This five-part article begins by explaining the origins of what 'digital divide' means, which was coined in the mid-90's and meant "the growing gap between those with access to computers and those without." It goes on to explain how the meaning of digital divide has changed to mean those who are "at home with social media and those who are not." Part two explains how social media has grown to become more the primary learning site for students, and that the new digital divide is really more of a social-media-participation divide. Teachers are urged not to ignore this shift in educational focus because it is important opportunity for helping our kids learn. Part three features visionary Howard Rheingold and his emphasis on using social media and other Web 2.0 tools as a means to "enable people to mobilize new, powerful forms of collective action." He believes that teaching social media will revolutionize learning, because it transforms us (as teachers) from just delivering facts to teaching students how to get the facts themselves. Part four highlights the work of Mike Wesch, who used a video (that now has almost 12 million views) to help illustrate Rheingold's ideas about the need for students to learn how to effectively use social media. Wesch points out that it's not just about linking information, but about "linking people together in ways we've never thought of before." Part five begins with information about the development and growth of the internet, and cites Albert Hammond and Larry Irving as the inventors of the phrase, "Digital Divide." It goes on to explain how the access aspect of the divide seemed to lessen over time as internet usage continued to grow, even among the less well-off. The article ends by discussing how the Bush Administration downgraded the Divide and the NTIA itself, effectively zeroing out its budget and ultimately killing it.
My Thoughts: This article helps to really show the transformation of what was the Digital Divide of the 90's to what it has become today. It has transformed for the most part from a gap between those with and without access to computers back then, to more of a gap in fluency in how to use the internet and social media to obtain information today. So we've basically gone from a gap in physical access to a gap in fluency of information and use.
The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age
This article explains the prevalence of creating and sharing content and information online. It also discusses whether or not men and women are equally participating in sharing content online. It shares various past research statistics about a variety of factors that seem to contribute to whether or not people participate creatively online. Some literature suggests that "different levels of know how and those who possess particular skills will be more likely to benefit from time spent online." Jenkins and colleagues (2002) note a 'participation gap' that is less about digital access and more about unequal exposure to experiences that "increase participatory culture digital literacy." For this current study however, the authors specifically examined whether people's background characteristics and the context of their internet use are factors in whether or not people are creating and sharing online. Their study focused on an ethnically diverse group of students from University of Illinois in 2007. An outline of their study follows in the article that includes the kinds of questions they asked and the reasons why they asked them, the demographics of their respondents, and they explain their methods of analysis.
The study found that more men report creating music and film/video than women, while more women report creating fiction/poetry and photography than men. African-American and Native American respondents report more writing than other groups, and more Whites reported creating more artistic photography. Also, students with at least one parent who has a graduate degree were more likely to create music and video. And students of parents with more education are more likely to participate in a mix of online and offline activities, while neither gender nor race seem to be a factor here. The most common type of material to be created and posted online is writing poetry of fiction, with 51% of students doing so. The study also showed that men were much more likely to share content on the web than women, and that neither race, nor parental education background seem to be a factor here. However, when the study accounts for online ability and skill, if men and women with equal ability are compared, "they are equally likely to share their content online." In their conclusion their findings suggest that socioeconomic background does play a significant role in content creation, and that women are less likely to share the content they've created than men. But an important discovery is that "web user ability mediates the relationship of gender and the online posting of a student's own content." When skill is controlled, the differences between men and women are no longer observed.
My Thoughts: What I take from this is that their study suggests that men and women and people from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds do create content--but that men are more likely to share it than women, and people of different ethnic backgrounds share different types of content than others. Also parental education background does seem to be a factor in the creation and sharing of certain types of content. But overall, when web user skill is equal between women and men there is no significant difference in the posting of content online. And the authors do say at the end that the existence of a "participation gap" will have "increasing implications for social inequality."
Finding a Place in Cyberspace: Black Women, Technology, and Identity
This article first discusses the myth of "cyberspace as a raceless, genderless, and sexuality-free space," and the author initially discusses her past articles, along with current literature, on the digital divide and racial factors. The author then goes on to discuss interviews with three African-American senior systems analysts and they paths they took in their education and careers. She also asked them about the roles that race and gender play in their careers. Some had experienced racial inequality more than others, and all noted some differences in technology access between African-Americans and white Americans; but all also noted that age and income seemed to be more important factors in that digital divide. They all agreed that "lack of resources, not lack of enthusiasm or curiosity, promoted computer illiteracy," but noted that this was not race-specific in cause. Then there is a lot of information about the marginalization of the roles of black women, and black nationalism in general over the past 350 years, and how black women are usually cast in the roles of outsiders/others. Then the author writes about the place for black women, specifically over the past twenty years, and what she calls the "diasporic discourse." And there is a good deal of discussion over the negative and/or racially-exclusive connotation of the term, "African-American."
My Thoughts: To be honest, I was pretty much lost after reading about the first one third of this article. Once she started getting so deeply into black nationalism and the diaspora, all I really saw was @#%%^***&))(^%)_! Too many big words, which is funny considering that I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. But I spent much more time looking up words and re-reading sentences in pursuit of comprehension and meaning, that I basically lost the entire intent and value of this article. If I have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make sense of what I'm reading, then unfortunately I'm really not getting too much out of it (other than perhaps a migraine). All I can really take from it is that it is about how marginalized black women are in business and in life. And somewhere in there that applies to technology too. I guess.
Slamming the Closet Door and Taking Control: Analysis of Personal Transformation and Social Change as LGBT Podcasting Blazes a Trail of Democratization of the Media
First appearing in this article is the point that finally the "general public has adopted the original purpose of the Internet: for users to be content creators." Then it explains the development of podcasts as a means for people create and distribute their content worldwide, and how the LGBT community has embraced this tool as a transformative learning experience. According to the article, podcasting has become associated with the slogan, "Democratization of the Media," because it allows for finding one's voice and sharing it without many constraints. As a result, this allowed the LGBT community to take control and come out of the closet, slamming the door behind them. Their research methods follow, along with an explanation of what podcasting is and how it's done, and how and where the audience listens to the content. For the LGBT community, the podcast format allows them a safe environment in which to "explore, develop identity and voice: safe from identity discovery and physical harm." It also allows them the ability to respond to both negative and positive listener feedback from a point of authority, without feeling disempowered as they would in non-virtual environments. The article also notes that podcasts are used most as a means for learning language (at least at the time the article was written), but that it is also a means to use valuable adult learning skills: active learning, immediate application, transferable skills, and other types of learning skills.
My Thoughts: The author made it very clear (and easy to understand) how podcasts are used in the LGBT community in a very meaningful and effective way that allows their voices to be heard, and in a relatively safe environment. It's also easy to understand how it can be used by teachers and students as a meaningful learning tool.
One Laptop Per Child, Video, Parts One and Two
Part one introduces the OLPC mission, to create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children, by providing each one with a rugged, low-cost laptop, called the XO. There are 5 Core Principles introduced here:
- The kids keep the laptops.
- The focus is on early education, kids aged 6-12.
- No one gets left out.
- Kids must get internet connection.
- Laptop must have free and open-source software.
My Thoughts: I think the intent behind the OLPC initiative is wonderful. But after some quick researching online, it would seem that this mission was rather a failure. I didn't dig too deeply though. I think this may be a good example of how just having technology is not enough--you have to have the right environment, the right instructors and other factors to make the use of that technology successful in the long run.
Can One Laptop per Child Reduce the Digital Divide and Educational Gap? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Migrant Schools in Beijing
The goal of this study was an in-depth evaluation of the use of OLPC--although it was limited to a group of 300 students in migrant schools in Beijing. The software that was installed on the kids' laptops was tailored to their school curriculum and their activities were related to what they were learning in class. Students computer skills showed significant improvement after six months of beginning the program. There was some increased/improved academic and non-academic achievements as well. Their research also stresses that more research is needed.
My Thoughts: I'd really have to read more current research on the OLPC program to know for sure if and how successful this program is. Many recent reports suggest that it's not very effective; yet one can find many web articles showing that the program is ongoing and it shouldn't yet be ruled out. I'm rather on the fence about it. I still think the idea is good, but in reading all of the other literature about the current meaning of "digital divide," I'm not really sure that just providing the technology is the answer for anyone: it has to be used in a meaningful way too.
Reflection
The meaning of "Digital Divide" seems to have greatly changed since that phrase was coined back in the mid-90's. It used to really just mean the gap between those who have access to computers and technology and those who do not. Anymore, it would seem that Digital Divide means the gap between effectively using social media and not, or the gap between creating and sharing content or not, or the differences and gap between race, gender, and/or socioeconomic backgrounds. Or maybe it's all of these things. Whatever it truly means today, and whatever it might mean in the future, I think the bottom line is that we have to understand and appreciate the meaning at any given time and how it can impact meaningful and effective learning, creating, and communication in the ever-evolving digital age.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments! :)