The Digital Divide: Socioeconomics, Technology and Education’s Place

The divide between lower and higher socioeconomic states is clear to society. They live in different types of homes, in different areas of town, and are viewed differently by other fellow contributing members of society. There is no exception when it comes to technology and the socioeconomic segregation of society. This is called the digital divide; the division of those with computer and internet access and those who do not have this privilege; “…the digital divide refers to ‘the difference in information technology use based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status’ (Judge et al., p. 383). (Kemker, Kate, Barronn, Ann E. And Harmes, J. Christine, 2007, p. 307)” The effects of the digital divide are often felt by the student when entering the workforce or postsecondary education. It is educator’s goal to bridge this gap between the haves and have nots, so that all may be equal.

The chances of those living in the lower strata of socioeconomics of having a home computer and the internet are much lower than those living the suburban lifestyle. Though the prevalence of computers in the home has risen in the last five years, there remains that group who cannot focus their finances on this privilege. In the United States 54.6% had the internet in their homes in 2003 and by 2005 approximately 70% had it (Techlearning [TL], 2006). Although, now in 2008, these numbers are sure to be higher, this only accentuates the ostracism of those left behind in the digital world. Salpeter outlines this in her article Inside the Divide, “...as mainstream America moves online in larger numbers, the problem actually becomes worse for those who are not connected. More and more information is shared through the Internet, and people begin to think there’s no problem. (TL, 2006)” The modern world functions online; government forms, university registration, online reward systems (coupons, loyalty programs), banking etc. Though many of these are accessible in other forms, during office hours when most people are working, the most convenient mode of receiving them is through the internet. The gravity of this is great in everyday life of North America’s populations and its affects travel into the classroom. “ ‘The digital divide is traditionally defined in terms of internet access,’ he said, ‘but it is really part of a broader divide that contributes to the social and economic exclusion of people.’ (eSchoolNews [ESN], 2008)”

The role of educators is to close this digital divide so as to give each child an equal chance in both their high school and post secondary endeavours. In some cases it does the opposite, such is the example of computer testing. A study was done to test whether there is a difference in student performance on online tests and pen and paper tests depending on their socioeconomic status (SES). In this online computer test those of low SES scored on average nearly 5% less than those in the higher SES. There was half the separation, 2.5%, between the same students in a pen and paper test (MacCann, 2006, p. 85). As MacCann suggests in response to this research it is not implausible that the correlation of low SES and poorer test scores relates to their unfamiliarity and inexperience with computers (MacCann, p. 88).

Schools are being provided with the tools necessary to guide students within the world of technology but this has not done enough to complete the digital education of many students. Pierce suggests it is not enough to have the equipment but that there are six issues surrounding digital inclusion: “basic literacy skills, access to information and communications technology devices, software, and connectivity, access to culturally relevant content in the student’s local language, the ability to create share and exchange digital content, access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources in pedagogically sounds ways, and access to effective leadership in policy and planning (ESN, 2008).” These six aspects of digital literacy are less likely to be addressed in low SES schools than high SES schools. Healy states, “Although computers can be found in schools at all socioeconomic levels, affluent schools are more likely to have the freedom and staffing to use them well (Healy, 1998, p. 96).” This issue is confirming the idea that those impoverished should receive lower education standards.

The future of many students relies heavily upon the education they receive. The ability to navigate through the World Wide Web is a huge portion of the post-secondary student’s life, not to mention word processors and other software. This problem also exists when entering the job market (TL, 2006). “ ‘Students who lack this access to technology are at a disadvantage, ed-tech advocates say, because they are missing out on opportunities to learn and to become participants in an increasingly digital workforce and society (ESN, 2008).” A huge percentage of jobs require computer literacy and it is educator’s jobs to prepare students for the ‘real world’ to set them up for success and not for failure.

Regardless of SES one should be given the right to fair access and instruction in the world of technology. Though computer and internet access has increased, society must be aware of those who are yet to have access to technology and be sensitive to them. Educators in particular must address this issue in the classroom and close the gap of the digital divide. The classroom should be the place where equity is not an issue.



Reference List:

Eschool News. (2008, July 7). Educators Wrestle with Digital-Equity Challenges. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/new/top-news/index.cfm?print&i=54429.

Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to Connect. New York: Touchstone.

Kemker, Kate, Barronn, AnnE. And Harmes, J. Christine (2007). Laptop Computers in the Elementary Classroom: Authentic instruction with at-risk students. Educational Media International, 44:4, 305-321. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCOhost database (Academic Search Elite).

MacCann, R. (2006). The equivalence of online and traditional testing for different subpopulations and item types. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37:1, 79-91. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCOhost database (Academic Search Elite).

Techlearning. (2006, March 15). Inside the Divide. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://wwww.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=181502165.