Sarah Klaiber CI405 11/2/10 The Digital Divide and its Impact on Education No one can deny the

increasing role of technology in our lives. From social networking, to education, technology plays greatly impacts the way we communicate and learn. Yet, as inequality exists in almost every aspect of life, it exists within access to technology. The differences in access to computers and internet between racial and socioeconomic groups cannot be ignored. Recent studies show that 56% of African Americans have in-home broadband, compared to 67% of whites (Smith). Similarly, 77% of hispanics use the internet, compared to 95% of non hispanics (Livingston). Cotfelters study found that 71% of free or reduced lunch students owned a home computer, compared to 90% of non-recipients. Generally, low-income families and those in rural, remote areas have lower usage rates due to lack of access and affordability(Howard 117). Whites, and those with higher incomes reportedly spend greater usage times(Cotfelter 21). The numbers clearly indicate that there is in fact a digital divide. These findings have spurred questions about the correlations between internet and computer access and educational achievement. Higher income schools have more resources for technology than lower income schools. Could this digital divide be fueling achievement gaps and perpetuating equality? Or, do other factors play a more important role? Nonetheless, schools and governmental programs have been attempting to narrow this divide. Many schools have implemented laptop programs, providing every student laptop use in the classroom and at their home(Vigdor 2010). Others have suggested government broadband programs that provide internet access to every home (Smith 2010). But what are the impacts of these programs? Do they improve quality of education and improve achievement? Some studies have shown that at

home computers lower achievement scores(Vigdor 2010), while others swear by the educational opportunities computer technology brings to the table. Many are in disagreement about how computers should be immersed in American childrens education, and the impacts of this immersion, or lack there of. There are many reasons why teachers, parents, and community members feel that students without access to computers and internet are put at a disadvantage. In a small scale study by Chrystalla Mouza, it was expressed by teachers in a low-income classroom that the introduction of laptops to everyday learning, at home and in the classroom, greatly improved many aspects of her students education. She explained how the use of laptops increased student motivation, increased student interaction, increased students confidence in their academic abilities, and improved writing and math skills (Mouza 18). Students were said to take more initiative in classroom projects that used technology, such as presentations and publishing work (Mouza 18). It was also reported that the access to word processing and spread sheets greatly improved student writing and math learning. Such programs saved time, improving quantity and quality of work (Mouza 20). The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) published an article stating similar reasons supporting benefits of internet and computer use for educational practices. Their report describes how internet access gives opportunity for online assessment, distance learning, special education learning, web 2.0 tools, and professional development. Online assessments give teachers and administrators the opportunity to efficiently track student learning. This data can be used to individualize instruction, improving student learning (Jones 7). Access to web 2.0 technology opens up a world of communication and collaboration between students. The use of blogs, podcasts, chats and videos give students the opportunity to share their work

and ideas with others. This collaboration can enhance the learning process and increase student motivation. A major, long term impact of access to technology is the acquisition of computer skills. An increased use of technology in daily life means an increase in jobs requiring computer skills. Students who do not have frequent access to computers are less likely to acquire these skills, putting them at a disadvantage in the job market. The best way to learn how to use computer programs and the internet is familiarization. Students who use computers regularly develop a natural understanding of how the technology works (Mouza 4). Without this internet and informational literacy, students are being deprived of employment and economic opportunities, news, cultural content, and civic participation. These disparities can aid the the perpetuation of inequality on many levels (Howard 117). Although it cannot be denied that those without access to computers are lacking a major source of information, some have found that use of home computers and internet only adds another distraction to students lives. A 2008 study by Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor came to the conclusion that the introduction of home computers results in a decline reading and math achievement scores. They found that when given complete access to the internet, students tend to use it for unproductive activities such as games and socializing. Time spent using the computer for recreational uses tended to take over time spent productively on the computer, as well as productive time off of the computer (Cotfelter 36). This increase in unproductive time results in lower academic achievement. Therefore, it was concluded that broadening student access to computers and internet at home would only widen, not not narrow, achievement gaps (Clotfelter 35).

Policy makers and researchers have been weighing out solutions for the digital divide for years. Two popular initiatives for providing students access to computers and internet include laptop programs, and nationwide broadband access. Both ideas spur controversy. Many view laptop technology programs as ways to give equal technological access to students of lower income. Laptops used in school and at home would give students the opportunity to access information, communicate, and prepare them for a technological workplace. These programs are thought to promote student motivation and independence (Mouza 4). Mouzas study of the Microsoft Anytime, Anywhere, Learning Program described positive outcomes from student laptop usage. Yet, Clotfelter came to very opposite conclusions. These conclusions proposed solutions supporting in school, desk top computers, and educational practices promoting productive computer usage (Clotfelter 36). School purchases of desktop computers would be drastically more efficient than the implementation on laptop programs. Laptops are much more expensive than desktop computers, and have shorter life spans. Providing every student in a district with a lap top could cost billions of dollars. According to the study, expensive laptop initiatives and universal internet access would end up being counter productive by promoting home use, which according to the study, lowers achievement scores (Clotfelter 2). A national broadband policy has been suggested by several national organizations such as EDUCAUSE, the Alliance for Public Technology (APT), and Speed Matters. These organizations support a government policy to address the differential use of internet in the U.S. It is believed that such a policy would make broadband internet accessible and affordable to all (Jones 5). A 2010 Pew Internet survey found that 53% of Americans think the government should attempt to make affordable broadband available to everyone. Such an initiative would lessen the digital divide, but are we aware of the possible consequences? Yet again, Clotfelters study

comes into play. Could universal internet access distract Americas youth from their school work? Or would it open their minds to new information and technology? Obviously, more research needs to be done in order to answer these questions. It is clear that there is technological divide among Americans. This divide could be preventing our students from gaining critical knowledge necessary for the workforce, as well as depriving them of educational benefits. Students without access to technology are put at a disadvantage to those with access. Unfortunately the students without access are generally of low socioeconomic status, and this divide could be perpetuating multilevel inequality. I believe that initiatives for in-school computers is the best option to narrow this divide. Students should have equal access to resources in the public schools. Providing in-school computer and internet access would give students the tools to become technologically educated, as well as improve their quality of academic education. This would also prevent the negative impacts of home computers described Clotfelter. Teachers would also need to monitor student use of such computers, and educate students on the most productive ways to use the internet. In a world that is becoming increasingly reliant on technology, students deserve equal access to knowledge and participation in the advancements of our society.

Wo r k s C i t e d

C l o t f e l t e r, C h a r l e s , L a d d H e l e n , a n d Vi g d o r J a c o b . " S c a l i n g t h e D i g i t a l D i v i d e : H o m e C o m p u t e r Te c h n o l o g y a n d S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t . " D u k e U n i v e r s i t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) : n . p a g . We b . 1 N o v 2010. Howard, Philip, Laura Busch, and Penelope Sheets. "Comparing Digital Divides: Internet Access and Social Inequality in Canada and the United States ." Canadian Journal of C o m m u n i c a t i o n 3 5 . 1 ( 2 0 1 0 ) : 1 0 9 - 1 2 8 . We b . 1 N o v 2 0 1 0 . Jones, Rachel. "High-Speed Broadband Access for All Kids: Breaking Through the Barriers." SETDA.org. SState Educational Te c h n o l o g y D i r e c t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n , 2 0 0 8 . We b . 1 N o v 2 0 1 0 . Mouza, Chrystalla. "Learning with Laptops: Implementation and Outcomes in an Urban, Under-Privileged School ." Journal of R e s e a r c h o n Te c h n o l o g y i n E d u c a t i o n 4 0 . 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) : 4 4 7 4 7 2 . We b . 1 N o v 2 0 1 0 . S mi th, A aron. "H ome Broadband 2010." PewInte rnet.org. P ew I n t e r n e t , 8 / 1 1 / 1 0 . We b . 1 N o v 2 0 1 0 .