This qualitative study compared the availability of, access to, and use of new technologies in a group of low– and high–socioeconomic status (SES) California high schools. Although student-computer ratios in the schools were similar, the social contexts of computer use differed, with low-SES schools affected by uneven human support networks, irregular home access to computers by students, and pressure to raise school test scores while addressing the needs of large numbers of English learners. These differences were expressed within three main patterns of technology access and use, labeled performativity, workability, and complexity, each of which shaped schools’ efforts to deploy new technologies for academic preparation.
Attewell, P.,& Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. Information Society, 15(1), 1-10.
2.
Baumann, Z. (1992). Globalization. London: Polity Press.
3.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not?Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75.
4.
Bolt, D., & Crawford, R. (2000). The digital divide: Computers and our children’s future. New York: TV Books.
5.
Cheng, J. (2001). At home and in school: Racial and ethnic gaps in educational preparedness. California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles, 3(2), 1-15.
6.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
8.
Dividing lines. (2001, May 10). Education Week, 20, 12-13.
9.
Gee, J. (2000). Teenagers in newtimes: Anewliteracy studies perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 412-420.
10.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave.
11.
Kleiner, A., & Farris, E. (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2001. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
12.
Knobel, M.,& Lankshear, C. (1999). Ways of knowing: Researching literacy. Newton, Australia: Primary English Teachers’ Association.
13.
Lankshear, C.,& Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
14.
Lankshear, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
15.
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
16.
Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
17.
Marsland, N., Wilson, I., Abeyasekera, S.,& Kleth, U. (1999). A methodological framework for combining quantitative and qualitative survey methods. Reading, UK: Social and Economic Development Department, Natural Resources Institute and the Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading.
18.
McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
19.
Noguera, P. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 34(1), 18-41.
20.
Schofield, J. W.,& Davidson, A. L. (2004). Achieving equality of student Internet access within schools: Theory, application, and practice. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict (pp. 97-109). Washington, DC: APA Books.
21.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
22.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Education and language spoken at home. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&_geo_id=01000US
23.
U.S. NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
U.S. NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and school reform: Aviewfrom both sides of the track. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4). Retrieved April 1, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n4.html
27.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7). Retrieved April 1, 2004, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/
28.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute?: The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
