Digital Inequality
“Students are compelled to accept most of the realities they experience in a world built by and for adults.” Several years ago, I asked the students of my fifth grade class to comment on this statement. The responses were intriguing and had a common sentiment related to inequity because teachers were able to access the Internet from the staff room while students were not. Our classroom had two worn computers, none of which connected to the Internet. I later discovered that the entire school was in fact equipped with functional high-speed wireless Internet access, which was never used. Today the students have a modern computer lab at the school and access the Internet regularly. However, having access to the Internet is only half the battle in addressing issues of “Digital Inequality.”
In the early 1990's the Internet was developing into a more congruent network and the social implications associated with the inability to access information were beginning to be understood. It was understood for instance that not being able to access information via the Internet, would disproportionately affect some social and ethnic groups. Measures to address some of the negative social implications would need to be addressed forthwith. According to Paul DiMaggio et al. “Social scientists and policy makers began worrying about inequality in Internet access as early as 1995 (Anderson et al. 1995), when just 3 percent of Americans had ever used the World Wide Web (Pew Center 1995).” It was believed that Internet access would have had a direct impact on access to education, work and income opportunities in particular but upward social mobility in general. The Department of Commerce, telephone companies, and others, spearheaded a campaign to connect most of the country to the Internet. The issues related to equitable connectivity to the Internet defined this period and spurred the notion of the Digital Divide. However, by the beginning of the current decade much of the concerns over Internet access in schools subsided. Most schools in the United States were connected to the Internet by 2005. Research published by U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006) states that up to 94% of all schools were connected to the Internet by 2005. Furthermore, the study also indicated that "In 2005, the ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access in public schools was 3.8 to 1," effectively nullifying the argument that there was still a Digital Divide between social groups in this country.
What has emerged from providing widespread access to the Internet in the United States however does not accurately depict real access to information and resources on the Internet. "Today, huge gaps continue to exist in academic achievement in the United States, whether measured by standardized test scores, graduation rates, or admittance to universities by race and socioeconomic status (Cheng, 2001; Noguera, 2001)." So while greater access to the Internet has been provided to students, the rate of the connection, type of equipment and depth of instruction are just a few factors influencing the quality of Internet access. When computers are used to access the Internet for instance to practice test drills or play games the value of that access is diminished significantly. This is also true when there aren't enough trained professionals to help students to maximize the value of using the Internet. Similarly, the type of software exposure, online privileges, research capabilities, availability of computer labs and time spent productively engaged on the Internet, influences the quality of students' access. Additionally, we now know that students who access the Internet from home using a high speed connection enjoy greater quality access to information than those who do not.
Meaningful changes must be made to a system that is inherently unequal. There needs to be a national debate on Digital Inequality. We first have to become more aware of what Digital Inequality is to understand how devastating an impact it is having on education. Next, let us show the foresight to employ the necessary resources to connect homes in the United States with high speed Internet. The alternative will include diminished digital skills to a large portion of the population. This in turn reduces wages with a ripple effect globally. Digital Inequality however, may never be completely eradicated in all its many forms.
Access to the Internet will not safeguard us from Digital Inequality. However, as quality access to the Internet rages at the forefront of the debate on Digital Inequality we should also remind ourselves that our approach to teaching and learning via the Internet must also evolve and be subject to close scrutiny. We need to use online pedagogy skillfully to reduce Digital Inequality in a meaningful way. Using the Internet as an interactive, cognitive tool will also help our efforts to reduce Digital Inequality in a meaningful way.
References
Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269-278.
Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003. (2006, September 5). Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006065.
Cooper, M. (2004). Expanding the digital divide and falling behind in broadband. Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, October. Retrieved fromhttp://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/digitaldivide.pdf.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio+Hargittai.pdf.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality.Social Inequality, 355-400. Retrieved from http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/dimaggio-etal-digitalinequality.pdf.