The most recent assignment for EDTECH 501 involved a collaborative project with my core group. We were assigned a scenario with the task of consulting with a superintendent of public instruction on how best to invest a special allocation of funds to address digital inequality issues the imagined state. Specifically, we were asked to evaluate seven possible solutions to digital inequality, rank them and provide an accompanying rationale. In addition, we were asked to provide an overview of the terms “digital divide” and “digital inequality” and to provide any additional solutions our group came up with. Our group chose to focus our attention on Tennessee as one of our group members resides there. We wanted to focus our project and create a realistic final product.
During the course of our project we used a variety of online tools to collaborate. Our group members were spread across the United States from Idaho to Tennessee and as fa north as Canada so a face to face meeting was out of the question. Tools available from Google were our preferred method of collaboration. We used Google docs to create a document defining the rankings for the various options and to create a spreadsheet to track member roles and responsibilities. A Google form helped to assess the opinions of the group members regarding the ranking of options and their feasibility. Google Hangout allowed for our group members to meet in a synchronous environment to discuss progress and development of the project and to edit the document on the fly. Google Presentation served as the primary vehicle for the project. This presentation tool allowed for synchronous communication via chat, simultaneous editing by multiple users and asynchronous communication via comments that could be easily placed on individual slides. Email was a good standby for asynchronous communication. It was exciting to see a whole presentation come together with team members spread over a wide geographic area!
But this also led me to reflect on the concept of digital inequality. As a librarian, I have had some experience with the terms “digital divide” and “digital inequality” in my graduate studies. The term digital divide basically means people who have technology and those who do not. It is a binary understanding of an issue that is actually quite complex. When I was matriculating through graduate school the digital divide was still very much alive. A decent computer was fairly expensive, a couple thousand dollars, and broadband internet access was a significant monthly cost. Since computers were so expensive many people did not have them and, if they did, they probably were not connected to the internet or were on dial-up access. (How well I remember the days of “dinner-time downloads.” These were files that took so long to download that I would start a download before making dinner and hope that it would be completed by the end of dinner.) The term “digital inequality” takes into account the complexities associated with the digital divide. Digital inequality recognizes that there are many factors that come into play: age, race, gender, education level, socio-economic status and geographic location, among others. The writings of DiMaggio and Hargittai provided some excellent background on both of these key terms. I also came across very good resources with an international perspective that, while not especially relevant to the state of Tennessee, allowed me to gain an understanding of digital inequalities with a global scope.
I work at a private liberal arts university and the assumption is that students will have all of the technology that they need. I have found this to not be the case. Many students require assistance with basic computer applications, some do not have their own computers and others have limited information literacy skills. It is important to provide remedial computer skills workshops, maintain student computer labs with accommodating operating hours and training in order to develop skills associated with the successful and appropriate processing of information in a digital age. We provide many of these services already, but keeping the needs of students in mind will help me to see and be able to address issues of digital inequality.
It is important to consider the impact of any decisions involving technology on the people involved. The ethical use of technology requires that any decision be carefully considered and that all aspects (social, economic, educational, etc.) be included in the understanding of the issue at hand. Issues involving people rarely have simple origins. For example, it is pointless to give computers to people who do not have enough education to know how to use a computer to enhance their lives. Both the technological and educational needs must be met to a satisfactory degree. Also, spending large amounts of money to upgrade telecommunication infrastructure and consolidating the resources in an area that serves an area that is primarily wealthy with little chance of access by those of a substantially lower socio-economic status would be a technology solution fraught with ethical concerns. Only through a thorough knowledge of the technical issues and a strong measure of compassion can issues of social inequality, digital or otherwise, hope to be resolved.
This assignment addressed multiple AECT standards. The use of multiple technologies such as email, chat, cloud documents for collaboration, and Google Hangout for synchronous communication support Standard 2.4 – Integrated Technologies. The creation of a collaboratively planned presentation to encourage and promote the innovative use of instructional technology by a state agency to address issues of digital inequality support both Standard 3.2 – Diffusion of Innovations and Standard 3.4 – Policies and Regulations. The evaluating and ranking process for the options demonstrates support for Standard 4.2 – Resource Management.
Overall, this was a challenging and rewarding project that stretched my project management skills. I am used to collaborating with others using email, Adobe Connect, Skype and other technologies, but I do not usually work under such short timelines.
Onward!
Sources:
- DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality:’ Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP15 – DiMaggio+Hargittai.pdf
Lance McGrath: EDTECH Learning Log 