Access Group 3 SU 09
Access Group 3
Global Digital Divide
Page Authors: Bryan Yacko, Bill Wirth, Michael Hart, Elyse Takach, Feriha Kazmi, Tim Davis, Darren Hicks
Created for: completion of EPS 415 Information Technology Ethics University of Illinois Campaign/Urbana Professor: Dr. Nicholas Burbules
Introduction
Purpose
Although there are many inequalities in access to the internet and computer technologies, both in the United States and around the globe, when the internet is made available it makes possible new opportunities in all areas of life.
This website will explore the inadequacies of the distribution and access to technology, as well as the benefits of closing the gap between the technological haves and have not’s . It will explore this topic in the areas of access issues associated with technology; not only in the aspect of infrastructure and hard ware but also in the cultural aspects including locations, economies, and disabilities that may impact an individual’s ability to access certain technologies. These issues will be explored in depth related to opportunities and challenges arising from the educational sector, as well as many other facets of life, both social and economic. The issues will be explored both in a local and global context.
Definition of Global Digital Divide
The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Victorian Electronic Democracy defines the digital divide as “The lack of access to information and communications technologies by segments of the community. The digital divide is a generic term used to describe this lack of access due to linguistic, economic, educational, social and geographic reasons.”
This is to say that there are some populations of people who are granted advantages over others due to their ability to access technology and information. As the world begins to lean more and more to the dissemination of ideas and data in the information age, a gap is beginning to show between those who have the access and capability to take part in the rapid sharing of ideas.
Introduction to the problem of access to internet, and Why this is a significant enough topic to warrant study.
Ethical Implications of Access to Technology
As the world becomes more technology driven providing access to all groups of people so that they have equal opportunities has become increasingly important. Economic equity, social equity, and educational access have become intertwined with people’s abilities to access technology both in skills and in hardware. Without these necessities people are not allowed to participate in the information age and suffer due to this. Society has always experienced unequal access, whenever new technology is introduced. Barriers such as culture, socio-economic status, and geographic location have limited groups’ abilities to participate in the global economy and communicate with the outside world.
Globalization of technology and technological skills is an ongoing process and is important to equity and fairness for social and economic reasons.
As the world moves towards the information age, the importance for students to master basic technological skills have become increasingly important in order to ensure that they earn a place in society and the workforce. Computers have become essential to daily life, not only in social aspects such as email and social networking, but also in the workplace as businesses rely more and more on technology to deliver goods and services to its customers. Technology can be a solution to social problems. It can be a means to attain wealth, closing the gap between the haves and the have not’s. The National Telecommunication and Information Administration, claim that individuals in society’s economic and social well being depend on their ability to gather, access, and assimilate information (Rodino-Colocino, 2006). Without proper access and skills this is not possible to attain for groups of people. Where 7 out of 10 people in the United States reported using the internet in 2008, only 7 out of 100 reportedly used the internet in India, and 7 out of 1000 had used the internet in Mali (Howard, et al., 2009). The differences between the technological haves and have nots is staggering, there are a variety of barriers that affect an individual’s ability to attain the proper set of technological skills and access to resources necessary for equity.
Access Issues
There are a variety of barriers to access in technology. Some of these barriers include cultural differences, social class, and disabilities. Cultural differences in populations can influence a group’s ability to attain the access and skills necessary to compete in global and local markets as can social class. Countries that have traditionally agricultural economies have a tendency to be less focused on developing technological skills. Economic factors are not the only cultural differences to impact population’s access to technology. Governments play a significant role in individuals in those countries’ attaining the skills required. Democracies are more likely to spread the use of internet related technologies and skills, and less stable authoritarian governments are more likely to restrict internet access that stable governments (Howard, et al., 2009). Studies show that the single most influential determinant for which side of the digital divide a country falls into is based off economic factors, or a group’s social class (Howard, et al., 2009). Those with disabilities are also affected by the digital divide. Out of all the websites that utilize IT technology, only a few are designed with people with disabilities in mind. Barriers to access for those with learning disabilities include, illiteracy, lack of cognitive skills to successfully navigate the web, and limited resources and too many variations in cognitive processes for industries to put resources into creating web products to help access for those with impairments (McKenzie, 2007).
Challenges to Global Digital Access
The bare facts of unequal global access
The simple fact is that the populations of Developed Nations are connected to the internet at a disproportionately higher rate when compared to Developing nations. See table below.
On May 17, 2001 the then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the issue of the global digital divide. This digital divide separates a few hundred million users of the Internet, most of them located in a small number of “digital-have” countries, from over 5 billion people who are unable to access the wide variety of Internet digital media. If we accept the assertion that the first “computer-mediated communication system for dispersed human groups” was designed and implemented in 1970 (Hiltz), we are barely thirty years into the age of digital media. By many measures, the reach of such systems has expanded greatly since then, with over 300 million people (or 23% of the world's population) connected to the Internet by 2008 (worldstats, 2008). There is little question of the growing importance of computer-media in the conduct of the business around the world. It should not be surprising, however, given the relatively low percentage of the world's population that uses the Internet, that the increasing importance of digital media has been accompanied by an increasing awareness of substantial inequities in the distribution of Internet access, with some 85% of Internet Users, and 90% of Internet hosts, located in a relatively small number of developed countries (Annan, 2001).
Why is providing access so difficult?
The challenges of overcoming digital access can be daunting. Because for many countries, it is not a digital divide but it is a health divide; it is not a digital divide but it is an economic divide; it is not a digital divide but it is an infrastructure divide; it is not a digital divide but it is a literacy divide. Thus a bridge across the digital divide can easily be a low priority for countries with limited resources when compared with economic priorities like education and literacy, health issues, overpopulation, housing, and hunger.
(An Example of overcoming the Digital Divide)Why is education and literacy essential to overcoming unequal access?
The simple fact of the matter is that the Internet is effectively unusable by people who cannot read, and it is all but unusable if one does not know one or more of the primary languages of the Internet. Today one in five adults are still not literate and two-thirds of them are women while 75 million children are out of school (UNESCO). Furthermore, none of the languages typically associated with the Internet is native to the countries with the highest illiteracy rates, making literacy in a second language an effective prerequisite to Internet use in these countries (Anzalone). Investment in education in childhood education is needed. The most point in time for providing literacy (and especially literacy in a second language) is during childhood.
It’s not so simple
Simply providing universal Internet access is not so simple. Many countries lack power generation and distribution facilities adequate to running computers or Network Infrastructures except in large cities, and access can be limited and/or sporadic even there. Use of small scale local power generation (solar power and fuel cells) are increasingly workable, but a high bandwidth Network Infrastructure often depend on the backbone provided by a power infrastructure. Local power infrastructure solutions can provide quick local solutions to bootstrapping computer use and providing very low speed Internet access. They do not provide the kind of national infrastructure that will be needed in order to create an effective national Network Infrastructure. Furthermore, Computers cost money, and countries in which average earnings are far less than the cost of a new computer usually have very few of them. For many users, moreover, initial use of computers is contingent on having some level of training. With a Network Infrastructure available, the last physical resource required to access Internet-based media is a personal computer or other Internet appliance (Foulger).
(Overcoming the problems of Infrastructure)
Opportunities in Global Digital Access
World Summit on the Information Society
In 2003 countries from around the world met to proclaim the importance of access to technology and the opportunities that it could provide. Their first agreed upon principle put forth this very ideal. “We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (World Summit on the Information Society: Geneva 2003)[1]
The Summit held a follow-up conference in Tunis in 2005 where countries reaffirmed their commitment to ICT access and further highlighted the specific educational, economic, social and cultural opportunities provided by access to ICT.
"We recognize that access to information and sharing and creation of knowledge contributes significantly to strengthening economic, social and cultural development, thus helping all countries to reach the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals. This process can be enhanced by removing barriers to universal, ubiquitous, equitable and inexpensive access to information. We underline the importance of removing barriers to bridging the digital divide, particularly those that hinder the full achievement of the economic, social and cultural development of countries and the welfare of their people, in particular, in developing countries.
Furthermore, ICTs are making it possible for a vastly larger population than at any time in the past to join in sharing and expanding the base of human knowledge, and contributing to its further growth in all spheres of human endeavour as well as its application to education, health and science. ICTs have enormous potential to expand access to quality education, to boost literacy and universal primary education, and to facilitate the learning process itself, thus laying the groundwork for the establishment of a fully inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and knowledge economy which respects cultural and linguistic diversity." (World Summit on the Information Society: Tunis 2005) [2]
In the face of the challenges presented above, what opportunities are available to help bridge this "digital divide?" What are countries, organizations and individuals doing on a global scale to realize the potential of internet technologies?
Opportunities in Education
"Knowledge increasingly defines the line between wealth and poverty, between capability and powerlessness and between human fulfillment and frustration. A country able to mobilize and diffuse knowledge can rapidly raise its level of development, help all its citizens to grow and flourish and take its proper place on the 21st century global stage." Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, Regional Director, Regional Bureau for Arab States, UNDP. (Sobeih, 2007)
International Organizations/NGOs recognize the importance of access to ICT and are working towards providing these opportunities in a variety of fields including business, health-care, government, and most importantly in education. These organizations all recognize the ability of ICT to improve education and hence improve people's lives. Whether it be access to better quality education via distance learning, access to information/knowledge, or improved economic competitiveness. The educational opportunities are not limited to the traditional sense of school, but also to adult education, economic knowledge, political knowledge, and in general a better informed popuulation. Some argue that through globalization local culture is being eroded by ICT that is mainly based on western ideals. However, we argue that initially this may be the case, but through education, local people will transform and adapt ICT to fit their needs and context. What we believe and these organizations support is the idea of ICT as a way not only to bridge the digital divide, but also help provide a better style of life. The following is a list of some of the organizations:
Source: (Tiene, 2007)
Along with these global organizations, countries around the world have united in efforts that recognize ICT as a necessary tool to help achieve monumental goals. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are 8 goals that were agreed upon by the world in 2000 with the goal of eradicating extreme poverty. ICT is seen as instrumental in the process as shown in its inclusion in goal #8 Target 5 which states: "In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications." [3] As noted above, there is still a tremendous gap between those with and without internet access. Yet, the MDGs are one example of an increasing global effort to use ICT as a tool to increase people's opportunities to lead a better life. According to economist and leader of the MDG effort Jeffrey Sachs ICT is "The single most important development tool of our generation." Through increased opportunities provided by access to technology not only will education improve but also the overall standard of living for people around the world.
Language/Content
Access to ICT provides new educational opportunities to help overcome the digital divide. By providing access to content ICTs break down barriers in terms of information. The other key is that it is now easier to provide information in local languages making access and its benefits increasingly more available to people around the world. Programs like the Open Knowledge Network [4], the YES Campaign [5], and eLangViet [6] are all examples of ICT being provided not only in local languages, but also filled with Indigenous and local knowledge. It is providing content that is useful for the people’s lives. It empowers people to become informed decision makers. Whether it be through knowledge of global commodity prices so that farmers get the correct market price for their crops, or the emergence of a more informed voting public. ICT has allowed for the opportunity of a more knowledgeable populace. People are able to blog and "tweet" providing instant
Distance/On-Line Learning
The opportunity of access can provide the ability to break some of the barriers of poverty and overall lack of access to quality education. Even in remote areas, students can now have access to top flight education via distance learning opportunities. This includes not only school children, but also adults wanting to improve their literacy abilities or obtain training/new skills for 21st century jobs. It is a process that has already rapidly expanded in the developed world and the opportunities are continuing to expand around the rest of the globe. The United Nations has become involved in distance education by establishing the UN University of the People. [7] This program is unique because it offers an education at an extremely reduced rate to the student which you can see by looking at this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI291-nMeVg. Other universities offer their course materials, lecture notes and in some cases audio/visual materials on-line for no charge. which is the case at MIT [8] in the United States. The University of Dar es Salem in Tanzania [9] is another example of distance education in the developing world. By 2002 the university was offering 699 online courses through its Technology Enhanced Independent Learning (TEIL) program (Sumari et al. 2006). Below is a list of just some of the institutions now offering distance learning. India: National Institute for Open Schooling [10] UK: The Open University [11]
Source: (Tiene, 2007)
You can see the emergence of technology and its importance by watching this clip for the Youth Forum on ICT for Development
Distance Education also allows for the opportunity to address another problem in education in the developing world, teacher shortages. There is a tremendous shortage of qualified teachers in the developing world, with a projected shortage of 18 million teachers in the next decade (UN News Centre, 2006)[12]. Distance Education can help alleviate this problem by allowing people in rural areas to become qualified via on-line programs. This also provides an avenue for current teachers to remain up to date on their practices and methodology. Yet the potential opportunities of access to ICT are not limited to education.
Economic Opportunities
Increased access to ICT also allows for more opportunities to meet the challenges of economic development. This was recognized at the second meeting for the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in 2005 : “We emphasize that the adoption of ICTs by enterprises plays a fundamental role in economic growth. The growth and productivity enhancing effects of well-implemented investments in ICTs can lead to increased trade and to more and better employment.” (World Summit on the Information Society: Tunis 2005) [13] This concept becomes
Bill Gates on Microsoft's efforts to enable greater social and economic opportunities via technology.
Effective Government
None of the above is likely to happen without effective government. Countries around the world have taken notice by addressing the need for sound government to allow and help foster ICT access. Governments should “Implement e-Government strategies focusing on applications aimed at innovating and promoting transparency in public administrations and democratic processes, improving efficiency, and strengthening relations with citizens and business to achieve more efficient allocation of resources and public goods…(World Summit on the Information Society: Geneva 2003)." This can be done through governments providing e-services such as "Authentication, e-Payment, Automation, Process Workflows, Networking, and Access (Sobeih, 2007)." A great opportunity and potential benefit of ICT is making government more responsive to its citizens because it becomes more difficult to keep them unaware of situations. Examples of countries attempting to follow these steps are Nigeria [16] and Brazil [17]. In both countries the people have used ICT to put pressure on the government to allow them greater access and more participation.
Greater access means the potential for less corruption, a more transparent and open society, and the ability for the population, especially the poor, to be more aware of their rights and have the ability to organize at the grassroots level for change.
Challenges to Local Digital Access
The digital divide is commonly recognized as a problem, but in order to begin to close this gap, the depth of the problem must be understood. One must realize that the digital divide exists because of many reasons, and therefore, there is no one simple solution. One such reason is based upon cultural differences here in the United States. Cultural issues may be tied to socio-economic status, but not always. There are many cultural factors that play a part in the digital divide. These various cultural differences need to be recognized before an attempt at creating a solution should be made.
Culture Behaviors & Economic Differences
Cultures are different, and therefore, what they value is different. For instance, some cultures place a high value on family and personal communication (1). These cultures value face-to-face communication more than communication via the Internet. Use of the Internet also may increase with a more educated culture; however, this could also be tied to economic differences as well. Cultural differences are also drawn along lines of how the Internet is used. According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, African-Americans are “69 percent more likely than whites to have listened to music online, 45 percent more likely than whites to play a game, and 12 percent more likely to ‘browse for fun.’” (2) This same study found that African-Americans also used the Internet more when searching for information about jobs. Having this knowledge is the first step in trying to close the gap of the digital divide, but it is not enough. The most important component is how this gap is addressed in our schools.
Cultural Differences in Education
Inequities in American schools have always existed. Certain cultures and females have been largely left out of the majority of educational issues. The educational system has always been biased toward the white male. Paul Gorski says this has continued into this new technological age. The Internet is also biased toward the privileged few. Gorski’s article Multicultural Education and the Digital Divide (3) explains the specifics of this issue further. He also offers several ideas to aid in eliminating the digital divide through a multicultural educational approach. Jae-Eun Joo also discusses issues of the digital divide in her article Cultural Issues of the Internet in Classrooms (4). In her article, she looks at how the Internet has affected current educational practices from communication to classroom procedures. She offers ideas to educators that help them use the technology more efficiently and properly. Her ideas are designed to get educators talking about the digital divide in modern classrooms and hopefully help them to develop methods for closing the gap. Joo also gives two examples of good practice when using the Internet to “overcome stereotypical images of different cultures in classrooms”: The Cradleboard Teaching Project http://www.cradleboard.org/ and AfricaQuest http://africaquest.classroom.com/. The Cradleboard Teaching Project and AfricaQuest are helping educators with cultural issues within the classroom, but there are many other groups who are helping cultures deal with the digital divide in their daily lives.
In Washington County Oregon the Latino population grew very quickly compared to other ethnicities in a ten-year period. This population was generally relying on one income from mainly agricultural jobs. The Access Technology Program (5) was developed to “enhance the awareness of technology among the Latinos and to bridge the digital divide in the area.” The program was successful in offering 8-9 computer classes to over 500 Latinos in a one-year period. The success of that year has led the coalition to increase the offerings in future years. A similar project, the Digital Divide Initiative at the University of Minnesota, was developed and implemented in North Minneapolis. This program educated its students and provided them with their own computer upon completion of the program.
As the issues of the digital divide are discussed, it is important to realize that cultural issues play a role in our educational system as well as in our society. It is also important to praise the works of so many that have begun to bridge the gap through the efforts of their projects and initiatives. Through these programs, the gap will slowly begin to close. Hopefully, the work of these groups will educate and inspire others to contribute to closing the gap of the digital divide.
Social Class and Access to Technology
A major factor in a person’s ability to have access to technology (namely the Internet) is social class. According to Henry Becker (2000), a professor at UC-Irvine, Survey data indicates that only about 22% of children in families with annual incomes of less than $20,000 had access to a home computer. In comparison, 91% of those in families with annual incomes of more than $75,000 had access to a computer. And among children with access, those in low-income families were reported to use the computer less than those in high-income families, perhaps because most low-income families with computers lacked a connection to the Internet. Becker’s presumption about Internet access was proven true in an article by Diane Thomas. Thomas’ article (2008) revealed data that stated that 65.5% of children coming from low socio-economic homes had access to the Internet, whereas 86.7% of students coming from higher socio-economic classes had Internet access.
Schools in lower socioeconomic areas, such as inner-city schools and rural schools, are not immune from the digital divide, although the gap is not as large. Consider the following statistics: the ratio of students to computers ranges from about 6 to 1 in Florida, Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota to 16 to 1 in Louisiana (Coley 1997). While those numbers may be slightly different today, a gap still exists. A recent National Education Association (2008) article stated that “educators working in urban schools who have relied on the federal e-rate fund—a program which provides discounts to assist public schools and libraries to obtain the right price for telecommunications and Internet access—still must seek other resources to help upgrade software and to provide maintenance and support for their computers and that educators in senior high schools, particularly in urban areas, need greater technical support to help set up and use technology in their classrooms.” The same article also states that in urban and rural areas educators believe the technology training in their schools has not been adequate.
(Digital Divide in Rural Areas)In what could be considered surprising, teachers in low socioeconomic schools actually report using computers more often than teachers in higher socioeconomic schools (Becker 2000). However, how the computers are used differs between low and high socioeconomic schools. Teachers in low socioeconomic schools were more likely to use computers for repetitive-type tasks and for "remediation of skills" and "mastering skills just taught" and to view computers as valuable for teaching students to work independently. In contrast, teachers in high socioeconomic schools were more likely to use computers in more constructivist and innovative ways. They use computers to teach students skills such as written expression, making presentations to an audience, and analyzing information.
So what can be done to try and alleviate the problem of access to technology to those with a lower socioeconomic status? Several groups have tried to offer solutions to the problem including these programs, as described by Daniel Norris in his article Narrowing the Digital Divide in Low-Income Urban Communities: • Technology Opportunities Program. Under the leadership of the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) has awarded grants to nonprofit organizations and to state and local governments in the United States and Puerto Rico. The purpose of the TOP grants is to “extend the benefits of advanced telecommunications technologies to underserved communities and neighborhoods”. This program provides communities with seed money, matched by additional public and private investment. Information about this program can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top. • Digital Promise Project. The Digital Promise Project is a proposal to create an educational trust fund (Digital Opportunity Investment Trust, or DO IT) designed to help transform education, training, and lifelong learning in the twenty-first century. This educational trust fund—a nonprofit, nongovernmental agency— would be financed by revenue from auctions of unused, publicly owned telecommunications band-width spectrum, as mandated by Congress. The fund would be used to develop educational programs in schools, universities, libraries, and museums and to support research and development of new educational models and prototypes. Information about DO IT can be found at http://www.digitalpromise.org. • Community Technology Centers. The Community Technology Centers (CTCs) is a nonprofit membership organization in the United States with more than seven hundred independent community technology centers. These centers provide free or low-cost access to computers, computer-related technology, and user support. They are being erected in cities all over the United States and provide the connection so desperately needed in the central city. The CTCs provide access to youth, adults, and seniors, serve as technical assistance providers to other nonprofits, and provide job training, counseling, or placement. The creation of technology centers within urban communities in the United States is one avenue of access with many success stories. One example of a CTC is the Break Away Technologies community center initiative in South Central Los Angeles. This community center offers after-school and weekend programs for central city K-12 children, youth, and adults. One of their activities for adults is a CyberSeniors program. Seniors participate in the program to gain high-tech entrepreneurial skills. In addition, they serve as mentors to neighborhood youth. One of the goals of the Break Away center is to provide community-based and managed open access, education, training, and support centers to underserved young adults so they can “gain access to and develop competencies in using, building and maintaining computer and network technologies, use computers and the Internet for other learning activities and engage in web page development, multimedia, animation and graphic design courses, as well as develop work readiness and preparation skills”. Many CTCs have incorporated classes and training into their services, as well as free-form public access hours. This development is significant to educators of urban adults in that there appears to be a grassroots demand for training and education even if it is coming at the expense of offering noneducational information technology services to the community as a whole. Information about the CTCs can be found at http://www.ctcnet.org. • WISH-TV. As access to the Internet increases, it has become more evident that access to the Internet is tied to social class. Although the number of low-income households that have access to the Internet is increasing, the digital divide is expected to widen because access to the Internet because of its ties to income. Janice Hinson (2001) describes one attempt to alleviate the problem in her article titled “Connecting Across Many Divides.” She describes the WISH (WorldGate Internet School to Home) project, which attempts to give students, parents, and teachers access to the Internet through a television set. As a result, nearly every home would have access to the Internet.
Challenges to access faced by individuals with disabilities
Among the many groups affected by the local digital divide, individuals with disabilities are perhaps the only group that encounters accessibility barriers to the internet as a result of how a web page is coded or designed. The opportunities missed as a result of these access barriers are much the same as those encountered by individuals who lack physical access to the internet due to poverty or lack of proper infrastructure. Some of the problems encountered by individuals with disabilities include inability to access multimedia content in websites [19], images without coded descriptions for screen-readers, sites that force screen-readers to read the entire page upon entry, including all links and images, and pages that are designed in a way that makes them incompatible with assistive technology. Such barriers may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to access things like internet shopping sites, websites for various community and privately owned services, and other websites that make life easier for many of us. In some countries (England, for example), such barriers are considered discrimination, regardless of who owns and operates the particular webpage [20]. In the United States, Section 508 of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that all websites created or funded by the U.S. government comply with accessibility guidelines detailed in the legislation. [21] [22] Many states also have legislation with similar guidelines for websites created or funded by the state government. [23]. Unfortunately, these accessibility standards are not necessarily applicable to non-government websites.
A study by Stephanie Hackett, Bambang Parmanto and Xiaoming Zeng (2005) used a “Web Accessibility Barrier Score” of website characteristics that can be automatically checked for accessibility to efficiently analyze a large number of government websites and randomly selected websites over time. The researchers also measured the same websites complexity, based on website design, necessity of plug-in applets, fonts, scripting languages to determine correlation of complexity and accessibility (Hackett, Bambang & Zeng, 2005). Hackett and her colleagues found that both government and randomly selected websites tended to increase in complexity over time, as internet technologies advanced, allowing for more visually appealing web design, but that government websites remained accessible with these increases in complexity, whereas the randomly selected websites became less accessible as they increased in complexity (Hackett, Bambang & Zeng, 2005). Interestingly, on-line shopping may fall under general anti-discrimination law, even if section 508 does not. In 2006, Bruce Sexton, Jr., a blind student at the University of California- Berkley, filed a lawsuit against Target Corporation, claiming that its website is inaccessible to individuals with disabilities requiring the assistance of screen-reading devices [24]. Specifically, Sexton claimed that Target violated California anti-discrimination laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to code its purchasable items with alt-text on it’s on-line store, thereby excluding all individuals requiring screen-reading devices from a shopping experience similar to that of non-disabled consumers [25]. Specifically, he claimed this violates the ADA’s general anti-discrimination laws which apply even to privately owned and operated commercial entities (42 USC §§ 1218) [26][27]. Target claimed, on the other hand, that the anti-discrimination laws applied only to physical stores, not stores on-line. The court case ended in a settlement between the involved class (including Sexton) and Target [28]). Trget agreed to make steady progress towards a fully accessible site and agreed to have this progress monitored by the National Federation of the blind. Target also agreed to place 6 million dollars in an account to be split among Californian’s with a valid claim in this class action suit, $3,500 per claim with a maximum of two claims per claimant in the class. Finally, Target agreed to pay $20,000 to a non-profit organization from which Bruce Sexton will fund a new rehabilitation and training center for the blind, the California Center for the Blind [29]. Though no landmark decision resulted from this case, the case may cause on-line stores to rethink the application of Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination laws to the accessibility of their websites in order to avoid similar lawsuits.
Access and the Education of Students with Disabilities
In addition to Section 508 of the American’s with Disabilities Act, individuals with disabilities are also guaranteed access to a “free and appropriate education” (FAPE) under Section 504 of the same act. [30] [31] More specifically, Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 states:
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 34 C.F.R.§104.
According to this legislation, this includes any elementary school, secondary school, vocational school or post-secondary institution being funded or operated by the federal government. 34 C.F.R.§104. [32] It requires that schools provide educational services that meet the individual needs of the student with a disability to the same extent that school attempts to meet the needs of its students without disabilities[33]. These needs can and should include instruction on the use of computers and internet technologies, even if they must be accessed in a slightly different way or are used for somewhat different purposes. Many schools include skills related to technology for educational purposes such as internet research and online education resources as part of their general curriculum. Since this is included in the educational program of students without disabilities, it can be argued that these are skills schools feel are important for students to have. If they’re important for their general education students to have, they are also important for students with disabilities. This is especially the case when teachers embed instruction on internet skills in the context of regular class instruction, since leaving these technologies inaccessible to students with disabilities would also be excluding them from subject-area content, like science, math and social studies. Clearly, this would be a violation of Section 504 of the ADA described above, and the current trend towards inclusion in the American public school system means that general education teachers will need to work with special educators and occupational therapists to come up with an increasing number of solutions to access problems faced by students with disabilities in the general education classroom. No longer can a general education teacher expect to have a classroom void of students with print disabilities, visual or hearing impairment, or cognitive disabilities. Making as much of the general curriculum accessible as possible will require making technologies accessible too, and being able to teach students with disabilities how to use the technology in a way that meets their personal needs and circumvents the barriers they may encounter in their efforts to use them. When a student is not included in the general curriculum, he should still receive technological instruction on skills specific to his own needs, such as learning how to e-mail friends, family and co-workers, learning how to use software that will make it possible to write and read e-mails by speaking and listening rather than typing and reading, or using computers for recreation, such as playing internet games or looking up things that interest him. This last part is especially important since students with more severe disabilities (particularly cognitive disabilities) will have a significantly greater amount of free time than their non-disabled peers and they often must be taught how to use this free time to avoid boredom and behavior problems (Stacy Dymond lecture, Life Skills Curriculum, Spring 2009). Where the ADA gives individuals with disabilities the right to comparable educational opportunities to their peers, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles students with special education needs to those areas of instruction they require outside of the general curriculum, such as the recreational computer instruction mentioned above.
What Kinds of Barriers?
Funding Barriers: Technology costs money, sometimes a lot of money, and schools have been on a tight budget throughout the United States’ history. Special education services have their own separate funding within schools, but often there is disagreement among teachers, administrators, and parents about how this money should be used. There are usually many things teams identify as priorities for special education money over computers, internet training, assistive technologies and teacher training on how to provide technology-related instruction (Jackson, 2003). A lack of research on special education student outcomes from different technology curricula and hardware may also contribute to administrations’ choice to spend special education moneys on things other than technology instruction (Jackson, 2003). School administrators place a great deal of merit in empirical research findings; what is not research-validated may be considered too risky an investment for their limited funds. After all, when one product or curriculum fails to produce the necessary results, school must purchase yet another product to replace it, hopefully with better results. This cycle can become very expensive when schools are unaware of different resources and organizations that rent the technologies out for short periods of time, so the school can test them before buying.
Training Barriers: As mentioned earlier, in order to teach students with disabilities the kinds of skills often incorporated in general education instruction, such as internet research for projects and interactive content for class assignments, teachers must be able to teach these skills in a way that takes in the specific characteristics of the student with a disability and train the student to bypass many of the accessibility barriers he or she would encounter without special instruction or assistive technologies. Unfortunately, many teachers, especially general education teachers, are not trained to provide this special instruction to students with disabilities. Often schools leave this kind of instruction to the school’s occupational therapist, a service provider who often spends a mere hour a week with students on all sorts of goals related to use of the digits, including typing and computer use, and this training is often not extended to student’s other teachers in a way that allows them to incorporate the technology into their regular interactions and instruction with the student. It’s not uncommon for a special education teacher to incorporate these occupational therapy goals about computer use into her regular instruction only to find she is unable to assist the student with the technology. And since this may hinder her content instruction with the student by forcing them both to wait for the occupational therapist to come in and help, the technology portion of the instruction may slowly be abandoned in the classroom until the only chance the student has to use it is his one hour or less of instruction with the occupational therapist each week--making it far less likely he will acquire these skills and maintain them in different contexts.
Time & Staffing Barriers: It’s no secret that some people feel teachers spend an unfair amount of time instructing students with special needs at the expense of instruction to their general education peers. This is a common argument from those who feel resources should be split evenly among all students without exception. Some districts have the financial resources to provide enough staff in classrooms containing students with disabilities that the general education teacher does not have to worry about the amount of time required to provide individualized instruction to the student with disabilities in her class; paraprofessionals and student teachers are in an abundance, allowing her to delegate this work or the general education instruction to them. Other school districts are not as fortunate. They may be forced by a shortage of personnel or financial constraints to provide instruction to all students with fewer professionals than are actually required to do the job effectively without reducing instruction to other students. As a result, teachers and principals sometimes attempt to do the best they can with the resources they have by cutting instruction they are unable to provide without another adult present to work with the rest of the class.
Opportunities Available to Individuals with Disabilities as a Result of Internet Access
Benefits In Education
Although this may be seen as a benefit to teachers rather than students, teachers are now able to access a wealth of information from the computer or internet databases that can inform their instruction of students with and without disabilities. Prior to the internet, teachers with a focus on research-based teaching methods would have to live near a university with research journals and guess which journals to look in, or they'd have to trust that some other teacher who recommended a method had already conducted this kind of search. Now, college students being trained to teach individuals with and without disabilities are receiving instruction on how to locate research relevant to the skill he or she wishes to teach and the specific learning needs of the student. And since not all teachers will always have access to unlimited database searches, they are also being taught to use internet resources such as teacher-made webpages to come up with ideas for lesson planning, engaging students, behavior management and more. The availability of this information has no doubt allowed teachers to teach using methods that have been shown to work for researchers or other teachers, rather than using only what they remember of instructional methods from the years ago they were in college or even further back, when they were in primary and secondary school themselves. It goes without saying that these improved instructional methods will also benefit the students who are receiving the instruction.
In addition to the resources available to teachers about instructional methods, there are also many educational websites teachers may choose to make available to students in their classroom, with or without disabilities. One such example is the website "starfall.com". This website is designed for younger students learning skills like letter sounds, blending sounds to make words, identifying shapes and colors, counting items, and size comparison. While not appropriate for all students or all age-levels, sites like this one can act as a reward in the classroom or even an optional break-time activity. Younger students really enjoy the interactive nature of the games on the website, and hardly mind that they are learning as they play. Non-educational websites and web-games can also be a worthwhile break time activity in the special education or general education classroom. Humans are not born with the ability fill free-time with fun. Often times young children and students with disabilities who are not specifically told what they can do for fun will find themselves bored. This boredom can often lead to problem behaviors which would otherwise be prevented by occupying the student. Students need to develop a repertoire of leisure skills during their time in school. If a student enjoys computer games, it makes sense to include this as one of his break-time options, particularly if the teacher has reason to believe this is a skill that may be carried over into his leisure time at home now and in the student's future.
Benefits to Communication and Social Life
The internet also improves the lives of many adults with disabilities by making some activities more accessible than they otherwise would be. For instance, the internet is an important medium for communication for those with speech and hearing impairments. Deaf people can use an "internet relay service", rather than phone-to-phone communication, because they need to be able to read the responses and comments of the person on the other line. To use this free service, individuals with hearing impairments need only to send text communications over the internet to the internet relay service they've chosen and provide the number they wish to call. A Communication Assistant with the service then acts as an interpreter between the deaf caller and the hearing recipient, speaking the deaf person's typed messages to the hearing recipient and typing the spoken responses back to the hearing-impaired service-user. Unlike the TTY device used by some individuals with hearing impairments for phone communications, the internet relay service allows the individual to see more of the conversation at once, due to the large computer screen, allows easier typing on the standard keyboard, and also allows the person to participate in conference calls by calling multiple individuals at once. [34]
Social lives of people with disabilities may also be improved by internet access. Just as people without disabilities are now able to meet new people with similar interests through forums, chat rooms and the like, people with disabilities are too. One way these new opportunities for friendship may improve the lives of individuals with disabilities specifically is through online support groups, activist networks, and disability-related social networks. By bringing together people from all over the country or the world, individuals with disabilities have the ability to form social and support groups much larger than they would be able to form in their own towns, especially in smaller rural towns or in the case of individuals with very rare disabilities.
Exposure
The internet also improves society as a whole, by giving people with disabilities a voice in a place where it will be heard by people everywhere. People with disabilities can create blog spaces and personal web-pages to share their experiences and advocate for issues important to them, just as individuals without disabilities also do. Before the internet, all most people knew of the disability experience and disability culture of disability was what they were exposed to in in their daily lives at home and in school. Often this exposure was only very minimal and, as such, the stereotypes and stigmatization of disability persisted as individuals with disability had so few opportunities to speak for their community to the general public. People were generally naive about the strengths and plight of people with disabilities, unless they had a friend or loved one in the disabled community. With individuals with disabilities seen so infrequently in the general public, including schools and the community, it is no wonder people continued to fear them and stigmatize them for so long.
Now, however, people are connected online and they can share experiences with people they will never meet. They can share their views, they can advocate for rights, and they can communicate without having to wait for society to see past their visible (or invisible) disability. People browse blogs for fun to broaden their minds, and among the blogs they read include blogs of individuals with disabilities.
The exposure of the general public to the thoughts and experiences of people with disabilities is incredibly important because it's so easy for them to go unheard, and yet so important that they influence our policy and our thoughts of the public as other minority populations can and do. The internet is making this more possible than ever before. It's closing gaps where some have been open for decades, though still it creates its own gaps for the same people it helps in other domains.
Conclusion
Access to the internet is inadequately distributed throughout the world. This problem is conceptualized in the “Global Digital Divide”. A Divide is a geographic term referring to a line where the water shed flows in different directions. To call the inadequate distribution of internet technology a “divide” is remarkably accurate. The flow of economic wealth, health, and social influence flow in different directions from this line or divide. Those that have the technology of internet access flow in the direction of more wealth, healthier lives, and more social influence in larger and larger arenas. Those that do not have the technology of internet access flow in the direction of increasing poverty, sickness and impotence in social influence. To more evenly distribute the wealth of our world and the advantages it brings, to make reasonably healthy lives available to everyone and to generate more ideas to share with a greater number of people this divide must be broken down, the mountain ranges scaled and the flow of technology pointed in all directions.
Where is the Global Digital Divide? The percentage of people connected to the internet in developed countries average approximately 61%. However, the percentage of people connected to the internet in developing countries is only 19%. This truly makes the Global Digital Divide geographic. Even though the United States is a developed country with a lot of internet technology and access availability, we still experience a divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’s’. In our culture access is divided by a biased educational system favoring white males. Income determines access giving economically privileged people more and better internet access. Income not only influences how much access one has but it also influences how the access is used. In America, location also contributes to access such as being rural or urban. Another factor dividing access is the healthy individual verses disabled individuals. The problems of access to the internet experience by Americans are a reflection (although the gage is different) of problems experienced between other countries and within other cultures.
What keeps the Global Digital Divide functioning, in other words, what cause there to be ‘haves’ and ‘have not’s? The differences in access to internet technology can be seen in governmental differences. Democratic free societies have more access to the internet then do Dictatorial societies which can go as far as even suppressing the use of the internet. Cultural differences add to access problems such as when different cultures express different values. Some cultures value innovation and education where other societies value tradition and compliance. It is an easy journey from innovation and education to internet access but traditions and compliance will never get us there. Some cultures value family and personal communication making them able to quickly grasp the value of internet access. Economics can make access possible or delay it. A society must be able to supply not only a power source and a supportive infrastructure but it must also supply hardware, software and education, all of which cost money. Money is, of necessity, allotted first to shelter, food and clothing which are often scarce among the ‘have-nots’ and thus limiting money available for developing internet access. Last, but not least, to be considered is the individual. The individual must see a need or use for the technology of the internet, have the right language and be educated sufficiently enough to partake in the technology and be physically able to turn on a computer, see, read, think and type.
How can we break down the Global Digital Divide? In the United States we have identified access to internet technology as a problem that can limit an individual’s ability to earn income, access knowledge about health and develop new ideas in an unlimited array of subjects. In response to this we have developed programs such as Technology Opportunities Programs, The Digital Promise Project and Community Technology Centers. In addition, we need to continue with more of this type of program and develop more and innovative ways to address the Digital Divide. We have also developed laws to make sure people with disabilities are given equal access. As we chip away at this problem here at home we are challenged with how to help developing countries. This challenge should not be taken lightly as we are now becoming more and more a global society.
References
Ampah, M., & Guermazi, B. (2007, May/June). Making ICT Count. Global Telecoms Business, (44-46). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com
Anazalone, S., Bosch, A., Moulton, J., & Murphy, P. (2002, March). Enhancing Learning Opportunities in Africa. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Distance Education and Information and Communication Technologies for Learning: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AFRICAEXT/Resources/dl_ict_education.pdf
Annan, K. (2001, May 17). World Telecommunication Day . Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Message of the UN Secretary-General: http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wtd/2001/index.html
Becker, H. J. (2000). JSTOR: The Future of Children, Vol. 10, No.2 (Autunm-Winter, 2000, pp.44-77. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Who's Wirted and Who's Not: Children's Access to and Use of Computer Technology: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1602689
Bill Gates on Enabling Social and Economic Opportunity. (2007, March 22). YouTube. Retrieved June, 2009, from www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4N8xsdo2vQ.
Blackboard e-learning platform. (2009). University of Dar es Salaam. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.teil.udsm.ac.tz/.
Centro Cultural Programs Access Technology. (2006). Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Centro Cultural of Washington County: http://www.centrocultural.org/English/Programs/Access_Technology.shtm
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). http://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/compclss.pdf. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools.: http://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/compclss.pdf
Declaration of Principles. (2003, December 12). World Summit on the Information Society. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html.
eLang Viet. (n.d.). UNCTAD Debate on FDI and Development. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.elangviet.net/.
Feldman, G. (2000-2001, Winter). The Dark Side of the Internet: Divided About the Digital Divide. Public Manager , 29 (29), pp. 55-59.
Foulger, D. (2002, January 12). Seven Bridges Over the Global Digital Divide. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Seven Bridges Over the Global Digital Divide: http://evolutionarymedia.com/papers/digitalDivide.htm
GAID Youth Forum. (2007, September 11). YouTube. Retrieved June, 2009, from www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_hf9OOyPgQ.
Global Teacher Shortages Threaten Goal of Quality Education for All. (2006, April 25). UN NewsCentre. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18238&Cr=education&Cr1.
Goal 8. (2008). United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml.
Gorski, P. C. (2001, September). Multicultural Education and the Digital Divide. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Multicultural Education and the Digital Divide: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/edchange_divide.html
Guillen, M. F., & Suarez, S. L. (2005, December). Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use. Social Forces, 84(2), (681-708). Retrieved June, 2009.
Hackett, S., Parmanto, B. & Zeng, X. (2005). A retrospective look at website accessibility over time. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(6), 407 – 417.
Hanafizadeh, M. R., Saghaei, A., & Hanafizadeh, P. (2009). An index for cross-country analysis of ICT infrastructure and access. Telecommunications Policy , 33 (7), 385-405.
Hiltz, S. R., & Murray, T. (1978). The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hinson, J. (2001). Connecting across many divides: Digital, racial, and socio-economic. Building on the Future: National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings.
Howard, P. N., & Mazaheri, N. (2009). Telecommunication Reform, Internet Use and Mobile Phone Adoption in the Developing World. World Development , 37 (7), 1159-1169.
ICT and Education. (2009). World Bank. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/ 0,,contentMDK:20264888~menuPK:617610~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html.
ICT in Governance. (2007, January 16). Inter American Development Bank. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.iadb.org/sds/ict/site_6198_e.htm.
India National Institute of Open Schooling. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.nios.ac.in/index.htm.
Internet World Statistics . (2009, March 31). Retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm : http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jackson, V.L. (2003). Technology and special education: Bridging the most recent digital divide. Accessed through ERIC database on June 9, 2009. ED 479 685.
Joo, J.-E. (2002). Cultural Issues of the Internet in Classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology , 30 (3), 245-250.
McKenzie, K. (2007). Digital Divides: The Implications for Social Inclusion. LEARNING DISABILITY PRACTICE , 10 (6), 16-27.
MIT OpenCourseWare. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm.
Morse, T. E. (2004). Ensuring Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Digital Age. Education and Urban Society , 36 (3), 266-279.
National Education Association. (2008). An NEA policy brief. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Technology in Schools: The Ongoing Challenge: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_PB19_Technology.pdf
National Informatics Centre: Project Proposal for Wired Village Project at Warana . (1998, June 22). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.mah.nic.in/warana/.
National Research Council. (1994). Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Networked Communities. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from National Academy Press: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rights/index.html
Nigeria National Information Technology Development Agency. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.nitda.gov.ng/index.html.
Norris, D. T., & Conceicao, S. (2004). Narrowing the Digital Divide in Low-Income, Urban Communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education , n101, 69-81.
Office of Policy Analysis and Development. (1998). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from National Telecommunications and Information Administration: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
One Laptop Per Child. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://laptop.org/en/.
Open Knowledge Network. (2005). One World UK. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://uk.oneworld.net/ article/view/112832/1/2061.
The Open University. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www3.open.ac.uk/
Rodino-Colocino, M. (2006). Laboring Under the Digital Divide. New Media & Society , 8 (3), 487-511.
Schweikart, L. (2002, MAY). Race, Culture, and the Digital Divide. THE FREEMAN , 52 (5).
Sobeih, A. (2007, August). ICT and Enterprise Development. Retrieved June, 2009.
The Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.spidercenter.org/about-spider.
Sumari, M., Carr, E., & Ndebe-Ngovo, M. (2006). Diversity, Disability, and Geographic Digital Divide. Retrieved May, 2009.
Thomas, D. (2008). The digital divide: What schools in low socioeconomic areas must teach. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin , 74 (n4), pp. 12-17.
Tiene, D. (2002). Addressing the Global Digital Divide and its Impact on Educational Opportunity. Education Media International, (211-221). Retrieved May, 2009.
Tunis Commitment. (2005, November 18). World Summit on the Information Society. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html.
UNESCO. (2000). UNESCO's World Education Indicators. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from World education report 2000 : http://www.unesco.org/education/information/wer/htmlENG/tablesmenu.htm)
UNGAID. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.un-gaid.org/.
United Nations University of the People. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.uopeople.org/.
World Bank. (2009, May). Governance Matters. Message posted to http://governanceblog.worldbank.org/tags/ict.
World's First Tuition Free Online University. (2009, March 26). YouTube. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI291-nMeVg.
Youth Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Inc. (2009). Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.yesweb.org/.
