Monday, November 17, 2008
The Importance of Digital Literacy Training to Social Inclusion
This paper was written for Michael Stephen's fall LIS 768 course through the College of St. Catherine, in St. Paul, Minnesota. After reading Palfrey and Gasser's Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, I was overwhelmed with the idea that those in the participation gap were actually falling further behind in their educational opportunities due to technology. This was the inspiration for this paper.
Introduction
The digital age has changed the way users interact with information and this knowledge must inform libraries and schools on how to best guide digital natives. The digital divide still exists despite those who claim, especially during the Bush administration, that it was a problem solved. The digital native thinks and interacts differently from the digital immigrant creating this digital divide, but the greater concern is the participation gap that exists between people of different races and socioeconomic classes in the digital native population. This participation gap then excludes these nonusers from being the creators of meaning in our society and thus perpetuates where power lies in our society. Trying to create equality in a system that, in the past, has been inherently unequal is difficult, which is why it is vital that librarians and other educators provide a bridge to those on the other side of the participation gap to create social inclusion through digital literacy training. It is not enough to simply provide students with access; educators must provide students with ongoing training that is well-planned, thoughtful, authentic, and creative in order for students to engage in the technology and create fully engaged citizens. Without adequate teacher and librarian training to do this and an ongoing authentic dialogue with students, parents, and the community, the digital divide will increase, which ultimately affects the way the non-user is viewed by teachers and peers creating an even greater participation gap and success rate in education. Librarians and other educators must reassess their own pedagogical approaches to technology and prior education on how to best serve this emerging population.
The Digital Divide
The digital divide continues to impact citizens despite those who claim the problem no longer exists. There are two strains of digital divide: one is in the global spectrum between countries who have more access, the other is within a country—a domestic divide—of those who have access to technology. The latter will be the concentration addressed herein. “…in the early years George W. Bush’s administration the domestic divide was deemed solved. In 2002, federal initiatives directed at reducing the domestic divide were shut down and a new Department of Commerce report claimed, ‘We are truly a nation online’” (Couldry 250). Counting the number of computers in a given educational institution is not a means to assess their usefulness. “…declaring the ‘digital divide’ closed based on a wider availability of computers oversimplifies the construct” (Valadez 32). Additionally, David O’Brien and Cassandra Sharber, from the University of Minnesota, state, “…policymakers have funded programs that put students in urban and rural schools that serve high percentages of minority and low-socioeconomic students ‘next to’ technology. To date, however, it has been far easier to install computers than to make them relevant to students’ needs or to help teachers and students use them in empowering ways” (67). In a 2007 survey comparing access, use, and skills of third grade students from both low and middle or upper socioeconomic areas in the Mississippi Delta, it found that students did not have equal participation with meaningful technologies.
It is evident that the digital divide continues to plague our educational institutions at the determent of the students who need the most instruction—those who fall in the participation gap. Overwhelmingly, the studies show that it isn’t enough to assume students will be able to use technology because the computers are physically available. “Access” should be synonymous with “use” and not the physical presence of technology. Additionally, it is vital that librarians and educators address the sophistication of use, because watching or listening to media is not adequate to create engaged learners—it does not act as a bridge to more sophisticated interactions with technology, but creates an easy escape for educators to believe they have taught students about technology.
Of the 11 categories, non-Title 1 students [upper socioeconomic status] believed they could do the activity without help at a higher rate than their Title 1 [lower socioeconomic status] peers…other than the Play Games category, the three categories in which Title 1 students felt they could do the activity without help at a higher rate than non-Title 1 students were Watch DVDs, Listen to Music, and Publish Pictures. These categories require the least amount of skill level and technology knowledge. (Thomas 13)
It is evident that the digital divide continues to plague our educational institutions at the determent of the students who need the most instruction—those who fall in the participation gap. Overwhelmingly, the studies show that it isn’t enough to assume students will be able to use technology because the computers are physically available. “Access” should be synonymous with “use” and not the physical presence of technology. Additionally, it is vital that librarians and educators address the sophistication of use, because watching or listening to media is not adequate to create engaged learners—it does not act as a bridge to more sophisticated interactions with technology, but creates an easy escape for educators to believe they have taught students about technology.
The Participation Gap
This participation gap that exists within the digital native population is the more specific problem that the digital divide is a part of. As Palfrey and Gasser write in Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, "The biggest concern...is the impact of the participation gap. The digital world offers new opportunities to those who know how to avail themselves of them” (15). It is evident that the digital world holds within it vast opportunities for those who know how to use it; the real problem is how to reach the users that do not have the inclination or training to participate in this digital world. Studies show that the problem is more complex than users having access or not, the “digital divide” is only one part of the participation gap. Palfrey and Gasser continue by stating:
Yael Enoch and Zeev Soker also address this problem in their 2006 paper entitled “Age, Gender, Ethnicity and the Digital Divide: University Students’ Use of Web-based Instruction. They state, “This distinction [between those who have and those who do not have access to the Internet] assumes that mere access to computer, whether at home, at work or in a public library, will automatically generate learning and development” (Enoch 101). The reasons why some students do not utilize technology, whether they have access or do not, varies. Some students “suffer from computer-anxiety, others lack computer literacy or have no access to informal network of advice and support” (Enoch 101). Additionally, according to Claude Steel, a Stanford psychology, some students might suffer from what they call "stereotype threat." “According to their research, a student who feels he is part of a group that has been negatively stereotyped is likely to perform less well in a situation in which he thinks that people might evaluate him through that stereotype than in a situation in which he feels no such pressure” (Frontline). This “stereotype threat” affects how students perform academically, on standardized tests, and how they engage in their education; additionally, although it is created by the perception of a negative stereotype, it also creates behavior that is viewed negatively thus perpetuating the stereotype, which impacts how teachers and peers view these students. This addresses the idea that participation within an institutionalized organization has many, often conflicting, factors to consider. It is not enough to have a sincere desire to help people; it is not enough to buy computers, “but fail to develop coherent plans for implementation, support, and professional development of teachers to integrate technology into the classroom” (Valdez 33). Librarians and educators must address the underlying reasons why users do not participate and do not engage with technology. Using technology should always be used to enhance existing systems of education—and not replace it because a complete transition will inadvertently alienate those who are not proficient users of technology.
While the introduction of WBI [Web Based Instruction]…has played a significant part in the expansion of its student base, it has at the same time, inadvertently of course, brought about the exclusion of certain students. These students could, in principle, quite easily gain access to a computer and the Internet but apparently they have reservations when it comes to using the modern technologies for study purposes or have not acquired the necessary skills to use them. (Enoch 107)
In order to create more access, educational institutions, including libraries, must address these cultural factors to ensure technology is not leaving people behind—people who, often, are those who have been historically marginalized within our society. According to NTIA:
Race or ethnic origin is a likely factor in determining who has access to computers and the Internet…many race or origin groups are losing ground in computer and Internet connectivity when compared to the progress of Whites and those of Asian/Pacific Island descent. When holding income constant, Black and Hispanic households are still far less likely to have Internet access. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/factsheets/racial-divide.htm)
Students that are unguided and untrained on using technology, some who feel a “stereotype threat,” fall into this participation gap. The continuation of this gap will continuously manifest itself in their lives in countless ways and with greater social implications hindering future opportunities for these students.
In the past, many have worried about the "digital divide," the separation between those with access to the network and those without access. This is a persistent problem, but it's not the whole problem. The harder issue arises when you realize that access to the technologies are not enough. Young people need to learn digital literacy--the skills to navigate this complicated, hybrid world that their peers are growing up in. This type of inequality must be overcome. The costs of leaving the participation gap unaddressed over time will be higher than we should be willing to bear. (15)
Yael Enoch and Zeev Soker also address this problem in their 2006 paper entitled “Age, Gender, Ethnicity and the Digital Divide: University Students’ Use of Web-based Instruction. They state, “This distinction [between those who have and those who do not have access to the Internet] assumes that mere access to computer, whether at home, at work or in a public library, will automatically generate learning and development” (Enoch 101). The reasons why some students do not utilize technology, whether they have access or do not, varies. Some students “suffer from computer-anxiety, others lack computer literacy or have no access to informal network of advice and support” (Enoch 101). Additionally, according to Claude Steel, a Stanford psychology, some students might suffer from what they call "stereotype threat." “According to their research, a student who feels he is part of a group that has been negatively stereotyped is likely to perform less well in a situation in which he thinks that people might evaluate him through that stereotype than in a situation in which he feels no such pressure” (Frontline). This “stereotype threat” affects how students perform academically, on standardized tests, and how they engage in their education; additionally, although it is created by the perception of a negative stereotype, it also creates behavior that is viewed negatively thus perpetuating the stereotype, which impacts how teachers and peers view these students. This addresses the idea that participation within an institutionalized organization has many, often conflicting, factors to consider. It is not enough to have a sincere desire to help people; it is not enough to buy computers, “but fail to develop coherent plans for implementation, support, and professional development of teachers to integrate technology into the classroom” (Valdez 33). Librarians and educators must address the underlying reasons why users do not participate and do not engage with technology. Using technology should always be used to enhance existing systems of education—and not replace it because a complete transition will inadvertently alienate those who are not proficient users of technology.
While the introduction of WBI [Web Based Instruction]…has played a significant part in the expansion of its student base, it has at the same time, inadvertently of course, brought about the exclusion of certain students. These students could, in principle, quite easily gain access to a computer and the Internet but apparently they have reservations when it comes to using the modern technologies for study purposes or have not acquired the necessary skills to use them. (Enoch 107)
In order to create more access, educational institutions, including libraries, must address these cultural factors to ensure technology is not leaving people behind—people who, often, are those who have been historically marginalized within our society. According to NTIA:
Race or ethnic origin is a likely factor in determining who has access to computers and the Internet…many race or origin groups are losing ground in computer and Internet connectivity when compared to the progress of Whites and those of Asian/Pacific Island descent. When holding income constant, Black and Hispanic households are still far less likely to have Internet access. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/factsheets/racial-divide.htm)
Students that are unguided and untrained on using technology, some who feel a “stereotype threat,” fall into this participation gap. The continuation of this gap will continuously manifest itself in their lives in countless ways and with greater social implications hindering future opportunities for these students.
Ramifications of the Participation Gap
We must implement thoughtful training programs that engage the students that already feel marginalized. Warschauer states in his paper “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide” that “access to ICT [Information and communication technology] is embedded in a complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships. Content and language, literacy and education, and community and institutional structures must all be taken into account if meaningful access to new technologies is to be provided” (4). If students are guided correctly, the digital age has enormous power to reshape our world. “The primary benefit of moving to a global online culture that is more participatory and that requires higher digital literacy skills is that is may lead to stronger democracies…This stronger democracy will stem from more people becoming engaged in the making, interpreting, and remaking of meaning in the culture…but only if we manage to teach digital literacy effectively” (Palfrey 129). The ramifications of not addressing digital literacy in libraries and schools have great implications.
Nonusers are excluded from the same opportunities to remake meaning in our culture, but they will still feel the effects of their peers who are reshaping it. They will be living by someone else’s interpretations, someone else’s definition of meaning, and they will have less opportunity to shape their identities in the world. Palfrey and Gasser state that the digital native is increasingly “using networked public spaces as crucial environments to learn socialization as well as identity development" (26). This identity development creates different communities of social norms that will manifest in all areas of their lives. This experience is “central to a Digital Native’s emerging identity” (23). Digital Natives are creating more content than ever before, but the quality of content is questionable. “…the Digital Natives—the savvy users—are not in great danger. The people we should worry about instead are those users who fall on the other side of the participation gap: young people growing up in the digital age who do not have the digital literacy skills to control their identities” (37). These non-users will not have the sophistication to create content or control their “digital dossiers” that users of technology do (39). Palfrey continues to say, “If left alone, these digital gaps will cause other unhealthy gaps in society to widen” (279).
This participation gap then perpetuates certain norms that exist today that marginalize people of color and other groups that have historically had “other” status in society. “…those who are already marginalized will have fewer opportunities to access and use computers and the Internet…the goal of using ICT with marginalized groups is not to overcome the digital divide, but rather to further a process of social inclusion…a matter not only of an adequate share of resources, but also of ‘participation in the determination of both individual and collective life chances’” (Warschauer 5-6). Those who create meaning in society will continue to hold the power within it—leaving the rest to follow along beneath it unless the institutions of education explicitly create systems of inclusion. As Nick Couldry, professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths College, University of London, writes, “If we agree with Jan van Dijk that ‘the position of people in media networks will largely determine their position in society,’ then solving this divide must be an issue for social justice” (251). Technology should be a “source of opportunity rather than as a reinforcement of privilege” (DiMaggio 3). Digital literacy must be taught for students to be socially included or we create more social exclusion in greater spectrums.
The quality of use should be of primary importance in developing training for users. “As was the case for education, we anticipate that high rates of Internet penetration will not eliminate inequality so much as increase the salience of new kinds of inequality—inequality among Internet users in the extent to which they are able to reap benefits from their use of the technology” (DiMaggio 8). This is not the vision of those implementing technology, but it is the dire reality of society today. Without training, students are left to flounder within the participation gap on their own—and often, it is a gap they cannot overcome. Furthermore, studies show that those who are just adopting technology do it in a realm with less support than those who were early adopters of technology. “More recent converts to the Internet are often less sophisticated and more isolated” (DiMaggio 12). These new adopters are then more likely to have less social support and may relegate themselves to using technology for games and social mediums that are less sophisticated forums than creating media and assessing information that furthers their educational opportunities.
Nonusers are excluded from the same opportunities to remake meaning in our culture, but they will still feel the effects of their peers who are reshaping it. They will be living by someone else’s interpretations, someone else’s definition of meaning, and they will have less opportunity to shape their identities in the world. Palfrey and Gasser state that the digital native is increasingly “using networked public spaces as crucial environments to learn socialization as well as identity development" (26). This identity development creates different communities of social norms that will manifest in all areas of their lives. This experience is “central to a Digital Native’s emerging identity” (23). Digital Natives are creating more content than ever before, but the quality of content is questionable. “…the Digital Natives—the savvy users—are not in great danger. The people we should worry about instead are those users who fall on the other side of the participation gap: young people growing up in the digital age who do not have the digital literacy skills to control their identities” (37). These non-users will not have the sophistication to create content or control their “digital dossiers” that users of technology do (39). Palfrey continues to say, “If left alone, these digital gaps will cause other unhealthy gaps in society to widen” (279).
This participation gap then perpetuates certain norms that exist today that marginalize people of color and other groups that have historically had “other” status in society. “…those who are already marginalized will have fewer opportunities to access and use computers and the Internet…the goal of using ICT with marginalized groups is not to overcome the digital divide, but rather to further a process of social inclusion…a matter not only of an adequate share of resources, but also of ‘participation in the determination of both individual and collective life chances’” (Warschauer 5-6). Those who create meaning in society will continue to hold the power within it—leaving the rest to follow along beneath it unless the institutions of education explicitly create systems of inclusion. As Nick Couldry, professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths College, University of London, writes, “If we agree with Jan van Dijk that ‘the position of people in media networks will largely determine their position in society,’ then solving this divide must be an issue for social justice” (251). Technology should be a “source of opportunity rather than as a reinforcement of privilege” (DiMaggio 3). Digital literacy must be taught for students to be socially included or we create more social exclusion in greater spectrums.
The quality of use should be of primary importance in developing training for users. “As was the case for education, we anticipate that high rates of Internet penetration will not eliminate inequality so much as increase the salience of new kinds of inequality—inequality among Internet users in the extent to which they are able to reap benefits from their use of the technology” (DiMaggio 8). This is not the vision of those implementing technology, but it is the dire reality of society today. Without training, students are left to flounder within the participation gap on their own—and often, it is a gap they cannot overcome. Furthermore, studies show that those who are just adopting technology do it in a realm with less support than those who were early adopters of technology. “More recent converts to the Internet are often less sophisticated and more isolated” (DiMaggio 12). These new adopters are then more likely to have less social support and may relegate themselves to using technology for games and social mediums that are less sophisticated forums than creating media and assessing information that furthers their educational opportunities.
Technology Creating a Larger Divide
This is the essential problem with the participation gap—student that are not proficient users of technology are left behind in accessing more educational opportunities and leaves them further behind in becoming full participants of this new society. “As these rates increased, the focus expanded to include differences among high school and college students: for example, inequality in access to college-preparatory tracks and elite universities, or variations among different kinds of children in class size, school resources, or the availability of advanced placement courses” (DiMaggio 7). This participation gap creates more educational opportunity gaps in alarming new speeds in ways that they cannot overcome without proper support. Without this support in libraries and other educational institutions, these students will not be able to troubleshoot “the problems that invariabl[ly] emerge” when using technology (10). The impact of this on their self-efficacy is detrimental in their continuance in trying to persevere with using technology and these students often resign themselves to lower level courses in school, which then limits them in future endeavors. “We hypothesize that, in the long run, education will be a strong predictor of the use of the Internet for the enhancement of human capital, the development of social capital, and political participation” (13).
Additionally, these students will appear to be less intuitive learners and will be judged accordingly. Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states:
Additionally, these students will appear to be less intuitive learners and will be judged accordingly. Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states:
Those experiences, which were widespread among the middle class and rare among the working class, become a kind of class distinction, which shaped how teachers perceived students. These new forms of cultural participation may be playing a similar role. These activities shape what skills and knowledge students bring into the classroom, and in this fashion determine how teachers and peers perceive these students. (12)
These judgments create the path that students take starting in elementary school. Jenkins quotes Castells in his article, who writes, “‘Increasingly, as computer use is ever less a lifestyle option, ever more an everyday necessity, inability to use computers or find information on the web is a matter of stigma, of social exclusion; revealing not only changing social norms but also the growing centrality of computers to work, education and politics’” (12). The implications of the participation gap returns to their inability to create policy that directly affects them.
Digital Literacy Training
Having technology at hand is not the same as creating a meaningful experience with technology for the users. There has been an “overemphasis on the importance of the physical presence of C&I [computers and the Internet] connectivity to the exclusion of other factors that allow students to use computers for meaningful ends” (Valadez 33). Teachers need to reevaluate their existing pedagogical approaches to create meaningful interactions with technology for students. “…African American students were more likely than White or Asian students to use computers for lower-ordered activities and were more likely to be taught by teachers who were unprepared to use computers in their classrooms” (33). Teachers and librarians must implement dynamic and creative lessons to create a meaningful interaction with technology versus “drill and practice routines” (33). “There is an unnecessary technology gap between young people and many of their parents and teachers. The net result of this gap is that our kids are too often at risk in an environment where some of them are prone to risky behavior,” which is why there must be a continual conversation with the community, libraries, parents, and teachers (Palfrey 109). All those who have an invested interest must create an environment where learning can be shared and fears can be addressed.
Being a participant in the “global online culture” that Palfrey addresses requires higher digital literacy skills. These are the skills that students need explicit training on and we cannot be afraid, as digital immigrants, to immerse ourselves in it. "Fear is the single biggest obstacle to getting started on that second path, the one where we realize the potential of digital technology and the way that Digital Natives are using it" (Palfrey 8). Additionally, teachers must not fear using technology in their assignments, despite a high student to computer ratio, because this also creates inequity in technology use. Teachers in more affluent schools, which often correlates with more affluent students, are “more likely to assign computer work to students than those teachers with less favorable ratios of six or more students to a computer…provid[ing] a distinct advantage over low SES schools in gaining the experience and practice necessary for using the Internet as an educational resource” (Valadez 32). If educators continue to use technology in the dogmatic drills that often are used by under-prepared teachers, they can “actually worsen inequality by failing to address the key issue regarding the way computers are used rather than merely providing more physical access to technology” (32). Overwhelmingly, the studies show that many educators are not trained to properly address technology in their classrooms. This also means that librarians have more weight to bear in supporting students. The key to bridging the participation gap is to provide meaningful participation with technology that will engage students to be creative problem solvers and think critically—to be digitally literate. Jackson’s study showed that “greater Internet activity was associated with higher standardized test scores,” but this was only shown after users had continuous access to technology for an extended amount of time—to develop skills on how to be proficient users of the Internet (186).
Being a participant in the “global online culture” that Palfrey addresses requires higher digital literacy skills. These are the skills that students need explicit training on and we cannot be afraid, as digital immigrants, to immerse ourselves in it. "Fear is the single biggest obstacle to getting started on that second path, the one where we realize the potential of digital technology and the way that Digital Natives are using it" (Palfrey 8). Additionally, teachers must not fear using technology in their assignments, despite a high student to computer ratio, because this also creates inequity in technology use. Teachers in more affluent schools, which often correlates with more affluent students, are “more likely to assign computer work to students than those teachers with less favorable ratios of six or more students to a computer…provid[ing] a distinct advantage over low SES schools in gaining the experience and practice necessary for using the Internet as an educational resource” (Valadez 32). If educators continue to use technology in the dogmatic drills that often are used by under-prepared teachers, they can “actually worsen inequality by failing to address the key issue regarding the way computers are used rather than merely providing more physical access to technology” (32). Overwhelmingly, the studies show that many educators are not trained to properly address technology in their classrooms. This also means that librarians have more weight to bear in supporting students. The key to bridging the participation gap is to provide meaningful participation with technology that will engage students to be creative problem solvers and think critically—to be digitally literate. Jackson’s study showed that “greater Internet activity was associated with higher standardized test scores,” but this was only shown after users had continuous access to technology for an extended amount of time—to develop skills on how to be proficient users of the Internet (186).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)