The Digital Divide
The professor of this course is practicing some great blended learning techniques incorporating contemporary messages appropriate to this learning group. Moreover, she is using YouTube as an educational tool, which shows perspective into how people learn and will learn.
Admittedly, I just began using YouTube for some family videos of my daughter for family living out of my vicinity. I still think a lot of it is bunk but still some messages are delivered well here and it can be a tool if used properly. Still, I am not able to embed the clips in the Doc Blog. So here is a link to this week’s posted clip.
Since this is along the lines of my own research, I have a plethora of materials about the subject of the gap growing between students and teachers in terms of learning preferences and techniques. So, I posted the need for learning leaders to develop curriculum that is more aligned to the needs and preferences of the digital generation.
A colleague from the class posted a rebuttal. Her concerns were for those students that did not have access, availability, or literacy in computing due to socio-economic conditions. This prompted some reflection and discussion in my home about the matter. As my wife and I discussed the matter we arrived at a variety of related results:
- Education as a privilege, not a right
- A famous Caddyshack quote, “Well, the world needs ditch diggers too
- Give people what they want
I wanted to address the question in the classroom but wanted to substantiate my thoughts with peer-reviewed journals. I found an interesting article that discussed the notion of not needing to address the digital divide. Essentially arriving at the conclusion that it is the advocates of those without things that cry foul but not those living without the thing in question. This is evidenced by research that asked members of groups without certain things others feel they need if the items were needed. The response was “no”. In fact members of subgroups often want only to become the best within that subgroup and achieve an excellence that is application to their lives. The article continued to follow the advocates line of logic to include needing large tracks of cattle grazing in New York City because people there are not afforded the opportunity to become cattle ranchers. Good point, I thought.
The article deconstructed the advocates logic and concluded that the society and economy needs people at varying levels of skills and education in order to be sustainable. Suggesting that if everyone were at the highest order of skillset the economy would collapse.
Here is the reference if you want to read the article:
Block, W. (2004, Sep). The “digital divide” is not a problem in need of rectifying. Journal of Business Ethics. 53(4), 393-406. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from EBSCOhost.
Certainly I agree that there is a digital divide. I also agree that measuring merely access to technology is not sufficient to capture the accurate width of the gap. I submit, though, that closing the gap by forcing digital technology on those that do not desire it will only spend good money on a bad result (ultimately the advocates would feel better but find some other reason the group is not attaining some prejudiced attainment).
I support people in the excellence they desire. I support people in learning in a way that is conducive and attainable to them as individuals.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I agree with your conclusion. In my mind, the digital divide is one of ‘being able to access’ instead of ‘accessing’ – the distinction is lost on many. Technology must have context for humans to make use of it, and for some people that context is severely lacking – something that is being addressed here and there.
The Simputer, for example, was designed for illiterate people in India to handle their sales of agricultural produce. In my mind, that is tackling the digital divide. On the other hand, a government spending $100 million on PCs that are ‘not quite outdated yet’ when they could have spent the money on infrastructure is not closing any digital divide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Taran,
Thanks for coming by the Doc Blog. You very eloquently described the digital divide, “the digital divide is one of ‘being able to access’ instead of ‘accessing’”
Agreed that we should focus our energies where they can do good. Building an infrastructure and support mechanisms for using digital technologies should come before making tech available. Although this could become a chicken and egg argument for some.
My niece has every opportunity to use a computer and grow in her knowledge of the digital world. However, it is not applicable to her growing up, so her skills are focused on her needs. An infrastructure where she might need the computing skills would enhance her development and close her individual divide.
Thanks for the comment.
Mike
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No problem on the comment at all. I enjoy other people’s perspectives, and the path you took was different – but has much the same result. There is much to be learned from that sort of thing, I think…
I used to be labeled a ‘digital divide activist’. Maybe I am still labeled that, I do not know, but what I do know is that technology – any technology – has to be useful to people.
I think Steve Talbott nailed that really well in his book, “Devices of the Soul”. I think you will enjoy that book if you haven’t already. I’m jealous that I’m not the one who wrote it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0