Digital Divide...Simple to Spell...Complex to Fix?

If you live in North America, it is hard to escape the existence of and the growing reliance on digital technologies. For many, being digitally connected is a given, an expectation, a right. Even our cars have gone from being modes of transportation to being highly mobile digital communication devices:

This technological shift appears to be creating a divide nationally and globally. These digital divides are "the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it is the unequal access by some members of society to information and communication technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. (Wikipedia)

In the above quote this divide is caused or manifested in people's lack of access to technology and their lack of skill to use the technology in complex manners. Notice it also frames this divide in terms of people being digital citizens (we will come back to that one).

At first glance it seems easy to address this divide or technological imbalance. Pump money into infrastructure, ship computers nationally/globally, and hire trained digital citizens to make sure everyone is up to speed.

The divide has more components than skills and access. This is where it gets really complicated. The digital divide actually mirrors other divides in our societies along racial, gender, socioeconomic, cultural, religious, and political lines:




(Thanks Dawn for finding this)

The American Association of School Librarians suggest that policies that dictate institutional purchasing of technology and filtering content influence this divide. They also suggest "motivation, cannot be overlooked. That is, we’re seeing children, teachers, media specialists, and administrators all having different motivations to either adopt, ignore, or actively thwart learning innovation with Web 2.0 tools" (AASL October 2008).

I fully admit that the last two semesters of learning about Web 2.0 has whipped me into a bit of a panic. I live in a remote, fly-in community. We are progressing with our technology. As teachers we see the value of this advancement but a true sense of urgency and panic hit me when I came back to Alberta. I gained the impression that the world has changed almost over night in a way never imagined before. George Sciadas' research calmed my nerves by putting this present digital divide into perspective:

Despite perceptions about the meteoric rise of the Internet, fast as it
may have been, the penetration of television in people’s lives was
faster1. The penetration of the VCR was also very fast, particularly
during its first decade. While the speed of adoption among commodities
differs, their penetration is generally characterized by accelerating
growth in the initial periods, which eventually gives way to decelerating
growth. (p. 2)

In short, technological divides have happened before and to some degree these divides shrink with time. His research did support, however, that our present digital divide is expanding in Canada between the poor and the rich...which obviously is an issue of concern.

Major Question Leaders Need to Answer:

Is the digital divide a cultural/political construct based on the assumption that there is one right way of being?

In the YouTube video above, digital technologies and related skills were defined by their ability to allow America/Americans to compete in the global economy. Wikipedia's definition of digital citizens describes them as being able to complete duties such as filing taxes, child registration, and other commercial endeavors online. These examples and countless others support Sonia Liff's assertion that the existence of and the plans to eliminate the digital divide have agendas behind them. For instance, research has shown that boys and girls use digital technologies differently (Looker & Thiessen, 2003). Sonia Liff picked up on this and shared the risk of defining women as poor users and men as good users. This would lead to policies and programs to improve women. This approach ignores the key question...what do women want to use technology for? Other presenters besides Sonia Liff emphasized that one set of policies/projects to eliminate the divide doesn't fit all as different nations/cultures perceive technology differently and therefore would use it differently. These thoughts came from the video below (thanks Natasha) and is well worth a watch.



Implications for Educators/Leaders:

1) Be aware - We need to be aware of how we define success. We have an agenda in schools. Educational gurus that are pushing the educational envelope have complex and unique skills in mind for digital citizens (ShirJorg, Jackie, Joyce Valenza). Even though many students are using web 2.0 tools they would still be considered on the bottom of the divide as they may not be using them in the way we define they should be.

2) Avoid simplistic responses - Our gut reaction is to buy, buy, buy. "If students and teachers have access then we are okay." Focusing on hardware while ignoring policy, the skills your teachers have/lack, the infinite ways users perceive and interpret experiences with technology is short sighted. Add the existing socioeconomic, cultural, gender, political barriers in your school/community = limited success or complete disaster. Danah Boyd does an excellent job of exploring these elements in the digital world (Click here. Make sure you read her papers)

3) Think context - Solutions do exist but they likely will be unique to your area. You can learn from others though. Thanks Dawn for examples of contextual solutions.

4) Respect play - My peers and I discussed at length the importance of teachers being competent technology. If teachers value and have the skills then they can help battle your local digital divide. Administrators...please get creative with scheduling and create space for your staff to play with technology. I guarantee you will see results :)

For further ideas check out Dawnelai's blog.

Non-hyperlinked resources:

George Sciadas completed a report entitled "The Digital Divide in Canada" for Statistics Canada. This report can be accessed here.

Looker and Thiessen (2003) compiled research for Statistics Canada. I referenced their report that you can access here.

Digital Natives,Immigrants, and Pioneers: Going Beyond my Gut Reaction

Background:

Before this week I had not heard of the terms "digital natives" or "digital immigrants". My brief journey through this topical landscape ended up being far more emotionally charged and confusing than I had expected. This emotional involvement and confusion was not unique to me and seemed to be fueled by one Marc Prensky's views on the subject.

A couple quotes from his paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" (2001) will help set the stage:

It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. (p. 1)

It‟s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. (p. 2)

He identifies digital natives as the first generation to grow up in a world permeated by digital technology. Digital immigrants are older generations who are drafted into this digital world but are fundamentally different from digital natives. He suggests and defends the idea that digital natives' actual psychological and mental processes have been altered by the environment they have been raised in. So much so, that widespread educational changes including utilizing fast paced, digital media/video games, need to be incorporated to meet their needs. His follow up paper "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?" (2001) explores some of the research that supports the premise that our brains are far more malleable than traditional thought acknowledged.

Initial Response:

I admit that I became quite offended, skeptical, outraged, hurt, and reflective when I first read Pensky's thoughts.

Joyce Valenza shared my skepticism:

I've also wondered about Prensky's (and other educational futurists') contention that kids' brains have significantly altered over time because of their exposure to digital technology.

She also found his work to be divisive and so broad that they ineffectively reflected the diversity of technological experience/affinity in any generation. Our class discussions this week also went in this direction. We all seemed to acknowledge that our world has changed due to digital technology but we struggled with the idea that we were immigrants and somehow innately at a disadvantage in this new world. We didn't buy the idea that by birth all digital natives were instinctively or innately digitally altered.

I quickly went from conflicted and confused to confident...almost cocky as Kathy Schrock expressed my thoughts perfectly:

I did not grow up with technology. It grew up with me, and I was there every step of the way. I think those of us who have been there since the beginning, and have adopted each technology as it came about, should not be called digital immigrants. I do not turn to the printed manual first. I always choose reputable Internet sites to locate information. And I do speak the correct language (and still do not accept Google as a verb!) There are very few technology skills that are foreign to me.

Preach on Sister! I am a pioneer! I began to dismiss Pensky. When I took some time to reflect and dig deeper, I realized my gut reaction was emotional and I was closing my mind to a key fact...I do believe education needs to change and it is mostly due to the influence of technology. Tech has fundamentally changed how we do things...how we live.

Present Stance/Implications:

Anne Collier (unknowingly) drew me back to Marc Pensky when she wrote:

Many news reporters grew up in a very different (mass media) environment, as did a lot of parents, educators, and other news consumers. So we're seeing and participating in a distorted picture of social media and how youth use them if we're viewing young people's use through the traditional news media and our own mass-media lenses. (NetFamilyNews.org)

Danah Boyd (amazingly brilliant) also gave a presentation that drew me back to Pensky and some final thoughts/implications I would like to share. The video is long...but worth it. My comments are mostly basked on the first half hour.



1) Adults need to acknowledge differences. Terms we grew up with like friends, community, meeting, sharing, privacy, etc. are still spelled the same but have totally new meanings. Our students live these new meanings that aren't constrained by physical space. If we don't acknowledge and make room for these new meanings, our effectiveness as leaders will be greatly diminished.

2) Adults need new skills...especially critical thinking. Up to this point I have been focusing on 21st century skills for my students. Up until watching Danah Boyd's presentation I was working on the tacit assumption that I possessed the skills that the students needed. Short version....I have to critically approach students online identities as they likely weren't created with me or the world in mind. I am an outsider that is ignorant of the influences/context that created that persona. In essence, I have to learn the new rules and language of social media before I can meaningfully engage/educate my students.

3) Modalities change but people don't. Educational leaders need to avoid confusing a change in technology with fundamental shifts in the human condition. I don't know enough to argue Pensky's assertions that brains have changed but I do know enough to recognize common traits between generations. Digital natives have grown up with new ways to do what humans have always wanted to do....connect, be known, find significance, belong to community, find meaning, experience acceptance and the list goes on. When I was a kid we found social status by the friends we were seen with. When my grandfather was a kid, social status was improved by owning a TV or switching from horses to cars. Now days this same process is governed by who comments on your blog or how many texts you do in a day.

4) Focus on individuals and growth. Educators need to continue to develop their skills and improve their practice but when push comes to shove, our schools are full of adults full of life experience that our students need. Pensky actually emphasizes that the new generation needs to gain our ability to reflect which comes from our wealth of experiences.

If we focus on divisive generational descriptions, then we alienate everyone....immigrants, pioneers, and natives alike (Anne Collier concurs). If we ignore fundamental changes in the world, we may be more comfortable but our students and our profession will suffer.


Nonhyperlinked Resources:

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-5.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.

Technology, Standards and High Jump

Last week's look at 21st century skills leads perfectly into this weeks exploration of the standards we set to help students and staff achieve/acquire these skills.

The American Association of School Librarians (AASL)has laid out an amazing document called Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. This document is based on the beliefs:
1) Reading is foundational.
2) Inquiry is vital.
3) Behaviour should be ethical.
4) Technological skills are crucial.
5) Access should be equitable.
6) Information literacy is complex.
7) Individuals need to learn unique thinking skills.
8) Learning is social.
9) School libraries are essential.

These beliefs provide the framework for an extensive set of standards in four key areas:

1) Inquiry/critical thinking
2) Decision making/creativity
3) Ethical/productive knowledge sharing/citizenship
4) Personal/aesthetic growth

The International Society for Technology in Education developed their own standards called National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) Summarizing their beliefs/standards would take more room than I have here but the following statement should give you a taste:

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE®) is the premier membership association for educators and education leaders engaged in improving teaching and learning by advancing the effective use of technology in PK-12 and teacher education.

NETS has standards for students, teachers, administrators and technology leaders. Student skills are ultimately the focus in the areas of creativity, collaboration, information fluency, higher order thinking skills, citizenship, and technology. (Click here for a more detailed look)

Marjorie Pappas (2008) has an excellent summary of both standards systems including contrast and comparison charts. She also bottom lines the purpose for these documents:

Technology initiates change at an exponential rate, and information technologies are at the heart of the information literacy standards. No Child Left Behind and a growing body of research about both teaching and learning have changed education over the past ten years (p. 22)

That final quote hit me more than the standards themselves. For some reason a switch flipped and I realized that I personally and professionally haven't acknowledged a technologically induced societal/educational change. I still have some sort of mental barrier that views technology as cool but not as fundamentally crucial to the success of my students. How can this be? I am the tech guy for my school? I love sci fi and I teach mulimedia rich courses.

Shortly after I read Marjorie Pappas I paused to look at what I was doing. I had two monitors running with 13 tabs open plus Tweetdeck (five columns worth) and iTunes downloading podcasts. 5 days out of my week are like this almost 6-8 hrs per day.

HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THE POINT THAT JOYCE VALENZA, WESLEY FRYER, WILL RICHARDSON, AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN MAKING? The world has changed. The rules of the game have changed (see Jackie's Thoughts on Web 2.0). As a learner and as a professional, I am exhibiting the skills that my students need. I am 35 but I can honestly say that I don't know how I could do what I do without my technology, collaborative, creative, and problem solving skills. These are the very things the creators of AASL's and ISTE's standards are focusing on.

One major implication to stress here...how powerful can technology standards be if the people tasked to implement them don't fundamentally acknowledge their necessity? This goes even further...how can information specialists like librarians establish their place in education if other educational leaders don't understand/acknowledge the technological shift in the world? Zmuda and Harada (2008)touch on this link between acknowledgment of need, standards development, and standards implementation but they use the term mission:

Such clarification of what the learners must do to achieve mission goals defines for all staff what good business looks like in the library media center. Good business is work (instructional activities and assessments) that develops student learning around the goals that are most important (again as defined by the mission). (p.43) This article is a must read so please see the reference section at the end of this posting.

Successful students/staff need to work in an environment where the heart (mission) drives the mind (standards) and the limbs (people) of an organization. This is a cyclical relationship as the people of an organization are the heart of the organization.

In my opinion, many schools in the North aren't ready to implement NETS or the Standards for the 21st Century Learner. As leaders we are just beginning to recognize the need for the skills outlined in these documents. Once we corporately acknowledge this need, then these standards will be essential to focus our efforts and alter our practice. At present I am using these documents as conversation starters within our technology planning group. A place to start anyway.

My classmates have expressed a different scenario. They have the heart and the passion but within their Canadian context they lack clear/concise/practical standards or direction to define their roles.

One final scenario included schools with 21st century missions and some standards in place but had problems finding new teachers with the skills to pull it all together. This scenario hit home that the issue of new standards and skills impacts learners of all ages...including post secondary learners (Marcoux, 2008).

What does all this have to do with high jumping?



In order to complete my degree I had to take an athletics course. Part of this course consisted of a high jumping competition. In essence my world had changed and I needed to acquire a new set of skills. High jumping was no longer something I watched on TV. It became an essential skill to my success as a learner/professional. Sure, I could jump. Sure I could have found anyone on the street to teach me how to jump but for me to succeed I needed to know how to do it right. Thank heavens for my coach who had a heart for the sport, competed in the sport imself, stayed on top of the latest training techniques, and was an expert at helping others to meet the required standards. This complete formula is what we need to support our learners today.

I will close with a question and a quote.

This following quote is directed at librarians but it applies to all other educational leaders as well:

Learning standards are as important as librarians consider them to be. We have to be sure that as a profession we both master and model the skills that students are expected to demonstrate. (Dickinson, 2008)

Question: Who should serve as the high performance educational/technological coaches in our schools to help staff and students meet these standards?

For those of you interested in more of the specifics of AASL's and ISTE's standards, visit Ruth Elliot's blog.

Non-hyperlinked resources:

Dickinson, G. (2008). A place to stand. Library Media Connection, 26(6), 10-12.

Marcoux, B. (2008) New standards-refreshing our work, again! School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(7), 18-20.

Pappas, M. (2008). Standards for the 21st-century learner: Comparisions with NETS and state standards. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(10), 19-26. Fantastic comparison/contrast/summary.

Zmuda, A. & Harada, V. (2008) Reframing the library media specialist as a learning specialist. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(8), 42-46.