Looking Back on Our Year
by Marjon Kamrani
I distinctly remember Camp LBJ and discussing the PRP's that interested
people. From the brief explanation of "Evaluating Technology Centers"
on the LBJ website to the PRP fair where we walked the halls to find out
about various research, I knew I wanted to be involved in this project.
I also distinctly remember the group's
first meeting in the kitchen of the LBJ School when we went around in
a circle discussing what we could contribute to the entire group and then
sharing what we believed the goal of the project to be.
We were all pretty hesitant to talk about
the direction of the project and when we did there were various ideas
about what we were actually going to do. Everyone left and the smaller
conversations were all pretty similar- people wanted to achieve so many
different things and no one really knew what the eventual outcome was
to be. In short, everyone seemed quite overwhelmed. Strangely enough that
diversity of goals in the end was exactly what was achieved. I think that
is really the beauty of this PRP. People brought to the table their concerns,
others supported them, and an amazing end-product resulted. Everything
from working for social justice, learning about Austin and community development
in general, researching for NSF, researching for one's own benefit, to
actually working at a CTC was discussed. As stated before, all of these
goals were achieved and each individual not only achieved their desired
result but everyone else's as well.
As a former teacher I came to the PRP with
my own assumptions of what was "going on" in under-resourced neighborhoods.
My previous belief quite simply was that in order to achieve equality
and community competence you must educate and this education had to start
in the schools at a very early age. If this so-called "digital divide"
did indeed exist weren't resources better used to teach children to read
and write? Weren't we to worry about technology for both children and
adults later after we solved the public schooling dilemma? My knowledge
in the background and writings on poverty and community development were
certainly lacking.
This is where our research on social capital
becomes so compelling. Looking at William Julius Wilson's theory that
joblessness and cycles of poverty are not due to a culture of poverty
but rather the isolation of these individuals and communities we developed
the working hypothesis that community based centers that engage community
members assist in decreasing isolation and increasing community competence.
Creating interactions and relationships for individuals with a variety
of needs and talents as well as bringing together a variety of organizations
built to help people with a diversity of needs helps communities develop.
This will inevitably lead to the improvement of education for everyone
involved. Community Technology Centers that build social capital are more
effective at developing community competence and this can be shown when
CTC's expand participant, staff, and community social networks and when
CTC's have established multiple financial, organizational, and programmatic
partnerships.
Our research found that individuals who
participated in classes at CTC's had increased their social capital by
developing deep relationships with other participants and teachers as
well as increased their investment in the community. This was a key corollary
to our hypothesis- expanding, participant, staff, and community social
networks.
Of course this led back to educating and
learning. A good teacher is one who inspires, develops relationships with
their students both in and out of class, helps others develop meaningful
relationships, and pushes students to improve themselves and their community.
I found a great deal of development of social capital led back to learning
opportunities available to the students.
This was another of our group's hypotheses.
CTC's that provide a variety of learning opportunities are more effective
at developing community competence. This can be shown when CTC's provide
engaging and relevant content as well as when CTC's promote interaction
between and among participants.
Observing and interacting with the staff/teachers
at the various CTC's was by far one of the most inspiring parts of being
involved with this project. When Ana Sisnett discussed community development
and technology with our class one afternoon I can vividly recall her reminding
us how lucky we were to be studying our subject and how easy it is to
forget how difficult teaching in and running Community-Based Organizations
can be [1]. As Lynne Schrum stated in "Let's put Pedagogy First",
if only we could place a computer in a room, turn it on, sit back and
watch the learning take place all the problems in technology and education
would be solved [2]. Of course, we know this to only be a dream. Many
CTC's struggle to stay in operation and all the while they must continue
to teach fun, interesting, and relevant skills to participants. They must
not solely teach the skills needed to turn a computer on and off, send
emails, and type resumes. They must work to help students learn the technology
while ensuring that this learning will help the students in the future.
They must also work to ensure important relationships develop-relationships
that will empower themselves, the students, the CTC, and the communities.
The task is daunting but to watch it take place is fascinating.
What I also consider fascinating is the
evolution of our project. From a group of somewhat confused graduate students
to a competent group compiling theory, surveys, and profiles was exciting.
From the first readings on Austin Free-Net to community development and
to developing surveys, glossaries, profiles, and a toolkit the amount
I have learned continues to grow.
I am still left with problems about some
of the untouched research as well as some of our findings. Many times
I felt uncomfortable visiting the CTC's as a graduate student. I feel
that if we were able to develop a stronger relationship with each CTC
and do more qualitative research our findings would have been more significant.
At times, I felt responses were generated from what we wanted to hear
not what was truly happening or what people truly wanted. I think more
time spent at the CTC's would have also helped us develop more honest
results. Being new to survey design as well as not being exactly
sure of what we wanted to measure from our few trips to the sites after
first semester hindered us. A semester is short however but more time
in the field would have helped. I am also troubled by the lack of professional
development in the field of adult education, especially education using
technology. Teachers do not generally receive their training in teaching
adults as participants in university undergraduate or graduate study.
The field in general relies on poorly funded, sporadic, and often inadequate
in-service training to provide learning "on the job" [3].
Our hypotheses asked a lot of CTC's and their teaching methods. Training
for staff was something quite undeveloped and while trying to dig for
resources I was disheartened by the lack of them. Also, something we talked
a little about that I think is important to future research is the amount
of human capital that stays within the organization. Only once in our
survey related to social capital did we mention students moving within
the CTC's to become volunteers or staff members. Many times skills are
learned and with that the people leave never to return. I think many of
our social capital questions and concerns dealt with this but not as explicitly
as I feel they should have.
All in all I hope that the research we have developed not
only helps the CTC's we worked with but also newly developed CTC's as
well as other graduate students. I was wary coming in as a former teacher
that I would find simply studying community development and education
helpful only to the researchers. Simply is a poor choice of words. I look
at our research and wish that in my first few years as a classroom teacher
I had knowledge of similar research that would not only have helped me
out immediately but also enlightened me to the larger issues. I hope people
see this in our work.
|
Notes
[1] Discussion, Ana Sisnett of Austin Free-Net. Fall 2001.
[2] Shrume, Lynn, Let's Put Pedagogy First: Technology as a tool to support
Instruction. www.education-world.com. 3/26/02.
[3] Russel Mary and John Sabatini. Technology- mediated Professional
Development. www.TechKnowlogia.org. 3/26/02.
this page last updated
May 20, 2002
|
