The Digital Divide

Kimberly Hoffman
University of Central Florida
EME 5053

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 2

The Digital Divide

https://www.blendspace.com/lessons/cz4F58xIgKWiyA/edit
The digital divide is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as, the economic,
educational, and social inequalities between those who have computers and online access and
those who do not (see Blendspace 1). However, according to Philadelphia blogger, Mary Beth
Hertz, over the last ten years access to technology has become more and more ubiquitous
(2011). Hertz references a 2010 Pew study (Technology Trends Among People of Color), when
stating that we are looking at a different kind of divide due to access substantially increasing,
while the kind of access varies these days (see Blendspace 2 and 3).
Journalist, Tina Barseghian, analyzed a recent Pew Research survey of more than 2,400
middle school and high school teachers currently teaching in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands who say they, see disparities in access to digital tools having at least some
impact on their students. More than half (54%) say all or almost all of their students have
sufficient access to digital tools at school, but only a fifth of these teachers (18%) say all or
almost all of their students have access to the digital tools they need at home (2013).
According to the Pew Research survey, Barseghian also notes that, Access to devices is
noticeably different between higher and lower and income schools. More than half of teachers
55% of higher income students say they or their students use e-readers in the classroom,
compared with 41% teaching in low income areas. And 52% of teachers of upper and uppermiddle income students say their students use cell phones to look up information in class,
compared with 35% of teachers of the lowest income students (2013).

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 3

The digital divide in broadband access is not only in the United States; it extends worldwide. In 2013, a study conducted by Ayanso, Cho and Lertwachara used data mining techniques
to analyze information and communications technologies (ICT) profiles from 154 countries to
provide a rigorous quantitative assessment of the digital divide. Ayanso et al. (2013) quotes
Van Dijks findings that there are four kinds of barriers to access and the type of access.
The first one is mental access which refers to the lack of experience caused by lack of
interest, computer anxiety, or unattractiveness of the new technology. The second
category is material access which focuses on the absence of computers and network
connections. The third category is skill access which refers to the lack of skills caused
by insufficient user-friendliness, inadequate education, or social support. The last
category is referred to as usage access which refers to the lack of usage opportunities
(e.g. caused by expensive usage fees, a usage limit, etc.). This categorization emphasizes
the importance of measuring the digital divide from different aspects in order to
meaningfully assess the progress made by developing countries (Ayanso, Cho and
Lertwachara, 2013).
In conclusion to study, Ayanso et al. found that between 2002 and 2007, nine countries have
made a significant progress in ICT adoption such that they have transitioned into a group
previously consisting primarily of developed countries (2013). Five of the countries that made
a significant progress in ICT adoption were located in Eastern Europe and the other four were
Asian countries (Ayanso, Cho and Lertwachara, 2013).

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 4

Like other scholarly studies, the reliability of the Ayanso et al. 2013 studys research has
its own limitations. First, although the IDI data are the most comprehensive data to date, the
rapid changes in digital technologies necessitate the inclusion of emerging technologies in
future studies (e.g. social media and Web 2.0). Second, although we chose geographic regions
(i.e. continents) for the regional analysis, countries can be examined in different contexts with
potentially different policy implications. For example, nations can be examined based on past
political environment or ideology, colonial history, religion, etc. Finally, given that cluster
analysis is an exploratory tool, the analyses conducted in this study may not provide complete
insights into the digital divide issue, particularly for individual nations and regions. Local
governments and international agencies may have other specific information needs for their
policy-making. Therefore, future research needs to narrow this gap through appropriate
theories and empirical investigations (Ayanso, Cho and Lertwachara, 2013).
Knowledge of how to use digital technology is a controversial issue in the digital divide.
If teachers lack the necessary technical skills, they are unable to implement or integrate
technology successfully within their curriculum. Barseghians article on the 2013 Pew Research
survey notes that, The survey showed that 39% of AP and NWP teachers of low income
students say their school is behind the curve when it comes to effectively using digital tools in
the learning process; just 15% of teachers of higher income students rate their schools poorly in
this area (2013). Chapman, Masters and Pedulla (2010) conducted a study in which teachers
participated in an online professional development initiative to examine the differences in
technology access, skills and classroom integration practices in high need and non-high need
schools in the United States. They found that, Even if access was increased, additional training

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 5

in technical skills might be needed for teachers in high needs schools (Chapman, Masters and
Pedulla, 2010). They conclude by asking, What does it profit students to have technology
access if both they themselves as well as those instructing them do not have the training or
capacity to utilize this technology efficiently? (Chapman, Masters and Pedulla, 2010).
The reliability of the Chapman et al. 2010 study showed multiple limitations which could
skew their findings. These limitations include the use of a self-selected sample of teachers, the
self-reported evaluations of technical skills and the descriptions of access and skill in the limited
context of participation in online professional development (Chapman, Masters and Pedulla,
2010). Future research should take into consideration the characteristics of the teachers in high
need and non-high needs schools in addition to what technology is available and how often it is
used in order to fully understand the entire context for addressing the digital divide (see
Blendspace 6).
Conclusion
As a result of this research on digital divide, it is my belief that while the gap may
seemingly be closing slowly, it is still an issue that persists today. Socioeconomic status seems
to be the persistent dividing factor between haves and the have-nots when referring to the
unequal access of information and communication technology and knowledge of the skills
required to use the technology (see Blendspace 8). I agree with journalist, Tina Barseghians
statement that, while teachers believe technology has helped with their teaching, its also
brought new challenges including the possibility of creating a bigger rift between low-income
and high-income students (see Blendspace 4). I have seen this first-hand in my 4th grade

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 6

classroom. Last year, I attempted to incorporate technology in my class by having student bring
their own devices to use like the students in Roberston County (see Blendspace 11) and found
that about one-fourth of my students who were from a lower socioeconomic status did not
have a digital device to bring in. They expressed to me that it caused those students to feel
embarrassed in front of their peers when they had to use the two older, unreliable classroom
computers instead of a tablet or smart phone like their peers for assignments. Those same
students struggled with access to computers to complete research and homework assignments
due to a lack of digital connectivity access at home.
I have also seen digital divide in my school in terms of generational differences in
teachers. Xie (2013) reports that, compared with teachers age 55 or older, teachers under age
35 are more likely to describe themselves as very confident in using new digital technologies.
Not surprisingly, more teachers under 35 reported using websites, wikis or blogs than teachers
ages 55 and older (see Blendspace 12). Being a teacher in the under 35 category, I find this
analysis to be right on because I look up and use teacher websites, wikis and blogs on almost a
daily basis to improve my instruction.
While there are ways to try and bridge the gap, such as the ST Foundation campaign
(see Blendspace 8) and Ria (see Blendspace 10), there still tends to be a lack in motivation for
kids to use the Internet for educational purposes as opposed to using the Internet for
entertainment purposes (see Blendspace 9). There is a strong need for more engaging
educational sites for students to combat the ever growing mass of social media sites. With
Facebook game apps being popular with youth (and adults), I would like to see some
educational game apps linked to social media that are just as enticing to users. All in all, the

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 7

issue and definition of digital divide is one that is complex and continues to evolve as digital
technology evolves. It is our responsibility as educators to try and bridge the gap for our
students.

The Enhanced Paper: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Kimberly Hoffman 8

References
Ayanso, A., Cho, D. & Lertwachara, K. (2014) Information and Communications Technology
Development and the Digital Divide: A Global and Regional Assessment, Information
Technology for Development, 20:1, 60-77, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2013.797378
Barseghian, T. (2013, February 28). By the Numbers: Teachers, Tech, and the Digital Divide.
Retrieved September 11, 2014, from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/02/by-thenumbers-teachers-tech-and-the-digital-divide/
Chapman, L., Masters, J. & Pedulla, J. (2010) Do digital divisions still persist in schools? Access to
technology and technical skills of teachers in high needs schools in the United States of
America, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 36:2, 239-249
Cut Off From Opportunity Without Equal Access to Internet. (2013, March 22). Retrieved
September 14, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X537MiN6COI
Digital divide. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2014, from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/digital%20divide
Hertz, M. (2011, October 24). A New Understanding of the Digital Divide. Retrieved September
8, 2014, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/digital-divide-technology-internet-access-marybeth-hertz
ITU. (2008). The Digital Divide. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from
https://www.blendspace.com/lessons/cz4F58xIgKWiyA/edit
Molinari, A. (2011, October 16). TEDxSanMigueldeAllende - Aleph Molinari - Bridging the Digital
Divide. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaxCRnZ_CLg
NTIA. (2011, May 3). Main reason for no high speed internet at home. Retrieved September 11,
2014, from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_reason_for_no_high_speed_internet_at_home.
jpg
Smith, E. (2013, March 14). What is the Digital Divide? Retrieved September 14, 2014, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn18X4-PSPc
The Digital Divide: Robertson Co. to Decide on Electronic Devices in Schools-Meagan
O'Halloran. (2014, January 21). Retrieved September 13, 2014, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmE9PUwC6w&feature=youtube_gdata
Xie, J. (2013, March 1). Technology in Schools Still Subject to Digital, Income Divides. Retrieved
September 8, 2014, from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/03/technology-in-schools-stillsubject-to-digital-income-divides060/