Katkin’s weBLOG

The arrival of computer technologies and the Internet into mainstream use has propelled the term “digital divide” into our everyday language. Originally, the term was first used in the mid-1990s to describe “gaps in ownership of computers between groups, during which time the increase of ownership was limited to certain ethnic groups” (Wikipedia). Even though the term “digital divide” may be new, the concept is not. For example, consider the early introductory stages of the telephone or the television… in their day, these technologies also exhibited a divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” … but over time, as more people were able to acquire these new technologies, the issue of equity became less of a concern.

Generally speaking, the term “digital divide” has come to mean “the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all” (Wikipedia). As the “digital divide” gapes and recedes, it also continues to evolve and redefine itself to describe a variety of “imbalances in [ICT] resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen” (Wikipedia). As George Sciadas states in the research paper, “The Digital Divide in Canada,” it has become an “umbrella term for many issues,” including access to and use of ICT, inhibitors to using ICT, and literacy with ICT skills. It can also be “used to refer both to internal country divides, as well as divides across countries” (Sciadas, 2005).

Global Digital Divide

In examining the “digital divide” from within a global context, it is not difficult to understand how the gap increases in areas of the world where the Internet is not easily accessible. Lack of access to technology and the Internet creates a ripple effect because without the infrastructure and necessary hardware, education and the economy both suffer when a country’s citizens remain illiterate in using new ICT skills. Common factors that contribute to the “global digital divide” are gender, age, income, education, ethnicity and country of residence. In many cases, these factors “overlap, so that some groups are doubly or triply disadvantaged” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003).

Digital Divide in Canada

According to a recent Canadian Internet Use Survey referenced in the Globe and Mail, “age, income, education and place of residence” continue to be factors that contribute to the “digital divide” in Canada. In 2003, Dianne Looker and Victor Thiessen reported the following statistics based on interviews with high school students in Canada. Although some differences were marginal, their study revealed that “there is indeed a digital divide for Canadian youth in terms of access and experience with ICT:”

• a divide persists between users and non-users (heavy and light use equates to competence and tentative use)
• male and female students report equal access to technology, but different reasons for why they use it (gaming, social networks, school work)
• rural students less likely to have computer access at home, but use their school and local library computers more than their urban counterparts
• urban students have more access to specialized software for specific subject areas
• less computer support and professional learning opportunities for teachers in rural areas
• where the level of parent education is low, computers are rarely used at home or there is no computer
• lower socio-economic status homes tend to spend less time on the computer
• schools where teachers struggle with time limitations, pressure to cover the curriculum, lack of funds, limited number of Internet connections

Source: Looker, D. & V. Thiessen. (2003). Digital Divide in Canadian Schools.

Digital Divide in Education

Access to computers and the Internet tends to be the focus of most discussions concerning the “digital divide.” However, the ways in which computers are used both at school and at home offer yet another dimension to the term “digital divide.” For example, students can still be disadvantaged by a teacher or parent who does not model the use of new technologies effectively.

In the AASL blog post “Web 2.0 in schools: our digital divides are showing!” mmardis suggests that the integration of Web 2.0 tools in our schools is causing a new kind of “digital divide.” In reflecting on mmardis’ four quadrant divide model, I can evaluate how we are enabling or reducing a digital divide within our own school division:

1. Access (technology, bandwidth)

In terms of access to computer technologies and the Internet, our school division has been very diligent in providing equity to all our schools, regardless of factors such as school population, location and teacher education. All of our schools have comparable access to hardware, software, professional learning opportunities and technical support. We are now in the process of dismantling our computer labs in our K-8 schools and reconfiguring our hardware in pods of computers in school libraries and classrooms. Teacher-librarians will be instrumental in helping classroom teachers to make this shift in how they structure their instructional time with students. In “Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency,” author Sandra Kay Plair anticipates that it will be difficult to “convince veteran teachers to rethink the role of technology” and move them towards a new understanding of “the value that new technology tools have to offer to student learning” (Plair, 2008). The collaborative and instructional skills of the teacher-librarian will be critical to building a culture of inquiry that seamlessly integrates technology into the classroom setting, thus increasing student engagement and supporting best practices in teaching.

2. Skill (personal, professional)

For most teaching staff in our division, Web 2.0 tools are still very much buzz words. We are just beginning to use the language of blogs, wikis and podcasts in terms of our portal system… but having access to new tools is only half the battle… being able to use these new tools effectively and responsibly is even more important. In order to help build understanding among staff, one of our divisional strategies has been to empower teacher-librarians to offer instructional leadership in using blogs and wikis to support both student learning and professional learning for teachers. In order for our teacher-librarians to develop the necessary skills, the instructional technology coordinator has offered after-school workshops at various schools around the division… blogs one week, wikis another. We have also embedded the use of Web 2.0 tools in our teacher-librarian inquiry workshops and presented our PD plan in the form of a wiki. As a result, teacher-librarians are beginning to make new connections with students through book club blogs and collaborating with colleagues by using wikis to plan committee events. Using new tools in an authentic and meaningful context, not only models the tool for new learners, but generates useful content at the same time.

3. Policy (acceptable use, library, filtering)

Although our division blocks most Web 2.0 tools, we do have access to blogs, wikis and podcasts from within the confines of our divisional portal. Our policy is not to provide access to open source software that requires an external email address, but the tools in our portal can provide a simulated experience for our students and staff from within a safe environment. While we are learning to blog, to record and post a podcast, and to collaborate on a wiki, we are building the same skills we will need to use on the open web. In order to respect our divisional policy and give our students a similar Web 2.0 experience, our teacher-librarians are working collaboratively with their school personnel to set up classroom blogs and use wikis for class projects where appropriate. An important strategy will be to “share” how we are using these tools to support student learning successfully, rather than “tell” decision makers that we need increased access and less filtering. As Stephen Abram counsels in “Talking tech with leaders: getting buy-in and understanding,” “you’re building support for a vision and trying to influence priorities” (Abram, 2009).

4. Motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic)

I know that many of our teacher-librarians and instructional technology advocates are motivated to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into their practice. My motivation in using the tools that we have, is to use them effectively in context and exhaust their possibilities within the portal. At present, we are able to connect with students and teachers in other schools which is a start to expanding the confines of the physical classroom space. However, what makes Web 2.0 tools so engaging for learners is not so much the creation of the content, but what comes after publication (Richardson, 2009) … the comments, the discussions, the new ideas, the new understandings. What can be more intrinsically motivating than feedback from a real audience? How long will we be satisfied with only connecting to our immediate community of learners within the portal? In demonstrating our mastery of the tools from within the portal, we will be in a better position to advocate for less restrictions and the use of external Web 2.0 tools that are already available outside the school.

Without question, Web 2.0 tools are gaining in popularity outside our schools. Since students are already using these new technologies, we need to recognize the impact they are having and use these tools to re-engage students in learning. We need to give students the opportunity to use these new tools for learning, not just communication. In a “big picture” sense, Web 2.0 tools allow students to find their own teachers in a connected world (Richardson, 2009).

As an experiment last week, I decided to add a Clustrmap to the left sidebar of my blog. I’ve been thinking about where the content of this blog has been travelling. It’s very easy to forget that others may be reading and sharing what is written here. I expected to see red dots pop up in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, but certainly not in Toronto, the United States or the Netherlands? Now this might be a bit of a stretch in regards to this week’s “digital divide” theme but I’m going to make a pitch for how clustrmaps might reveal emerging trends, which are intriguing, but hardly scientific by any means.

In referring to how his own learning takes place through the contacts he makes on his blog, Will Richardson reflects on how Web 2.0 learning makes it possible for him to connect with many “teachers.” He adds that it’s “humbling” that so many people worldwide visit his blog every week. In acknowledgement of Richardson’s authority on Technorati and his reputation as a top Edublogger, we can examine his clustermap, considering that most weblogg-ed visitors are interested in education and/or savvy to Web 2.0 tools. Although, not a thoroughly scientific premise, the clustermap reveals a “digital divide” of its own. Examine Will’s map for yourself and consider a digital divide among educators around the world that is taking place at this very moment, between those who are tracking Richardson’s new ideas and those who are not.