this direction.

                There is also a philosophical problem I find with the concept of automated scoring of essays and it deals primarily with the nature and function of writing as a communicative form. If there is ever indeed a time in which the writer in educational institutions has no audience but a lifeless program that bestows judgment, isn’t the entire purpose of writing null? If there is no one to connect with the writing and understand the views and ideas expressed within the content, there is virtually no point in communicating in the written form. This seems analogous to creating paintings or printing photographs for the blind, who in this hypothetical situation bestow worth upon the visual arts based upon touch, taste, and smell; while I am certain that many masterworks incorporate similar materials and, thus, must certainly taste, feel, and smell especially similar, I am equally certain that they are not the same based upon the sense of sight for which they are intended. Maybe this subject just brings out the shameless cynic in me, but the idea of automated essay scoring is strange and I can’t help but think of the how futile the writing process will feel when we know for sure that nobody cares what we have to say as long we punctuate and spell correctly.

Article #2 Gender Inclusiveness in Educational Technology

Heemskerk, I., ten Dam, G., Volman, M., & Admiraal, W. (2009). Gender Inclusiveness in Educational Technology and Learning Experiences of Girls and Boys. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 253-276. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary:

                This article details a qualitative study on perceptions of technology by male and female students in the context of gender inclusiveness. The study included 81 ninth grade students in the Netherlands and tested their reactions and perceptions to six different technological learning tools using interviews, class observations, and learner reports for assessment. The educational tools were rated according to inclusiveness and imbedded “gender scripts.” Inclusiveness was rated using an index which assessed several factors including presence and contribution of diverse groups within the programs, real-life context, cultural sensitivity, variety of music and sounds, feedback, flexibility, and other similar factors. The results of the study found that girls gave more positive descriptions and thought they learned more from the programs with higher inclusiveness ratings. Girls also found these programs to be easier to navigate than the less inclusive programs, while boys reported no difference. Girls also were observed to participate more with the inclusive programs, while boys showed no difference in participation levels between them. Overall, girls seemed to react more positively to inclusive programs than traditional methods and less inclusive programs; boys reacted more positively to technology in general than to traditional learning methods.

Reaction:

                This study is important in that it shows that the stereotype of girls disliking computers is false. It is not the technology that they reject, but the way in which many programs and applications are designed without their interests in mind that they are objecting to. This ties in nicely with the educational philosophies of Jane Roland Martin and Victor Nolet, who we recently read and discussed in SEC 512. Martin explores the concept of working the “reproductive” processes (here represented as connection to real-life, variety, cultural sensitivity) into the education system in order to engage women and end stereotypes. Martin is suggests a paradigm shift, much like what Nolet suggests in his argument for sustainability and the concept of gender inclusiveness actually fits nicely with the concept of sustainability, as they are both ultimately concerned with the reproductive processes within society, though not in a literal sense. The more inclusive programs may be evidence of the beginning of such a paradigm shift, which is not concerned with productivity and single-minded monolithic academic concerns, but with connection and real-world applicability.

                Because boys learned just as much using inclusive programs as non-inclusive and girls learned and were more engaged with the more inclusive programs, we should, as educators, recognize that we must attempt to be consciously more inclusive in the lessons and ways in which content is presented in order to reach all students. If we ignore this, we are alienating almost half of the student population, especially if other options are known and available. Because boys do just as well (if not better) with inclusive-minded presentations of content, we are not in any way shutting them out;  we may be opening them up to new ideas concerning connection, cultural and gender sensitivity, and destroying the gender-based stereotypes concerning technology, often popularized and spread by both sexes due to a long history of male dominance and subsequent dominant male ideals and concerns within the field of technology education.