Summary and Looking Ahead

Children’s Learning in a Digital World

Eileen Wood and Teena Willoughby

Th e array of possibilities and challenges presented throughout this text points to the diversity in use, resources, and insights with respect to understanding and applying technologies in formal and informal learning contexts. Th e var-ious authors have presented a vision of what can be achieved, what has been achieved, and what promotes or detracts from our ability to understand and employ technologies eff ectively. One obvious issue that needs to be consid-ered in any of these discussions is the impact of the “digital divide.”

What Is the Digital Divide?

Th e term “digital divide” is likely a very familiar one to all of us. Within the research literature, however, consensus in precisely defi ning what con-stitutes “the divide,” as well as how to defi ne its structure, continues to be debated (e.g., Jung, Qiu, & Kim, 2001; Rodino- Colocino, 2006). When the construct of a digital divide was initially introduced, it provided a means to identify those who had access to digital technologies from those who did not (Rodino- Colocino). Th e term access typically coincided with a quan-tifi cation of the number of computers available, or number of connections (for the Internet). Hence, there is much available evidence to quantify who has a computer and is connected and who doesn’t or isn’t. Contrasts have been made at numerous levels ranging from individuals to groups (gender, race) to societies, in order to reveal the gap between the haves and the have nots. Initially, the importance of identifying a divide was measured prima-rily in economic terms, with those who had access being the ones who had the potential to reap economic gains (e.g., job opportunities, greater skills, higher incomes, etc.). Th ose without the technology were perceived to be at a disadvantage or at risk economically (Crews & Feinberg, 2002).

Over time, the impact of the divide expanded to include disadvantages or risks related to social, cultural, and educational issues in addition to traditional economic impacts. Th e continuous advancements of compu-ter technology and, most notably, the introduction of the Internet, have changed the nature of children’s communication and social interaction (Wilson, Wallin, & Reiser, 2003). Th e second wave of research (Rodino- Colocino, 2006) examining the digital divide is charged with exploring its specifi c opportunities and challenges in the broader social, educational, and cultural contexts (e.g., Ching, Basham, & Jang, 2005; Dutta- Bergman, 2005).

Th e digital divide can be described in terms of three structures which form a chasm or gap: the width, slope, and depth (e.g., Riel, Schwarz, & Hitt, 2002). In this model, the width refers to the traditional notion of access. Th at is, what does one individual, group, or society have that another individual, group, or society does not have access to? Th e greater the diff erence in access, the wider the gap, or digital divide.

Th e slope of the divide refers to the culture or beliefs surrounding the use of technology. For example, among educators, there are those who see technology as an integrated part of the curriculum, important for allowing students to experience events and initiate contacts with people that would otherwise be unavailable to them. On the other hand, there are educators who see little value in using technology at all and see it as a limiting agent because it might prevent students from experiencing other more relevant life or educational events. Similarly, some educators feel that there is lim-ited support for their eff orts to use technology in the classroom. Th ese two dichotomous cultures regarding the use of technologies provide examples of fl at and steep slopes. Flat slopes occur when the culture of thinking about technologies allows for its inclusion, steep slopes occur when the culture is prohibitive to the inclusion or integration of technologies.

Finally, the depth of the digital divide is best understood as how the tech-nology is being used, or whether youth and educators are familiar enough with it to take advantage of the technology and its multitude of available uses. In other words, the centrality of technology in a child’s life defi nes the depth. Th e deepest divide occurs between children for whom integration of technology is an important part of their interaction with society and cul-ture, and those for whom technology is not. While the width of the divide has received a lot of attention, awareness of the slope and depth of the dig-ital divide is just now becoming prominent (e.g., Akhter, 2003; Driori & Jang, 2003; Jung, Qui, &Kim, 2001).

As the authors in this book make clear, we need to pay more attention to how youth use technologies, both in formal and informal settings, particu-larly through well- designed research studies that cross the many available

Eileen Wood and Teena Willoughby

300

technologies. Th is includes computers, games, and the Internet, as discussed in this text, as well as other technologies such as iPods, digital television, and digital cameras. It is also clear that media literacy principles need to be taught explicitly to ensure that there is no divide. Children cannot be left to discover these principles themselves. And that task involves more than schools and educators. As Henry Jenkins argues in chapter 1, these media principles should be part of every educational context, from schools, day-care centers, libraries, museums, churches, community organizations, to the media itself.

References

Akhter, S. (2003). Digital divide and purchase intention: Why demographic psy-chology matters. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 231–327.

Ching, C., Basham, J., & Jang, E. (2005). Th e legacy of the digital divide: Gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full- spectrum technol-ogy use among young adults. Urban Education, 40(4), 393–411.

Crews, M., & Feinberg, M. (2002). Perceptions of university students regarding the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 20(2), 116–123.

Drori, G., & Jang, Y. S. (2003). Th e global digital divide: A sociological assessment of trends and causes. Social Sciences Computer Review, 21(2), 144–161.

Dutta- Bergman, M. (2005). Access to the Internet in the context of community par-ticipation and community satisfaction. New Media and Society, 17(1), 89–109.

Jung, J. Y., Qui, J. L., & Kim, Y. C. (2001). Internet connectedness and inequality: Beyond the “divide.” Communication Research, 28(4), 507–535.

Riel, M., Schwarz, J., & Hitt, A. (2002). School change with technology: Crossing the digital divide. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 147–179.

Rodino- Colocino, M. (2006). Laboring under the digital divide. New Media and Soci-ety, 8(3), 487–511.

Wilson, K., Wallin, J., & Reiser, C. (2003). Social stratifi cation and the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 133–143.

Children’s Learning in a Digital World

301