Access Group 1 SU 09

From WikEd

Digital Access

Authors: Jennifer Adams, Dirk Bowles, Rachel Dane, Leif Hall, Cyndi McCrea, David Negron, Melissa Reder, Steve Waller, Meagan Welch

Wiki Administrator: Jennifer Logue

Created for: EPS 415 Information Technology Ethics University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Professor: Dr. Nicholas Burbules

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Defining the Digital Divide 1.2 History and Context 2 Challenges Across Different Areas of Life 2.1 Socio-economic status 2.2 Ethnicity 2.3 Geographic Location 2.4 Age 2.5 Disability Level 2.6 Gender 3 Global Impact 4 Educational Opportunities and Obstacles 5 Solutions 5.1 National Attempts 5.2 Global Attempts 5.3 Lessons Learned 6 Addressing the Critics to Access 6.1 People don't need "Access", they need to eat. 6.2 These things take time. 6.3 There is a gap and there always will be. 6.4 You can’t give someone Access. 7 Conclusion 8 References

Introduction

Defining the Digital Divide

Although some may assume that the digital divide – the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not^[1] – is small, dwindling, or swiftly becoming irrelevant, it is not. The term “digital divide” refers to disparities in digital technology access and use, ranging from the global level down to nations, communities, and individuals. The divide is large, and due in many ways to multidimensional cultural and social factors. It is therefore more accurate to use the plural – digital divides – when classifying technology access variations within and between countries, both developed and developing.

In order to appreciate the significance of the divides, it is necessary to consider the definition of access in this context. In his 2003 book, Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide, Mark Warschauer explains that access "is embedded in a complex array of factors, encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships." Thus, access does not equate to use, and cannot be achieved by merely providing individuals with computers and digital connectivity. Rather, access involves both technological and societal factors that must be considered simultaneously.

History and Context

For centuries, the human population has believed that advances in technology will inevitably lead to advances in society and the economy, as well as promote personal success. In the late 18th and early 19th century this was evident during the Industrial Revolution. We are currently living in the "Information Age" which is governed by the belief that digital literacy will lead to further societal advances; if individuals have access to a computer and the Internet then they also have access to success through education, networking, and commerce.

While one may argue that everyone has access to technology today, it's important to remember that simply providing someone with a computer will not necessarily lead to its effective use. Many groups of people around the world are vastly under-represented in terms of true technological access, because digital isolation rarely occurs in the absence of additional inequities. As indicated in the sections that follow, relevant access is dependent upon a multitude of other external factors, including race, economic status, geographic location, and gender.

Both as students and as educators, the authors of this wiki acknowledge the far-reaching, positive impact of technology within our daily lives. We possess a unique perspective of the access disparity, as we have the opportunity to serve students of various ages, socio-economic, and ethnic backgrounds. It is our collective opinion that the most effective way to assist students in the 21st century is to bridge the gap to technological access, both nationally and globally.

In the following sections we identify the various groups that are underrepresented in terms of digital access, and discuss some of the global causes and implications of the digital divide. From an educational perspective, we examine some of the opportunities that digital media can bring to K-12 classrooms, but also discuss several obstacles to successful digital integration within schools. Finally, we summarize various theoretical and practical solutions for bridging the digital access gap, as well as address critics that question the reality and importance of eliminating global digital disparities.

Challenges Across Different Areas of Life

"The number one benefit of information technology is that it empowers people to do what they want to do. It lets people be creative. It lets people be productive. It lets people learn things they didn't think they could learn before, and so in a sense it is all about potential." Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft Corporation

Undoubtedly, Internet content and overall use has increased rapidly over the past decade. Although reliable data regarding total size of the global online population does not exist, educated estimates do provide evidence that Internet use has diffused at an extraordinary speed. Yet, even within economically developed nations such as the United States, web content development and use does not equal ubiquitous access. Denizens of economically developed nations often forget the reality that only a tiny percentage of the global community is online, and that even within national boundaries only the economically privileged segments of society have abundant opportunities to participate as members of the web based community. In short, there is no singular digital divide. Instead, there exist multiple, socially patterned divides, so that there are predictable and significant variations in the demographics of those who access information digitally. Within the United States, the uneven diffusion of digital technology—specifically the Internet—mirrors other, more familiar social inequalities such as socio-economic status, ethnicity, geographic location, age, disability level, and gender. Researchers and policy makers agree that there are currently pronounced differences in Internet use across incomes, educational levels, and ages in the United States. Young, affluent, white, well-educated, urban and suburban Americans are more likely to be on the Internet than older, less affluent, African and Hispanic- American, less-educated, and rural Americans. ^[2] Current disagreements about the digital divide relate not to its existence, but to how long the divide(s) will persist. ^[3]

Socio-economic status

Nationally, income continues to be the most critical factor in determining household Internet access. In the case of the urban poor, although digital service providers may be readily available, many families simply cannot afford the monthly fee required to purchase a broadband connection. Many families also lack computers at home. In 2008, among households with an annual income of $50,000 or less—about half the country—only 35% of homes had broadband service, according to Free Press, a technology advocacy group. Households with annual incomes above $50,000 are more than twice as likely to have access to, and utilize, broadband service. Moreover, a 2008 survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ranked the U.S. 15th in terms of household broadband penetration, having slipped from fourth place in 2001.^[4] The use of Internet technology has increased most quickly for individuals at mid to high-income levels, and most gradually for individuals with the lowest income levels. Additionally, the total diffusion of Internet use has slowed considerably in recent years. Taken together, these trends have produced a substantial increase in the time it will take low-income households to catch up with the current level of Internet use among high-income households. ^[5]

Ethnicity

The digital divide is readily apparent when considering racial and ethnic minorities; therefore, a focus on race is crucial if minorities are to receive access to the plethora of opportunities offered in our digital world. Historically, minority groups have suffered educationally in this country due to schools in lower income communities lacking in current educational tools and experienced teachers^[6], and now the digital technology upsurge is contributing to additional educational hardships because of the lack of minority access to online content. The racial divide in digital access is very much associated with broader problems, including poverty in black and Latino communities and, in some cases, even a cultural reluctance to use the Internet. A high household income, increased levels of parental education, and two parent households all correlate with higher levels of computer and Internet use for youth.^[7] A child in a low-income White family is three times as likely to have Internet access as a child in a comparable Black family, and four times as likely to have access as children in a comparable Hispanic household.^[8] Though the Internet is a global phenomenon, U.S.-based, English-only content dominates the World Wide Web. In the United States, language barriers contribute to a troubling digital divide, and prevent many native Spanish speakers from sharing in the educational and economic opportunities that the web offers. Of the approximately 150 million Americans who enjoy a broadband connection at home, 55% are Caucasian, while only 36% are African-American, and 35% are Hispanic.

Contemporary, working knowledge of digital technology is fundamental to the creation of new industries, and essential for ensuring productivity in older businesses. Minorities in the United States, who still overwhelmingly comprise the working class, continue to fall behind in the fight for equality in this country. The United States Senate is attempting to address this issue, however, and recently approved a $250 million federal program to address the digital divide at historically Black colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving universities.^[9] Additionally, launched in 2008, Encontrando Dulcinea is a search engine site targeted to Spanish-speaking Internet users, who read online content in both English and Spanish. The site debuted with more than 20 Spanish-language guides to websites, and new guides are added to the site on a weekly basis.^[10]

Geographic Location

"As long as a grade-school child living on a farm cannot research a science project, or a high school student living on a remote Indian reservation cannot submit a college application, or an entrepreneur in a rural hamlet cannot order spare parts, or a local law enforcement officer cannot download pictures of a missing child without traveling to a city or town that has broadband Internet access, we cannot turn back from these challenges." Acting Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Copps May 22, 2009

With regard to digital access, a geographic divide also persists. For years, large areas of rural America have languished on the sidelines of the digital revolution, and have been deemed too remote, too sparsely populated, or too inaccessible to be fully connected with our nation’s infrastructures. ^[11] As a result, Americans living in rural areas have substantially lower levels of Internet access than those residing in urban or suburban areas. Underserved residents in rural communities are also comparatively less educated, and have lower incomes than city dwellers. In 2008, the Pew Broadband Adoption Study identified an annual income of about $30,000 as the typical threshold for a home Internet connection, noting that 47 percent of the rural community earns less each year. Furthermore, the study found that approximately 57 to 60 percent of urban and suburban consumers have broadband connections, compared to only about 38 percent of rural residents.^[12] Age is also a factor when considering levels of rural Internet penetration, as approximately 15 percent of the rural population is over the age of 65.^[13] Additionally, rural users are less likely to even have the option of a broadband connection, as they encounter far fewer options for Internet Service Providers. This situation is beginning to change, though. The Mid-Atlantic broadband cooperative is one organization working to provide high-speed Internet access to rural Virginia:

However, there is not widespread consensus that broadband access is critical to the revival and survival of rural America. Proponents of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which will infuse 7.2 billion dollars into expanding broadband availability to America’s rural areas, say that the plan will create jobs, build crucial infrastructure, give local businesses an electronic edge, and offer residents an array of services like online health care and virtual college courses.^[14] Outspoken critics of the plan, though, have a very different opinion. Former Federal Communications Commission Chief Economist Michael Katz went so far as to classify life in the rural U.S. as environmentally hostile, energy inefficient, and weak in innovation. He claims that subsidizing such a lifestyle would be misguided.

Age

According to a study by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, seniors are increasingly using the Internet to complete their banking, email family and friends, make purchases, and research health information. ^[15] Despite this increase in use, though, seniors still lag behind teens and "Generation X'ers" in technology access because they either refuse to adopt new technologies, don't believe technology is beneficial, or believe that they are incapable of learning to use new technology. However, Part Two of the Silver Surfer series documents one U.S. senior's positive experience with digital technology and the Internet. On average, American seniors are spending an increasing amount of time using the Internet to manage finances, stay connected to friends and family, and research medical information.

In contrast, most younger people are using the internet for social networking, entertainment purposes, and on-line shopping.^[16] As the fastest growing segment of American society, seniors represent a large percentage of the U.S. population with leisure time on their hands and are by no means completely lacking in technical knowledge. In fact, many analysts agree that telecommunications companies who focus on addressing this potentially affluent and eager market are in a position to profit.^[17] Generations on Line is one organization committed to improving Internet literacy and digital access for the paper generation by providing web-based software and support materials for senior centers, public libraries, and retirement homes. The software provides step-by-step, onscreen instructions on every page in large type, and provides a clear, uncluttered interface with user friendly icons. It is also free to seniors, and the mission of Generations on Line is threefold: to promote Internet literacy, access and skills to the elderly, to help seniors overcome their fear and reluctance of the new electronic media; and to stimulate the exchange of ideas among generations.

Disability Level

Much of the Web remains difficult to access or completely inaccessible by people with disabilities. With over 54 million individuals in the United States suffering from disabilities, approximately 70% of them are unemployed.^[18] The standards set by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration define disabilities as: difficulty walking, vision problems, hearing problems, difficulty using hands, and learning disabilities. Peter Korn, accessibility engineer for Sun Microsystems, Inc., notes that in this country, there are essentially four ways for those with disabilities to receive the assistive technology necessary in order to gain access to digital content: through an employer, through an educational institution, through rehabilitation services, or by paying for it out of pocket.^[19] So, among the 70% who are unemployed, assistive technology (AT) is not received through an employer or school, and in most cases unemployed individuals do not have the finances required to purchase AT; they therefore also lack access to the vast majority of digital content. Rehabilitation services for those with disabilities are also stretched very thin in the U.S. and typically only serve those in the process of getting a job. Furthermore, although priority guidelines exist for the creation of websites that are more easily navigated by individuals with disabilities who lack AT, it is not mandatory that page authors and site developers conform to the suggested guidelines. As a result, many sites fail to conform to even the most basic accessibility standards. While some web masters strive to create friendly sites, many current web-authoring tools make it difficult to design accessible web pages.

Our country also lacks a national Internet accessibility policy, which also contributes to the relatively low number of websites that are truly available to individuals with disabilities.^[20] Considering the increase in Internet use for educational, employment, and social opportunities, this will continue to negatively impact inclusion efforts in the United States.

Gender

Gender inequality is a long-standing issue that has improved dramatically in numerous developed countries. However, the disparities in technology access between genders is a more recent angle to this issue. It is interesting to note that females use of technology tends to differ from that of males. Even when men and women have equal access to the Internet either through home, work, or school, they may not have an equal opportunity to digitally engage in a wide variety of uses. ^[21] Studies show that women use the Internet more often to network, while men use it more often to research. Another determining factor in which technology is used by females is the likelihood that a woman will be victimized by online harassment. ^[22] This risk likely leads to more conservative use of Internet technology by women. With improvements constantly being made within the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) field, the job market in that industry has been growing considerably.^[23] The problem lies in that fewer women than men tend to enroll in ICT programs and enter ICT professions. It has also been argued by some that access and training in ICT for women has been insufficient. ^[24] This is an area of concern, as digital literacy is only one of many skills that women most possess in order to experience sustained professional success. It is paramount for educators to be aware of the fact that, in general, females lag behind males in their comfort and skill level with regard to the use of digital technology. However, some learning institutions have identified this problem, and are developing strategies for narrowing the gap between boys and girls in terms of Information Technology.

Few citizens of developed nations would argue against the countless benefits that inevitably accompany comprehensive access to modern technology. Unfortunately, however, simply residing in a developed nation does not necessarily guarantee digital literacy—especially when living as a member of a digitally under-represented group. As evidenced in the following section, citizens of developing nations are offered even far fewer opportunities to experience the advantages of inclusive digital technology.

Global Impact

On a global scale the technological access disparity is enormous. There are millions of people around the world that have had very little, if any, access to contemporary information and communications technology. According to Tiene (2002) there are millions of people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that are barely surviving poverty and thus do not enjoy the same privileges and access to technology as people in industrialized societies. This creates a widening gap between the haves and the have nots; this impact is not only felt at the socioeconomic level but also at the educational level. Pick and Azari (2008) have found that, although 88% of all internet users are from industrialized countries, they comprise only 15% of the world's population. Furthermore, they found that the global technology gap is not only between rich and poor countries, but also between the advantaged and disadvantaged regions within nations. Thus, there are millions of people that do not have access the the many benefits that technology brings (access to quality health care, access to quality education, access to running water, access to electricity). Some have questioned whether or not a global digital divide actually exists; the following section addresses this and other frequently asked questions.

---

Is there really a digital divide?

In terms of the access issue and specifically focusing on how many people utilize technology, there does appear to be a digital divide. In the United States and Canada there are over 180 million users of the internet and other forms of technology, while in Latin America there are only 25 million users. In Africa there are less than 5 million users of the internet and technology in general. The Atlas of Global Inequality and the Computers per Population Map both provide a visual representation of similar data.

---

Why is there such a disparity among countries and their access to technology?

The answer is simple - Economics! In the Unites States, the average cost for internet access is $29 per month, which accounts for about 1% of a persons annual income (Tiene, 2002). The average monthly cost for internet service in Mexico is $94, which is approximately 15% of a persons annual income. In many African countries the average monthly charge ranges from $32-$92, which is approximately 77-118% of a persons annual economy. Thus, it is far more of an economic challenge for people in developing nations to afford access to technology. Of course, there are other factors at play when discussing the access problem on a global scale. Th Global Information Infrastructure Commission surveyed individuals around the world as to what they felt were the basic causes of the digital divide and seven major factors were identified: Culture, Language, Poverty, Infrastructure, Bureaucracy, Corruption, and Protectionism. So, the answer to the access divide on a global scale is very complex.

---

Why is is important to eliminate the digital divide and ensure that everyone has equal access to technology?

In conjunction with partner groups, Craig Warren Smith has identified the following nine truths regarding the importance of eliminating the digital divide:

Truth Number One: The Divide is widening, not narrowing, at an ever-increasing rate.

Truth Number Two: Closing the Digital Divide may be the only way to make globalization work for the poor.

Truth Number Three: The consequence of not closing the Divide is terrorism.

Truth Number Four: Closing the Digital Divide is fundamentally about empowerment, that is, it is about using new technologies to empower the poor just as they now empower the rich.

Truth Number Five: Closing the Digital Divide is the only way to sustain the growth of world markets.

Truth Number Six: World leaders from every sector -- business, government, academia, NGOs -- can benefit from closing the Divide. Yet no one sector has the incentive to lead the effort to close the Divide.

Truth Number Seven: Closing the Digital Divide requires building an "enterprise ecosystem" that offers "end to end solutions" for the poor.

Truth Number Eight: The mid-level countries in relatively advanced emerging markets, not the poorest countries, are the best settings for experimental efforts to close the Digital Divide.

Truth Number Nine: Closing the digital divide involves using new technologies to formalize the "informal economy," thereby bringing the poor into established markets.

For more information on rationale behind the truths, please visit their website.

---

Pick and Azari (2008) conducted a study to determine the influence of socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility factors on information technology in 71 developing and developed countries. The researchers asked the following questions:

1. What are the most important socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility factors that influce average per capita national technology usage for personal computers, internet hosts, and mobile phones?

2. What are the most important socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility factors that influence average per capita national technology expenditure for informationand communications technology?

3. What are the most important socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility factors that influence informations and communication technologies (ICT) infrastructure quality/

4. What are the differences in socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility influences on average per capita national technology usage for personal computers, internet hosts, and mobile phones between developing and developed nations?

5. What are the differences in socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility influences on average per capita national technology expenditure for information and communications technology?

Furthermore, the following dependent variables were used: 1) personal computers per 1,000 person, 2) internet hosts per 1,000 persons, 3) mobile phones per 1,000 persons, 4) information and communications technology expenditure per capita, and 5) overall ICT infrastructure quality. They had 13 independent variables which they selected from socioeconomic, educational, training, governmental and demographic data gathered from previous studies conducted by global data collecting organizations. Pick and Azari had numerous results to report, but their most important findings were that increased science and technical journal publication is associated with greater technology use, expenditure, and infrastructure. They concluded that this is the case because having a strong pool of scientific and technical talent leads to more creative and productive industries, which then results in a stronger economy that then leads to improved and more prevalent technology. They further found that education is directly related to technology. Thus, highly educated populations experience more prevalent technology use. So, education plays a significant role in the use of technology across the globe. Finally, the researchers made several recommendations. Among them was the necessity of increasing access to education and digital literacy in order to eliminate technological access issues around the world. As stated previously, access to technology does not simply equate to a computer or Internet connection, but also access to other basic amenities that developed nations enjoy and now consider a necessity.

---

What is being done to improve telecommunications access for developing nations?

Telecommunications technologies are being used to help level the playing ground between developing and wealthy nations. The African telecommunications infrastructure is so new that the latest in wireless, satellite and high-speed fiber optic technologies are being deployed at a rate faster than the western world, so much so that the number of African cellular subscribers has grown twice as fast as those in the more developed parts of the world. ^[25] Even though the adoption rate of wireless internet services in the United States has grown steadily over the last several years, it has not seen the same rate of acceptance when compared to South Africa. In August of 2000 the number of mobile internet users in South Africa surpassed that of fixed-line users.^[26] As it relates to preexisting infrastructure, less developed nations have an opportunity to roll out access to information technology in a less restricted manner.

---

Why does a developed nation like Turkey have such limited opportunities for access?

Culture is a blend of values and norms that are generally shaped by national, regional, and local expectations, including ethnicity, religion, language, gender, and social economic status. In Turkey, the culture has had a large impact on the level of Internet access available to its citizens. Studies have shown that Turkish people "are not using the latest information and communication technologies such as the Internet as efficiently and effectively as are people in other developed countries." (Aydin et. al, 2004, p.108)

Access to computers is different in Turkey when compared to the United States. Some of the differences can be attributed to cultural and social norms. For example, in Turkey Internet cafés are one of the primary means of accessing the Internet, but in the United States the personal computer at home is considered the primary access point (Aydin et. al, 2004). Additionally, access issues in Turkey are complicated by inefficient infrastructure, lack of required legislation, and economic problems. Turkey's only information technology carrier is Turk Telekom. It is a private company, but acts as a government agent. A multitude of economic, political, and bureaucratic problems have limited the company from improving its services (Aydin et. al, 2004). An anti-globalization movement is also growing in Turkey, and many middle-aged and older citizens are reluctant to use the Internet because of its strong Western influences. Although most companies, and even the government, are trying to prepare for the effects of globalization, there are many resistors who believe that globalization has abundant negative effects on economy and culture (Aydin et. al, 2004).

When viewed from the perspective of formal education in the 21st century, the above statistics become even more alarming. It's quite easy to envision the perpetuation of a global digital divide in the absence of technological reforms within educational policy. The following section considers some of the opportunities presented by widespread digital integration among schools, and also examines some obstacles to the adoption of an educator-driven technological mindset.

Educational Opportunities and Obstacles

Undoubtedly, there are more frequent examples of access inequity in developing nations than in the developed world. As educators, the authors of this wiki feel that it is our duty to address the inequities in schools here in the United States. While schools strive to balance various disparities among students, including regional and economic differences, it's our belief that addressing the disparities of digital access should be equally important. Opportunities in education are boundless when individuals are provided with adequate access to technology. In the 2008 article Minds on Fire: Open Education, The Long Tail, and Learning 2.0, John Seely Brown and Richard P. Adler provide an example of the positive impact that digital social networks can create:

"John King, the associate provost of the University of Michigan, has attempted to bring attention to this phenomenon (of social networking) by asking how many students are being taught each year by his institution. Although about 40,000 students are enrolled in classes on the university’s campus in Ann Arbor, King believes that the actual number of students being reached by the school today is closer to 250,000. For the past few years, he points out, incoming students have been bringing along their online social networks, allowing them to stay in touch with their old friends and former classmates through tools like SMS, IM, Facebook, and MySpace. Through these continuing connections, the University of Michigan students can extend the discussions, debates, bull sessions, and study groups that naturally arise on campus to include their broader networks. Even though these extended connections were not developed to serve educational purposes, they amplify the impact that the university is having while also benefiting students on campus. If King is right, it makes sense for colleges and universities to consider how they can leverage these new connections through the variety of social software platforms that are being established for other reasons."

As additional testimony to the educational power of digital access, the following statistics are described by author and classroom tech evangelist Will Richardson in his 2009 book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms:

"Results of a Netday survey released in March 2005 assert that technology has become ‘an indispensable tool in the education of today’s students’. The survey showed that 81 percent of students in Grades 7-12 had e-mail accounts, 75 percent had at least one Instant Messenger (IM) screen name, and that 97 percent believed strongly that technology use is important in education. And, the fastest growing age group for Internet use is 2 to 5 year olds. This online life is a whole lot bigger than just the Internet. This online life has become an entire strategy for how to live, survive, and thrive in the twenty-first century where cyberspace is a part of everyday life."

The following video explores the ways in which students are currently using technologies, and addresses the need to incorporate these technologies to more thoroughly engage 21st century learners:

Access in Schools

In schools that are fortunate to have technology access, opportunities for more engaging lessons and activities exist. Through use of the Internet, Web 2.0 technologies, and multimedia hardware, students are able to conduct more in-depth research by investigating various sources of information in a shorter amount of time; collaborate with more diverse groups of students; and integrate an assortment of media within a researched project including videos, podcasts, and digital images. Allowing students the opportunity to engage with these technologies and apply them effectively in a learning task will better prepare them for future use. Unfortunately, however, digital technology access among school districts and between individual schools is far from equal. The limited access among various societal groups (see Section 2) also has an effect on education. In rural areas, schools may not have access to the Internet due to the lack of broadband availability. Schools that serve a high number of students from low income families tend to have fewer opportunities for access to technology as well, due to budget constraints. It’s important to consider the costs of maintaining technology when budgeting for the cost of obtaining technology. ^[27]

"The Digital Divide" addresses the disparity of access within the United States, and the need to help all children become digitally literate:

Within a school that does provide access opportunities for digital technology, student access is often still limited. Frequently, administrators choose to block student access for safety reasons, or to curtail student engagement with social networking or file sharing sites, and email. Additionally, decisions are often made within districts to allow increased student access by grade level. An example of this disparity would be allowing high school students access to an email program, but prohibiting its use at the middle and elementary school level. Another major obstacle to student access is the number of available computers in a given school. Many schools house computers in centralized locations like the school library or in computer labs. These computers are usually reserved for classes at certain times of the day and for a predetermined number of days each week, limiting individual student access. Some argue that a better way to facilitate student access to digital technology is to separate computer lab resources so that a few computers are consistently available in each classroom. This arrangement would allow for spontaneous researching, while simultaneously supporting differentiated instruction. ^[28]

Personal Experiences

Various authors of this wiki have experienced educational disadvantages within their classrooms due to access inequalities. Here are some examples, in their own words:

"Limited access to technology definitely has an effect on my curriculum and my teaching goals. As a foreign language teacher, I have to rely heavily on the Internet and other technology tools to allow my students to get a closer look at other cultures. I like to bring authentic music, videos, and stories to class because it not only motivates my students, but it also helps improve their language fluency. Problems I've encountered include blocked access to certain websites (like YouTube and music sites) at the school, and students' lack of access while at home. Every year I'm surprised by the number of students whose home computer is not functioning, and the number of students who depend on local libraries for Internet access outside of the school. It wouldn't be rational to expect each student to have access to a computer, so I have to make many accommodations for that disparity. Accommodations might include providing students access outside of class, decreasing requirements, or changing the format of the assignment so that access to the Internet is optional. Unfortunately, these accommodations may not be as fulfilling or motivating as the original assignment. One has to wonder if these same students that lack digital access may also be losing motivation to learn when they aren't able to engage in the same learning experiences as their peers." -- Jennifer Adams

“When working with student populations that span the socio-economic spectrum, I am very aware of the impact that levels of parental education have on student access to, and comfort with, technology. In terms of engagement with the creative possibilities of digital media, students that live in a household with a home computer, broadband connection, and adults who are digitally savvy consistently out compete their peers from homes that lack computers, Internet access, and digitally literate adults.” -- Rachel Dane

"Besides the difficulties of providing access to all students, as mentioned above, another challenge is to help teachers and administrators understand the reality of what this lack of access means for their students' learning opportunities. Many teachers may "know" that some students are economically disadvantaged, but do not extend that knowledge to make appropriate accommodations in their teaching and assignments. We cannot assume that students understand computers, MP3's, software, etc., but must first teach the skills we want them to utilize and then ensure access to the technology that is necessary to complete the assignments and compete in the global work force." -- Cyndi McCrea

"One of the biggest challenges I face as middle school math teacher is effectively integrating technology into my curriculum. I was fortunate to participate in a grant that provided me with a variety of technologies such as a Smartboard, student response system, video camera and digital camera among other things. However, it’s important to recognize that simply having these items, does not guarantee that I have the ability to use them to enhance student learning. As we’ve argued, simply providing these “tools” does not lead to actual access. Continual professional development is necessary to train educators on how to integrate technology into their curriculum." -- Meagan Welch

Teachers

Teacher attitudes toward technology have a major impact on student accessibility. Qing Li, author of Student and Teacher Views About Technology: A Tale of Two Cities? found that “…teachers’ attitude towards technology uses in schools tends to be negative, while student attitudes can be summarized as enthusiastic.” Li went on to cite another study that determined three obstacles to teacher technology integration: “…(1) material conditions (including an insufficient number of computers and insufficient technology expertise among teachers); (2) difficulty integrating technology into the regular curriculum and instruction; and (3) lack of supervisory and technical staff.”

The avatars in the following video poke fun at traditional assignments given by teachers, and demonstrate students' desire to incorporate digital tools in the classroom:

When all factors are taken into account, the importance of integrating technology into education and bridging the digital divides in schools becomes paramount. For populations that have no access, an exponentially decreased opportunity to obtain an appropriate education, and decreased opportunities for employment with higher pay are experienced. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, by 2010, “the fastest growing occupations will include software engineers, computer support specialists, desktop publishers and database, network and systems administrators”. ^[29] Workplaces today have become increasingly digitalized, making technology skills a prerequisite. Educators must take the necessary steps to better prepare 21st century students for increasingly dynamic technologies and societies.

Solutions

National Attempts

The United States must strive to provide Internet access and digital skills to all citizens. This is not just about having a computer, but also about creating a future, securing a job and ensuring that our country stays competitive in the global market.

There are many organizations across the country, from local efforts to government programs, that are working to bridge the digital divide. This article highlights only a few of the larger groups but a check of your local library, schools, and community agencies will provide you with information on how you can help, too.

The Universal Services Fund is the official government response to the Digital Divide. Implemented in 1996, the fund has identified five main goals: 1. Promote the availability of quality services at just and reasonable rates for all consumers 2. Increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services 3. Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas 4. Increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities 5. Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs

The Federal Communications Commission appointed the Universal Service Administrative Company to oversee the E-Rate Program. Under the plan, schools and libraries are eligible to receive subsidies that pay a percentage of incurred digital technology costs based on location and need (often determined by the percentage of reduced-cost lunches through the National School Lunch Program). This program is designed to provide equipment and Internet access to schools that would not be able to afford them otherwise. However, simply providing the technology without human resources or community support may not be an adequate solution for solving the digital divide. In conjunction with the equipment, it is also necessary to garnish community support and provide training and continuing education for teachers.

The Office of Educational Technology (OET) is responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of educational technology policies, research projects, and national technology summits. The Office's main goal is to maximize technological contributions in order to improve education. This goal is achieved, in part, by developing and implementing educational technology policy on a national level to support the goals of No Child Left Behind.

The Enhancing Education through Technology State Program provides information on state-specific long range programs for advancing technology.

OET Digital Divide Archived has a number of resources, grant programs, and reports on the Digital Divide.

Internet for Everyoneis a national initiative that is working to provide fast, accessible and open internet connections for every home and business in the United States. Here, Josh Silver speaks at the launch of the program:

Agenda supporters are creating a broad alliance of public interest, including national leaders and civic and industry citizens, to provide wired and wireless internet based on the following four principles:

Access - Every home, business and civic institution in America must have access to a high-speed, world-class communications infrastructure.

Choice - Every Internet user must enjoy real choice in online content as well as among high-speed Internet providers to achieve lower prices and faster speeds.

Openness - Every Internet user should have the right to freedom of speech and commerce online in an open market, without gatekeepers or discrimination.

Innovation - The Internet should continue to create good jobs, foster entrepreneurship, spread new ideas, and serve as a leading engine of economic growth.

This campaign is very promising, and is engaging citizens as well as private and public organizations. A grassroots crusade has been created to engage the national government in providing not only technology and access, but also the training needed to make the Internet a useful and available tool so that all Americans can participate fully in economic, employment and voting opportunities.

The One Laptop Per Child Association has a mission to "create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning." Its current focus is on the development, construction, and deployment of the XO-1 laptop. However, criticisms of this program include that the operation is designed only to distribute as many laptops as possible, without providing training or team support for the software or hardware. Nonetheless, Uruguay will be the first developing nation to provide laptops for every student through the One Laptop Per Child Association.

The Boston Digital Bridge Foundation (BDBF) is a non-profit corporation providing technology training and computer equipment to under served Boston communities. Using technology education programs as a vehicle for cultural change, the Foundation encourages life-changing attitudes in parents and students in the Boston Public Schools. The BDBF achieved its first goal of raising $225 million to network each of the Boston Public School's 135 school buildings and 26 public libraries, making Boston the nation's first fully networked urban school system. Within two years of program implementation, virtually all teachers in the school system had received 50 hours of technology training, and the student-to-computer ratio was reduced from 1:70 to 1:4. Technology Goes Home is the only structured program within Boston Public Schools that deals specifically with encouraging and expanding parental involvement in student achievement. By creating a venue for increased parental participation, student performance improves and adults simultaneously gain life-changing skills. When parents become more invested, they typically also engage more with the workings of the school and the entire system benefits. This program is working because it not only provides access, but also gains community support while providing training and relevance.

The overall aim of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's IMARA Project is to find and implement long-term, sustainable solutions to make educational technology and resources available to domestic and international communities. IMARA (a Swahili word that means "power") is an effort that began at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. There are many components and key philosophies that underlie IMARA:

1. Empower communities to help themselves. Instead of providing handouts, IMARA provides resources and training needed to IMARA communities to effect the changes that they believe have value.

2. Local Experts. Heavy emphasis is placed on training the trainers, who become local experts in their communities. They then train others, and this gift of knowledge is passed on to neighboring communities. Participants earn new resources by helping others, which builds a sense of self-worth and investment in the process.

3. Empower without indoctrination. Many outreach efforts carry a dogmatic directive, whether to espouse a particular religion or to promote a Western way of life. Our goal is to enable without strings attached; to allow communities to take the new opportunity and make changes that they decide and agree upon.

4. Provide solutions to problems. We do not believe in introducing technology that unnecessarily complicates life or that does not specifically address a preexisting problem that has been identified by the community.

5. Establish community learning and technology centers. These locations provide adequate power, lighting, and other accommodations to facilitate learning and community service. They also act as a hub for communicating with other centers around the world.

6. Sustainability. No action should be taken without proper consideration for long-term maintenance, feedback, improvement, and outcome studies. Participants should learn how to care for resources, and should be invested in passing the gift of knowledge on to others.

7. Leveraging existing efforts. Humanitarian efforts are scarce enough, and duplication of effort is (not cost efficient). IMARA will remain aware of ongoing and existing efforts by organizations already in a potential participant site, and will attempt to cooperate to the fullest possible extent with them to maximize outcome.

8. Developing partnerships with industry. We want to help organizations that want to make a difference in the world. We provide logistics and the legwork needed to get resources and experienced trainers into underserved populations. This way, contributions of monetary and technological resources get deployed efficiently to communities in need. Everyone involved wins.

The passage belows provides an overview of IMARA's global effects: "The projects that IMARA does around the world are operated and implemented under the guidance and sponsorship of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Most of the members of IMARA are volunteers and staff provided by MIT, whose support of this project is in a very hands-on approach. MIT volunteers and staff have donated their equipment, such as computers, along with their valuable time and expertise into developing this project and making sure it survives. However, despite the work done by IMARA, there is still a long way to go to bridge the global digital divide. Buying and setting up computers inside developing countries and training the natives is not as simple as it sounds and is not the only answer to solving the issue. In order for the bridge to be constructed between the haves and have-nots, it must start with the governments and their willingness to allow their infrastructure to develop and their citizens to progress. This would take some investment, but with projects like the IMARA, it is feasible, but governments must let their guards down a little bit in order for such growth to occur. It is understood that the Internet is a “great equalizer,” so it is important the developing countries not miss out on opportunities to expand their potential growth, rather than deprive their citizens of the necessary education to survive in the future of advanced technology and communication systems. It is safe to assume that not all countries are created equal, but to keep it that way would seem unethical. It is rather more principled to acknowledge the lesser powers and help them succeed in their technological understanding. The Internet is only as good and as strong as its users. If some undeveloped or underdeveloped countries were to be left in the cold, then I would argue that the Internet has a missing link, and it would never fulfill its potential as long as that link is missing. Efforts to bridge the digital divide like the “One Laptop Per Child” and IMARA Project are moving in the right direction. But it is not enough. Even more, the digital divide not only exists in countries outside of the more developed nations, it also exists within these nations. Low income and households do not always have access to the Internet or even a computer. The work that needs to be done to eliminate or even reduce the digital divide concept requires the involvement of everyone that is privileged enough to have one." New Media and Culture

Global Attempts

Much like the National efforts, Global efforts to alleviate lack of access to technology are confronting big challenges. While the difficulty of bridging this gap is a constant in society, intense efforts are taking place to lessen some of these ongoing struggles in our technology based world. There are many organizations that are facilitating global digital access.

Global Partnerships was launched to unite business and community members in order to provide meaningful solutions to poverty. The basic premise behind the non-profit foundation is the belief that, though technology, the poor can be empowered and enabled to help themselves. Technology can be used as a tool to eradicate poverty at urban, rural, and village levels. Most of the foundation's work has been centralized in Latin America, but continues to expand internationally. Global Partnerships Phases are ongoing.

Global Ethics was introduced in 2004 to reinforce documentation, networking and research on ethical issues. This Geneva-based network promotes debate on ethical issues has launched a global online library, with more than 1 million documents, to help lessen the digital divide between the northern and southern hemispheres. Much like the other organizations, they believe access to information and communication is a key instrument of development. They see the northern hemisphere as a wealth of internet information. In contrast, the southern hemisphere is completely opposite. The southern people are searching for that information to survive. This group believes the ethical information delivered can contribute to the efficient, sustainable, and transparent use of limited public and private resources.

The World Computer Exchange is the largest North American non-profit provider of donated computers used to connect youth in developing countries. The WCE's belief is, "To act as a partner in helping to bridge the global digital divide for youth, promoting cultural understanding between students in developed and developing countries, and expanding local capacity for the educational use and responsible disposal of Information and Communication Technologies". The WCE has shipped over 25,000 computers to 40+ countries to connect 2,500 schools that report connecting over 1 million youth per year. They have 450 formal partner organizations in 64 developing countries. Within the WCE, they have 180 program officers and teams of online support. That also includes volunteers that aid in planning, fund raising, and technical support.

Taiwan is one of many countries whose government is invested in assisting the economic advancement of rural communities through Digital Divide remediation, and there are many other existing organizations making efforts to counteract the global access issue. Most of the groups have a common theme: utilizing technology as a means to further economic development.

Lessons Learned

First and foremost, collaboration is the key to success. All of the stakeholders – local citizens, private and public organizations, governments, educational institutions, and businesses – need to be involved in the preliminary planning stages and throughout the process to ensure follow through of the initial goals. The technology needs to be relevant; it must benefit the daily lives of the target population in order to motivate them to continue its use. Once local interests have been identified, then the stakeholders can determine how technology can best support those interests and motivate community involvement. Private and public organizations have credibility, contacts, and the trust of the community. Governments can provide policy statements, funding, and research on models of successful programs. Education for both school age children and adults can help develop the skills and knowledge necessary for the use, maintenance, and further development of technology for the community. Although projects should be designed as economically and technologically self sustaining, early training, support, and resources should also be provided. With teamwork, the digital divide can be bridged so that everyone will experience the benefits of access, including full participation in society and the rapidly globalizing world.

Addressing the Critics to Access

Can we bridge the gap?

People don't need "Access", they need to eat.

Affirmative:

According to the World Bank, 5.6 billion of the 6.7 billion people on the planet live under the classification of “low to lower middle income economies”. That number includes 1.4 billion people living below the international poverty line of US$1.25 per day. Just shy of 1 billion are undernourished. We know from our own experiences in the United States that students struggle to learn, with or without technology, when their basic needs do not reach a minimum level. We do not have an access issue, we have a socioeconomic issue, and until we address poverty, access is irrelevant.

Counter:

We do not need to address the issue with an “either/or” approach. We can work to feed people and work to provide them access to foster a sustainable recovery. Access can provide information on any number of opportunities, from local agriculture to helping in the building of commerce to educating the population. And access is not just shipping computers to poor areas. Access to greater technology means helping in the creation of systems that produce clean drinking water or better health care services. We cannot just ship the poverty stricken a steady stream of resources, we need to send them the tools that will sustain them for the duration, and this includes food, technology, and the training to use the technology.

These things take time.

Affirmative:

Devices are constantly and quickly becoming smaller, faster and cheaper. It is in the interest of the world markets and the multi-national corporations (MNC) to reach the 5.6 billion low to lower-middle income population as the next growth market. If we just watch, new technology will go the path of the automobile, the telephone, the television, and electricity, all of which began with the “haves” and ultimately made it to the “have nots”. Furthermore, moving too precipitously has its own risks. One example would have the recipient not seeing the value in a particular technology (like a laptop) because it was not explained appropriately, thereby dismissing subsequent technologies (like a water pump that can access and clean water more efficiently) that can truly make an impact. In another example we can send technology that will be superceded almost immediately rendering it useless in a matter of months.

Counter:

In 1990, the poorest on the planet held a mere 8% of the wealth in the world. By the year 2000 that was cut in half. Waiting may not be an option. Throughout history, we have needed organizations to help foster the transfer of goods and services, as well as provide opportunities to those in need. Relying on MNCs to provide for the poverty stricken in any way is a dubious proposition at best. The “80/20 Rule” tells us, that on average, the wealthiest 20% of the population will produce 80% of the returns to an MNC, and an MNC exists to create profits for its owners or shareholders. This speaks to the Bottom of the Pyramid strategy, asserted by C.K. Prahalad, but not addressed in the strategy are costs of building an infrastructure to reach the poor. Other critics say that we must focus on the poor to become producers versus consumers. In the end, if the wealthiest are increasing their share of the wealth and the opposite is happening for the poor, the incentive to reach out to the poor dissipates for the MNCs.

There is a gap and there always will be.

Affirmative:

Some will have more and some will have less. This has been the case throughout history and will continue to be the case in the future. Even as technology disperses on its own accord, the argument will become old versus new technology. This is all less a problem and more a fact of life. Let us say that we could get the latest technology to everyone; many do not know what to do with it, and others do not want it. Best estimates have roughly 80% of the web communicating in English. There is a large contingency that sees the web as a tool to “westernize” the rest of the world, and even if given access, does not want it. We cannot close the gap when the opportunities are being refused.

Counter:

Saying that there will always be a rich and a poor is hardly an argument for ceasing to help in the creation of opportunities. As technology advances, the older technologies are still usable and can potentially serve the poor well. We do not have to serve the poor with the latest technology, it just has to be effective. Technology can also be conceived and created for the masses. For example, if we add video and intricate pictures, it will not transmit well over phone lines and low bandwidth. If we keep these things in mind we can reach a larger population more effectively.

You can’t give someone Access.

Affirmative:

Giving a computer to someone that has never seen one does not introduce him or her to the Web and all the opportunities that a computer provides. If I have never seen a car or keys, I won’t have a clue what to do when you hand me car keys, even if we’re standing in front of the car. Then we have the large portion of the world’s population that is illiterate, and even if they are literate, it probably isn’t in English, and as stated earlier, 80% of the Internet is in English. Even those that have seen a computer and speak English must see the value in Access and without education that is unlikely. All of these obstacles require answers we do not yet have and require an investment most are not willing to make, which makes Access irrelevant until we can address these questions. Research has also shown that if we introduce the technology without education, it tends not to be used for intellectual endeavors; people will find video games, but not Open Educational Resources. This is where the technology bears a negative impact, while the students ignore their studies and instead play video games.

Counter:

It may be true that you cannot just give Access, but that should not, and does not, stop the solution process. As the idea of Multiliteracies takes hold, the ability of the Web to communicate to the world increases. People can communicate through images, designs and a multitude of other ways. It is not our job to be paternalistic and decide what is best for those in need. We can certainly try to introduce technologies in the most effective way, but just as it took our very own technologically savvy society years to shop online due to fear and skepticism, these developing countries will need to have their own organic growth, and all the challenges and opportunities that come with it. With the tools, they will ultimately adapt them to the needs of their own society, which may be outside of the goals or expectations we have for them.

Conclusion

By enhancing the quality of education, promoting creativity, fostering communication, and empowering populations, the extensive positive influence of digital media is transforming the way that we live. Overall, digital users are more socially connected than non-users, and have a stronger sense of efficacy. ^[30] Digital access also offers many opportunities for democracy and civic engagement by providing an abundance of news and information from various viewpoints, and enabling global communication through collaborative, virtual communities. However, differential access to technology and digital media reinforces already high levels of multifaceted inequalities worldwide. The potential exists to alleviate a myriad of inequitable social dimensions if this divide is eliminated, and the authors of this wiki believe that eliminating the digital divide is of paramount social and educational importance.

References

1. ↑ Digital Divide: What it is
2. ↑ American Segregation Shapes the Color of Electronic Commerce
3. ↑ Trends and Predictions for Internet Use
4. ↑ Bringing Broadband to the Urban Poor
5. ↑ Using Family Income to Measure the Extent and Persistence of the U.S. Digital Divide
6. ↑ Minority History on Segregation
7. ↑ Digital divide still separates white and minority students
8. ↑ Racial Capitalism and the Digital Divide
9. ↑ Closing the Digital Divide at Minority-serving Institutions
10. ↑ Spanish speakers not served by the Internet?
11. ↑ Bringing Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy
12. ↑ The FCC's New Deal for Rural Internet
13. ↑ Non-metro America Faces Challenges From an Aging Population
14. ↑ Internet Money in Fiscal Plan: Wise or Waste?
15. ↑ Pew Internet & American Life Project: Generations Online in 2009
16. ↑ Generational Differences in Online Activities
17. ↑ Seniors: Mythical Computer Curmudgeons
18. ↑ Today's Digital Divide in the United States: Inclusion of Individuals with Disabilities
19. ↑ Peter Korn's Weblog
20. ↑ Unequal Access
21. ↑ Gendering the Digital Divide
22. ↑ Digital Divide and EdTech
23. ↑ United States Department of Labor
24. ↑ Bridging the Gender Digital Divide
25. ↑ Telecommunications Deployment in Developing Countries
26. ↑ Global E-Commerce: Africa - Telecommunications And Information Infrastructure
27. ↑ Critical Issue: Ensuring Equitable Use of Education Technology
28. ↑ Enhance Learning with Technology
29. ↑ Digital Divide Dimensions - Educational Attainment
30. ↑ The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism

Aydin, C., McIsaac, M., & Johari, A. (2004). The Impact of Instructional Technology in Turkey. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52 (1), 105-112.

Compaine, B (2001). The Digital Divide. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Pick, B. J, and Azari, R. (2008). Global Digital Divide: Influence of socioeconomic, governmental, and accessibility factors on information technology. Information Technology for Development, 14 (2), 91-115.

Tiene, D. (2002). Addressing the global digital divide and its impact on educational opportunity. Education Media International, 39 (3-4), 211-222.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. New York: Cambridge University Press.