The digital divide is the disparity in access to technology that is either externally or internally imposed on an individual or group. The external causes of the divide have been attributed to gender, age, ethnic and socioeconomic differences between individuals and or groups. Individuals or groups can also fall between the cracks of access because of the lack of interest or desire to stay connected with technological developments. Whether the divide is the result of external or internal factors, it serves to produce two different groups with respect to technology literacy-the “haves” and the “have nots”. Within these two groups there are degrees of fluency or literacy reflecting different levels of exposure, experience and competency.
As technology increases in importance to society it is important to consider how to transform the “have nots” into “haves” so that the gap between these groups does not continue to widen. The readings suggest that some feel that bridging this gap is a government responsibility while others suggest that it is the responsibility of the free market. In my opinion it is a combination of both of these entities that will need to work together in this endeavor. Government can help bridge the gap through public education. Education policy should continue to advocate for appropriate technology education that meets acceptable standards in schools at all socioeconomic levels. This education should not be restricted in any way in regard to ethnicity, gender or academic ability. In fact efforts should be made in education to increase the attractiveness of technology to those groups that might otherwise shy away from its use (females, less gifted students, minority students).
In addition government can continue to provide free access to the internet in public settings such as libraries. Of course this access is not the same as owning your own PC but it is far better than limiting access to those who are able to afford their own hardware, software and an internet connection. Providing this exposure might potentially enable the otherwise “have not” to seek out further access through education much like the Columbian student, Jimmy, in the Tapscott reading.
The free market and industry also has a role in bridging the gap because it is able to supply a demand for jobs that require technological skills. In addition to providing these jobs it could also play a role in providing training for these positions. It could collaborate with education to help fund training programs that would assist those wishing to increase their technology skills. Living in an area that at one time was highly industrialized I see a great need for employee retraining as we move from a manufacturing to an information economy. There is also potential for industry to work with public education in providing hardware and software to assist in technology training. Although it is important as Tapscott noted that the equipment provided should meet the need of the school.
The “have nots” that may be most difficult to deal with are those who do not value technology and refuse to embrace it because of internal forces. Government through education could provide a minimum level of technology education in schools as previously mentioned. However once an individual is out of school it is difficult to entice technology participation if there is no perceived value.
Legacy technologies as described in the Rose and Jones article can at least offer exposure to students who might not otherwise have the ability to experience technology. Rose and Jones stated that “due to budgetary and/or support issues, using the latest and greatest technology is not always going to be possible”. I feel that this is one of the biggest challenges that school districts face today. It is difficult if not impossible to keep up at all levels with the advances in technology. However to some extent it may be possible to use outdated technology at least to provide student with exposure that they might not otherwise have had. Of course when I think about trying to use my 2001 vintage desktop to work on the internet I cringe at the thought of how slow it has become. This illustrates the need for the instructor to carefully consider the effective use of legacy technologies. It is important that they be instructional and not a source of frustration for learners.
Finally I feel that it is important for educators to embrace technology and advocate for it in their schools. It is important that they not become a part of fostering the digital divide by the way they use or don’t use technology in their classrooms. While my exposure to public school is limited I feel that teachers are often reluctant to take on the additional responsibility of working technology into their day to day teaching. I can understand how this can happen because there are so many demands on teaching time. However when teachers are able to prioritize technology use they will become motivated to increase their own understanding of its power. With increase understanding and skill they will be able to lead students by example in technology usage.
cmcfadden said,
November 18, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Kathy, your post reads much like my own thoughts this week. One summer, before I began working here at TU, I told the kids we didn’t have mush extra money for vacations, camps or day-trips to parks or fairs, etc. I had us all down some really fun things to do that didn’t cost too much–whatever we wanted to do, but with little money involved.
We all wrote our list over a few days then met in the kitchen one morning and discussed each list and the activities on each list. We had bike rides, walks, nature hikes, free concerts, BBQs, the library, learning spanish through tapes, lemonaid stands, dog-sitting, gardening, etc on the list.
It was one of the best summers of our lives so far! Nothing high-tech. Just creative, fun and together. Legacy stuff!
Les Potter said,
November 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Kathy:
I think this is an excellent and thought-provoking post. For example, your description of the Digital Divide is complete but easy to grasp. I think your reasons for it are well-thought-out.
I agree with you about how to solve the problem. It will require a concentrated effort and collective action on the part of many in society, not just government or business alone. In this weak economy, training is key to helping people who are unemployed or underemployed learn new skills that are in demand for better jobs. Government/business partnerships could be effective here.
Yes, legacy technologies can be a trap. The fast pace of technological change dictates the need for the most up-to-date equipment. It might beat nothing at all, but legacy technology won’t be helpful for long.
Finally, I think you are right on target with your point that educators must embrace technology and advocate for it in their schools. I know very little about K-12, but it must happen here. I also believe in vocational education and community colleges as being a big part of the solution.
Les