Reinterpreting the Digital Divide
digital divide: the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all.
The digital divide is understood to be the gap between those who use and are familiar with computers and technology and those who aren't. I'm 17, African-American, live in a considerably urban neighborhood in Chicago, and would seemingly contradict many of the statistics about race and ethnicity and their relationship to the digital divide. I have broadband internet, I use it frequently, I know my way around the computer, and I like using it. These are just basic things, but some statistics suggests that many people of my demographic aren't fluent in even these simple tasks. Based on what I’ve seen, I have to wonder whether the digital divide isn’t more complicated than it is sometimes described.
I started playing on computers at the age of four using simple typing and word processing softwares, and I was familiar with the keyboard by 5th grade. My parents wanted me to be able to type. I remember them telling me that if I could type and use a computer, then I would be successful. I didn't believe them at the time, but now, I've got a whole new view.
There has definitely been progress in the effort to close the digital divide gap, when it comes to access. It seems like there are computers in a majority of the libraries and schools in our country. Programs like the Digital Youth Network and YouMedia in Chicago have helped, and are continuing to help, bridge the access gap. But many kids and teenagers still seem to lack the basic concepts of what the computer and technology can do for them.
In my experience, it isn’t always true that the people behind these statistics don't have access; in my opinion, they often don't have a vision of the purpose. Without knowledge of the importance of something, many kids won't take the initiative to become familiar with it.
I wonder if there is enough education and energy dedicated to helping kids and teenagers understand technology's dominance in today's world, and how being technologically literate can define who will and who will not succeed. The Digital Youth Network works so well in getting young people to use technology because it offers a clear reasoning and purpose for the classes.
This may be a controversial statement, but to me, I think the divide is more than just a question of access. Access is part of it. But I think it’s also about which groups receive a sense of purpose about how important technology can be in life and which groups don’t.
Researchers looking into this need to look at different ways kids use technology, especially kids in the demographic most associated with the concept of the digital divide. I think the digital divide concept sometimes assumes that kids depicted as non-users will have trouble learning how to use technology efficiently. Well, when the 1:1 laptop program was installed in my middle school, I witnessed a surge of natural desire to learn how to use computers. Kids from much less fortunate backgrounds were taking the computer and learning more than I ever did.
Researchers need to stop asking who's using and start asking why they are using or why they are not. Researchers need to start re-evaluating the "divide.” There's a lot of access, whether that access is at school or in the community or at home or at a friend’s. Researchers who care so much about the divide need to start investing in new ways to get kids interested in using the computer for something other than just computer games. They need to survey those who don't use computers as well and ask the simple question of why they don't feel it’s necessary to learn. Without a push or an initiative, many kids won't ever make the decision to become fluent in technology. The gap can close when more kids feel the need, the importance, and the possibilities that come with being fluent on the computer and with technology. From what I have seen, when a kid realizes something is a necessity, they will invest. They will find a way.
Comments
Hi Terrence,
Great Post, thanks for sharing your experience with us. I know I am not alone when I say that it helps to hear the views of kids on the ground using (or not)computers in their own ways. Even though many of us work with kids using technology every day, its easy to lose sight of their perspective.
It struck me that you feel so strongly that kids make a "decision" to become fluent in technology, and that clear communication of the opportunities that technological fluency opens up will make more kids interested in learning how to use a computer. As you said, "when a kid realizes something is a necessity, they will invest."
However, in my experience, a kid doesn't decide to learn something just because a teacher tells them it will be important to their future success. We tell kids that all the time, and often it can be like talking to a brick wall. It seems to me that their interest has to be generated by something more organic-- like natural curiosity, or fun. You said yourself that you started playing on computers at age 4. You must have been motivated by fun, or an interest in how a complex machine works.
I was wondering, if you really do think kids will listen when we tell them how important technological skills will be to their future, what are some effective ways we can say or show this? What will kids respond to? Real life examples? Particular messages?
Also, what are the types of computer activities that get kids excited and willing to learn-- especially kids that don't have many computer skills yet? Are these most effective inside of a classroom or outside of one?
Thanks again,
Annie
I completely understand. It is very hard to get children to understand the necessity of something. In my case it clicked, other children who had the 1:1 laptop program at my middle school didn't click instantly, some not at all. I believe the difference between some of them and me was that for one, I had parents who stressed the importance to me frequently, and invested in it for me at an early age, and two I was lured in by the fun aspects. At the age of 4, the fact that I could play games on the computer was the starting point. I did notice a lesser drive to use the computer as time went on, until the the 7th grade. That was when the 1:1 to laptop program was installed at my school. For me the fact that I could make a movie with my computer enticed me to the fullest. For others in my class it was the fact that they could create a computer generated drawing, or even a rap or hip hop song. You can't stress the serious with all kids and expect them to automatically get it, what you can stress is the fun in it, and how the serious WILL come with the knowledge of how to do fun, yet creative things. I had a computer at the age of 4, but the only reason I stayed on it was my parents, and the computer games. I continued with the computer because I developed a passion for film...thanks for your kind words and I hope this helps.
Hey great post. I'm a teacher and in fact have the same concerns about other teachers, that you have about other kids! Many of us teachers do. Your post has some great insight.
I have to disagree with the notion that there is "a lot of access." We've worked to keep the doors open on a kids' drop-in computer center for over fifteen years. The handful of computers that we offer a few hours a week to the many kids who want to use them is a long way from real access. Schools provide some opportunities but most don't offer the luxury of 1:1 access so its also a few hours a week, at best, and under very structured conditions. This is a far cry from the access that my own kids grew up with. They could do things to the computers as well as use the computers--they could hook the computers together, swap out parts, build games. I agree that few learn the potential of computers but the digital divide (as well as the advertising vision of computers as devices to be used to consume yet more digital products) still keeps kids who might understand from having the direct, playful, and unstructured experiences that will promote this kind of learning.
Well this blog is from my own experience, and I've seen significant growth in the number of people I come into contact with that have access to a computer. I'm sure many regions are still lacking that access but I believe the programs I've particpated here in Chicago have made steps in closing the access gap.
Terrance,
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I think it nicely encapsulates much of the "participation vs. access" debate I've seen taking place in a number of DML-related efforts.
I am curious if you have any sources of data related to either access or participation. Specific examples of the ''participation'' gap?
Also what about rural populations? Is Internet access available everywhere in the US?
Great post, Terrence! Very refreshing and insightful.
One of the issues with the "digital divide" is the state of education. Educators should be teaching students how to find, assess, and use the information effectively. What's the point of having limitless information online if you don't know how to use it? As the internet becomes more sophisticated, digital literacy skills become even more important in engaging in a global economy. Your post brings to mind the "participation gap". It is a question of access to opportunities that enable an American young person to develop specific skills, experiences, and knowledge for the future.
Nice to see programs like Digital Youth Network challenging kids to become content producers rather than passive consumers.
Then there's the issue of academia vs the real world.
I "created" the 1:1 laptop program at a middle school in 1998 during a three year interval in a 20 year IT consulting career that started with designing interactive multimedia learning technologies for foreign languages for the military and ended with delivering effective client-server business applications to small businesses where I built the WAN, deployed the computers, trained the staffs, kept the servers online and analyzed which business operations could be improved through which suite of technologies. Seeing teachers and students in "their" environment (I also taught high school computer classes during that phase) and then seeing the rest of humanity use technology for their jobs has convinced me that "academia" is a different planet in a different galaxy.
The fastest learners and earliest adopters of technology in the office were usually children of immigrants who went to terrible schools in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods. They grew up with the ethic, "Get a good education; make your family proud of you!" The others grew up with adults hovering around worrying about their kids' self esteem.
The "Digitial Divide" has long been abandoned as a concept in the real world; businesses can teach everything a person needs to know for his professional life regardless of whether he or she was an exchange student from a country with no running water or a child of Russian or Chinese hackers and software engineers.
What is most needed? Teachers who actually know what it is like to NEED technology to get their jobs done and not get fired. Yes, "vision" matters. But the students' vision is less critical than their mentors' and teachers'. I attended SALT (Society for Applied Learning Technology) conferences for years and listened to the blind "sharing" with the blind about all this "cool stuff". They just used big words to describe the elephants none of them could see.
If there is a Digital Divide, it is between the academics who analyze technology and have huge budgets to get research hardware (the "have nots") and the hard-working staffs in corporations who use whatever technology they can scrape up to produce real value for the global economy (the "haves").
(For the record, I "got" a multimillion dollar budget in 1990 to use in an educational institution to create a "program" to research and develop educational technology systems that other teachers never learned how to use. I "got" my business clients in 2005 to spend a fraction of that to lower their overhead and improve their productivity. I used to be one of those "losers" in academia, so maybe I just described myself in this comment. But at least I repented and changed directions.)