Technology support for academic achievement in at-risk students

¶ … Technology to Support Academic Achievement for at-Risk Students

In an era of high-stakes testing, the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act and school district budgets being stretched ever thinner because of dwindling state and federal budgets, identifying opportunities for improving the delivery of educational services to at-risk students has assumed new relevance and importance. Although the fundamental purpose of education has remained the same over the years, innovations in technology have presented a number of ways in which high-quality educational services can be delivered in the classroom and through distance learning programs. While at-risk students are different from their mainstream academic counterparts by virtue of a wide array of disabilities and other constraints to learning, they are also so-called "digital natives" who have grown up with technological innovations and typically share the ability to use computers and computer-based applications in highly skilled ways.

Because resources are by definition scarce, it just makes good educational and business sense to take advantage of the cost efficiencies that technological solutions to the problems that at-risk students may be experiencing offer, and to identify what works best and then do more of that. In an effort to identify recent trends and innovations in the use of technology to assist at-risk students and a general set of best practices, this paper provides a review of the relevant juried and scholarly literature concerning the use of technology to support academic achievement for at-risk students, followed by a summary of the research, a discussion, conclusions and recommendations for those involved in technology planning and implementation in schools in the concluding chapter.

Section 2: Review of the Literature/Research

According to Fagan and Warden (1996), it is the law of the land in the United States that at-risk students receive a free public education that is appropriate to their individual needs in the least restrictive setting possible. The controlling legislation for this mandate can be found in the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) passed in 1975 which was subsequently reauthorized in 1990, at which time it was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which was amended and reauthorized once again in 1997 (Drasgow & Yell, 2000). It is the responsibility of the public schools to develop educational initiatives that can satisfy the mandates of this controlling legislation. In this regard, Drasgow and Yell emphasize that, "Since the passage of the original law, educators have been charged with the responsibility for developing and delivering a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. A FAPE is a publicly funded and individually designed educational program developed to meet the unique needs of eligible students with disabilities" (2000, p. 205).

Since the passage of IDEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has also compelled educators and policymakers to identify improved approaches to providing educational services to at-risk students, but progress in the United States has been mixed at best (David-Medrano, 2003). In reality, all students are "at risk" of becoming poor academic performers over time because of significant changes in their home life, evolving relationships with peers, involvement with substance abuse and law enforcement authorities and so forth, but the term is generally applied to those students who are currently experiencing problems in school. According to Dunn (2004), "When students' home resources and experiences differ from the expectations on which school experiences are built, they are often at risk of not realizing their personal and academic promise" (p. 46). Clearly, not all "at-risk students" share the same circumstances that have caused them to be categorized in this fashion, and some may simply be the victim of circumstances such as frequent family moves or broken homes that have contributed to their lackluster academic performance. This point is made by Armijo, Stowitschek, Smith, Mckee, Solheim, and Phillips (1999), who cite the results of a report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that found 12.5% of students aged 16 through 24 years are high school dropouts. These authors emphasize that, "While many of the individuals cited in this report are younger students at risk for strictly academic reasons, many more are at risk because of family-related problems" (p. 66).

Despite these differences in circumstances, the term "at-risk" continues to be applied in a wholesale fashion to all students who are in jeopardy of failing to achieve up to their potential. In this regard, Dunn emphasizes that, "Because the term 'at-risk' focuses on individual characteristics, it labels and stigmatizes the learner. However, although objectionable, the term 'at-risk' persists because of its wide acceptance and research base" (2004, p. 47). By and large, the term "at-risk students" typically refers to several groups of students, including those who are (a) ethnic minorities, (b) academically disadvantaged, (c) disabled, (d) of low socioeconomic status, and (e) on probationary status by virtue of disciplinary actions or poor academic performance (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). This definition of at-risk students suggests that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to helping these young learners overcome the constraints and obstacles in their lives through the use of any single educational initiative, but the use of various technologically enabled approaches have been shown to provide some substantive benefits for this purpose.

Young learners today who have been termed "digital natives" are accustomed to using technology because they have been exposed to it all of their lives and these students are capable of working and playing at a completely different pace from previous generations in what has been termed "twitch speed." In this regard, Salopek (2003) offers a definition of the new learning environment for young learners in the United States at the turn of the century as follows: "This generation grew up on video games ('twitch speed'), MTV (more than 100 images a minute), and the ultra-fast speed of action films. Their developing minds learned to adapt to speed and thrive on it. The under-30 generation has had far more experience at processing information quickly than its predecessors, and is therefore better at it" (p. 17). Digital natives are characterized by several other differences from past generations as well, including the following:

1. They are skilled at multitasking and parallel processing;

2. Hyperlinking has accustomed them to random access of information, instead of linear thinking;

3. Graphics are important;

4. Asynchronous worldwide communication gives them a sense of connected-ness, affecting the way they seek out information and help;

5. Active is better than passive;

6. Work and play are increasingly blended; achievement and winning are important concepts; and,

7. They have much less patience with experiences that lack obvious payoff (Salopek, 2003, p. 18).

Because some at-risk students may not enjoy the same level of computer and Internet access in the home as their more affluent counterparts, though, they may not bring the same level of technological expertise to the classroom as other digital native students. The term "digital divide" has been applied to these types of situations where there is a gap between those who have ready access to technology and those who do not; between those who have the expertise and training to utilize technology and those who do not (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). The digital divide is generally used today to describe the gap in access to technology and information between groups by any of the following: (a) income, (b) race, (c) gender, (d) location, or (e) education (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). Therefore, the same technology-enabled approaches to education that may be effective with computer-savvy students may not be as effective with at-risk students unless steps are taken from the outset to ensure that they possess the skills needed to take advantage of these initiatives.

Despite these differing degrees of computer expertise, a growing number of educators, researchers, and policymakers at all levels of government have emphasized that technologically enabled classrooms that include the use of computers, educational software, and the Internet provide all students with a wide array of educational advantages (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). In addition, computer-based technologies can provide both students and teachers with a rapidly increasing body of knowledge that is easily accessed; create opportunities for reinforcing learning basic, new, and higher-order cognitive skills; and increasing student interest and motivation, parent-school communication, and parent involvement (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). Consequently, these technological innovations are expected to produce improved educational outcomes for at-risk student achievement and reduce school attrition rates as well (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). The research to date has generally supported these expectations, and studies have identified positive relationships between school, home, and community uses of information technology and a wide range of academic outcomes for at-risk students and other students alike (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of timely studies concerning the use of technology in the classroom from the perspective of the students themselves. In this regard, Ballard, Carroll and Stapleton (2004) report that, "The use of technology in classrooms has changed in recent years to include the use of course Web sites as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Despite this increase in the use of Web sites in courses, limited attention has been given to student perceptions of this pedagogical tool" (p. 197). There have also been a number of software applications developed specifically for use in the classroom that can provide at-risk students with the opportunity to catch up with their peers, but here again it is important to recognize that at-risk students may lack the same level of computer expertise as their peers and steps must be taken to ensure that they have been provided with the initial training necessary to use these tools effectively.

One approach that has shown significant promise in teaching at-risk students how to use computer technology effectively and in improving their academic performance is the Constructionist Alternative Learning Laboratory in the Maine Youth Center, a state facility for at-risk students who have been court-ordered to attend the program. Some educators might shake their heads and suggest that there was little that could be done with young people who had reached the point in their academic careers where they were adjudicated as being at-risk and were placed in a special learning environment, but the laboratory has proven that the use of technology can help these young learners in a number of ways. For instance, a typical day at the laboratory is described by Stager (2000) thusly: "A group of kids are programming their own video game while others are making a digital film. Across the room a robotic bird feeder designed to photograph a bird when it comes to eat is being built out of LEGO. This is not a gifted and talented class or a special event. This beehive of activity represents a normal day in the Constructionist Learning Laboratory" (p. 37). According to the corporate Web site for LEGO, the LEGO Digital Designer ". . . lets you build with LEGO bricks on your computer" (LEGO digital designer, 2009, p. 1). A representative screenshot from the LEGO digital designer program is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Screenshot from LEGO Digital Designer.

Source: http://cache.lego.com/upload/contentTemplating/LDDHomepage/images/2057 / pic8E1BFFEF8E445A6BB97E78FD43981C59.png

The Constructionist Alternative Learning Laboratory has used this application in particular to good effect with its at-risk students. For instance, Stager (2000) reports that, "Students in the lab use rich computational media like LEGO's programmable RCX brick to construct fantastic inventions. In fact, building with LEGO is the focus of many activities at the youth center. The LEGO bricks, gears, motors, sensors and programmable bricks create an improvisational medium where [students] can explore powerful ideas in math, science and computer science by building something 'real'" (p. 37). Indeed, Stager cites the use of LEGO by students with little or no previous computer expertise in developing an impressive array of engineering feats, including robots, machines that play musical instruments or write the students' names, and those that are capable of pulling far more than their own weight. Rather than using a standardized testing approach to document academic performance, the Constructionist Alternative Learning Laboratory has adopted a portfolio approach. In this regard, Stager reports that students in the lab ". . . use various media to document their learning processes and to archive their finished product in an attempt to demonstrate their knowledge and reflect on their learning" (p. 37). Moreover, the use of technology in this at-risk classroom setting has even made learning fun and enjoyable for many of these students in ways that were not otherwise possible. As Stager points out, "In this experiment, technology is a ubiquitous part of the lives of kids and should be reflected in their learning experiences. Young people have a casual relationship with technology and can even be quite playful with it" (2000, p. 37).

As an example of how learning with technology can be fun for at-risk students, Stager cites the tradition of building digital gingerbread houses using the LEGO digital design application by students each Christmas: "Each child built a house of graham crackers, icing, cookies, candy and a small computer tucked away inside. Their houses had twinkling lights, programmed carols performed by the LEGO brick, doorbells and spinning trees made of Hershey Kisses. What could be better than combining computers and icing?" (2000, p. 37). Despite the pervasiveness of technology in the laboratory, it is not the only learning tool used and traditional educational methods are also used to good effect. For instance, Stager notes that, "The lab does not obsess over the use of computers by students. Kids read books, write plays, produce videos and publish newsletters" (2000, p. 37).

Section 3: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

The research showed that all students, including those deemed at-risk, in the public schools in the United States are entitled to a free education that provides them with the education they need to become contributing members of society. The research also showed that students can be categorized as being at risk for a wide variety of reasons, and while many students may suffer from learning disabilities or antisocial personalities that adversely affect their ability to learn in traditional classroom settings, many other are so labeled by virtue of problems at home over which these young learners may have little control. Yet other students may be labeled as being at risk simply by virtue of the race or socioeconomic standing. This categorization tends to lump together a group of students who possess drastically different capabilities as well as problems into a collective category that may stigmatize them rather than help them. Finally, the research was also consistent in emphasizing that while the millennial generation possesses an impressive set of computer skills that can help them use technology in the classroom to good effect, some are better prepared to do so than others, and at-risk students who are at the short end of the digital divide stick may not possess the same level of expertise as their more fortunate and affluent counterparts.