Digital inclusion in Chile: Internet in rural schools

International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 573–582

Digital inclusion in Chile: Internet in rural schools

Alvaro Salinas, Jaime Sanchez *

Department of Computer Science, University of Chile, Blanco Encalada 2120, Zip Code 2777, Santiago, Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Rural schools

Internet

Digital divide

Teachers

Technology in rural schools

A B S T R A C T

This paper analyzes the teacher’s contribution to improving digital inclusion in Chilean rural schools,

using a multidimensional definition of the digital divide. Data was obtained from interviews and surveys

applied to teachers and students from 145 rural schools. Results show that teachers function as

gatekeepers. They do not teach students how to use ICT explicitly, but when teachers have high

expectations, skills and technology access, this leads to conditions for students learning how to use ICT.

Finally, the data contributes to a better understanding of the new role that teachers and schools play in

rural areas in terms of social and symbolic integration.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jedudev

1. Introduction

Providing ICT access is becoming an important contribution forthe development of nations and individuals. At the same time, thelack of access to such technology can be an important factor thatleads to deepening social and cultural inequities.

Rural areas are highly exposed to the challenge that ICT offers toovercome or deepen the social and cultural gap that separatesthem from urban areas. In the case of Chile, even if the livingconditions of rural populations have improved over the lastdecades, there are still important issues of poverty, lack ofinfrastructure and poor educational results. More recently, thedigital divide has been added to this list.

Historically, rural schools in Chile have made an importantcontribution to rural people’s development and integration intosociety. In the current context in which ICT has a preponderantrole, will rural schools continue to contribute to development andintegration? What could be the teacher’s role in such tasks? Whatare the intervening factors that may contribute to improving theteacher’s role in the current context?

This research study examines the teacher’s contribution toovercoming the digital divide in rural schools, in order to generateconditions conducive to student learning and use of ICT. The articlediscusses the concept of the digital divide, proposing a multi-dimensional definition that includes teacher’s knowledge, expec-tations, access to and use of ICT. The study also analyzes whether ornot these factors contribute to the student’s knowledge of ICTtools.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Salinas), [email protected] (J. Sanchez).

0738-0593/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.003

2. Background

There is now ample consensus that access to ICT is acontributing factor to the construction and preservation of socialnetworks as well as to meaningful participation in the knowledgesociety, as it allows users to take advantage of educational,professional and leisure opportunities (Brainin and Bar-Lev, 2005;DiMaggio et al., 2004; Foster and Snider, 2000; PNUD, 2006). Theabsence of ICT infrastructure leads to a new dimension of socialinequality (Castells, 2000; Norris, 2000). In rural contextstechnology is seen by many people as an opportunity to overcomebarriers of geographic isolation, offering new opportunities foreducation and employment as well as access to knowledge andcommunication with other people (Arancibia and Carrasco, 2006;Valentine and Holloway, 2001; Warschauer, 2008; Donnermeyerand Hollifield, 2003).

Chile has a population of 16 million people with only 15% of thepopulation living in rural zones (INE, 2007). In general terms,during the last two decades the rural areas in Chile has improvedtheir employment rates, levels of education, and their access tohousing, infrastructure and services (Tironi, 2003). Nevertheless,rural areas still have serious problems with poverty and poorschool learning results, which makes for a complex problem ofsocial and educational inequity (McEwan, 2008; Rambla, 2006).Due to the extended length of the country and its geographiccharacteristics, in many of these rural communities people haveenormous difficulties in accessibility, communication and ICTaccess and use (Hepp and Laval, 2002).

A vast and long-term state program known as the EnlacesNetwork has installed infrastructure for connectivity and trainedteachers in the use of computers for education (Sanchez andSalinas, 2008). It provided Internet connection to 75% of Chilean

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07380593

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.003

A. Salinas, J. Sanchez / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 573–582574

students from subsidized schools, mainly in urban areas (Enlaces,2008). The highest percentages of schools that still do not haveaccess to Internet are rural schools (Hepp and Laval, 2002; Sanchezand Salinas, 2008). The high cost of the infrastructure, the lowpopulation density, the weather and geographical impediments toaccess are some of the reasons why these schools are on the marginof the connectivity initiatives (Hepp and Laval, 2002).

The concept of the digital divide emerged in the 1990s in orderto describe the unequal distribution of the access to, use of andopportunities offered by ICT for societies and peoples (Norris,2001; Riel and Schwarz, 2002). Far from an established concept,the digital divide has gone from a binary definition of access (have/have not), to being defined as a multidimensional and morecomplex concept. This new perspective has produced a livelydebate on the criteria necessary to measure it (DiMaggio et al.,2001; Warschauer, 2004; Bruce, 1999; de Haan, 2004; Livingstoneand Helsper, 2007; Valadez and Duran, 2007).

Several research studies have focused on identifying the factorsthat would facilitate or discourage access to and the use of ICT andthe Internet for certain social groups, as well as on describing itsdistribution throughout the population and between differentglobal regions (Castells, 2000; Norris, 2001; DiMaggio et al., 2001).Analyzing US data obtained for the period 1994–2000, Leigh &Atkinson show that income, education, race and locality have astatistically significant effect on access to technology. Never-theless, they show that on average, ‘‘only one-fifth of the variancebetween households’ ownership of computers and access to theInternet can be explained by the combined effect of these factors’’(Leigh and Atkinson, 2001, p. 4). According to the authors, there aremany other unidentified factors that explain the adoption of thesetechnologies. In addition, the study shows that the weight of thesefactors changed during this period. While the correlation betweenincome and access remained stable, that between education andaccess rose. Goolsbee & Klenow studied factors related to networkexternalities. They found that ‘‘local spillovers are important forhousehold computer adoption: households are more likely to buytheir first computer when a high fraction of people around themalready own computers (and especially when a high fraction ofpeople around them are experienced, intensive users)’’ (Goolsbeeand Klenow, 2002, p. 340). They showed that a bigger socialnetwork usually increases the value of being connected, andprovides opportunities to learn and solve problems.

In the field of education, Warschauer analyzed factors for accessto and the use of ICT and the Internet by categorizing them intofour general areas: physical resources (devices and connectivityavailability in schools and communities), digital resources (contentavailability and content diversity, including language issues),human resources (knowledge and skills required for meaningfuluse of computers and the Internet, which include both traditionalliteracy and a set of new forms of digital literacy), and socialresources (social relations, social structures, and social capital thatexist to support the effective use of ICT in families, communities,and institutions). According to Warschauer, leadership, vision andlocal ‘‘champions’’ are crucial to the success of ICT projects aimedat social inclusion (Warschauer, 2008). Valadez and Duran workedon the issue of resources as well. Teachers working in resource-richschools have significantly more physical access to and morefrequent and creative uses of ICT, and engaged more frequently inprofessional activities such as on-line communication with otherteachers (Valadez and Duran, 2007). Another study applied in twoschools at the end of the 1990s shows that age, gender or teachingexperience are not relevant factors for determining computer usein teaching practices (Cuban et al., 2001). The authors explain theuneven usage and stability of teacher-centered forms of instruc-tion mainly by school contexts and structure, as well as their use oftime and flaws in the technology. Teachers had no time to prepare

classes using technology, class schedules did not encouragechanges in teaching practices and unreliable technology did notfacilitate its use in classroom activities.

An analysis of factors that facilitate or complicate technologyaccess and use could erroneously suppose that the trajectory of allfirst-time ICT learners are the same, and that it is only a matter oftime for ICT newcomers to reach the levels of early adopters(DiMaggio et al., 2001, 2004; Leigh and Atkinson, 2001; Rogers,1995). To the contrary, supposing that there are different trajectoriesfor different groups allows for the incorporation of cultural variablesthat contain more complex relations within the process oftechnology adoption (DiMaggio et al., 2001; Martin, 2003).

Recent works have coincided in pointing out that the effectiveuse of ICT is related to three dimensions: motivation, possessionand digital skills (Valadez and Duran, 2007). Motivation refers tothe willingness of individuals to use technology and to include it intheir home, work, and educational efforts. Possession includesphysical access to computers and Internet and the ability to use thetechnology. Skills refer to the ability to use the technology (Valadezand Duran, 2007). Even though these three dimensions are crucialfor the whole process of technology adoption, they can beconsidered to be more significant for the initial stages. Sandholtzet al. (1997) identify five stages for the teacher’s technologyintegration into classroom: entry, adoption, adaptation, appro-priation, and invention. According to the authors, a teacher’sbeliefs about instruction and the role of ICT in education play animportant role in the process of technology integration. To changebelief structures requires a context of support and encouragement.

Research on the digital divide frequently emphasizes threefields or ‘‘structural contexts of opportunities’’ through whichpeople access ICT: home, school and work (Brainin and Bar-Lev,2005; de Haan, 2004). Other authors include cyber cafes (Cilesiz,2004) and libraries as well (Schement, 2003).

In both the school and family contexts ICT is subject to theregulation of both its content and time of use (Anderson et al.,1999; Holloway and Valentine, 2001). Some authors proposed thatthe gatekeeper concept describes the mechanism for the regula-tion and control of access to and use of ICT among children andyoung people (Barzilai-Nahon, 2006). Kiran Gopakumar (2007), forexample, has pointed out that those who work in Internetcommunity centers act as gatekeepers, or at least very importantintermediaries, who facilitate access and the transfer of knowledgeto communities.

This paper analyzes the teacher’s contribution to overcomingthe digital divide in rural schools. Specifically, we analyze theteacher’s role in student learning and their use of ICT, and wediscuss how teachers’ skills, expectations and ICT access contributeto their students’ adoption of ICT tools. The hypothesis underevaluation is that the teachers in Chilean rural schools act asgatekeepers in such a way that they do not directly teach studentshow to use ICT, but that when they have high expectations, skillsand technology access, they bring about the conditions for theirstudents’ adoption of technology.

3. Methodology

The data and information used in this paper was gatheredthrough qualitative and quantitative techniques applied to bothteachers and students. The quantitative technique was a surveyapplied to the different actors included in the study. The surveywas a self-applied document that included closed questions. Thequalitative technique consisted of in-depth interviews applied toan intentional sample of 14 schools included into the quantitativesample.

Quantitative sampling was probabilistic and stratified. Thestrata were defined proportionally according to the degree of the

Table 1Surveys and interviews.

Instrument Actor Total cases

Survey Students 1172

Teachers 198

Schools 145

Interview Students 14

Teachers 14

A. Salinas, J. Sanchez / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 573–582 575

school’s accessibility measured by a Ministry of Educationclassification that indicates its distance to specific urban centersand the geographical difficulty in accessing the school. The sampleconsisted of 145 rural schools offering both elementary and middleschool education in five of the country’s 15 regions thatconcentrate the largest quantity of rural schools (the 7th, 8th,9th, 10th and 14th regions, located in the central and southernareas of the country). Of these, 17% had no Internet access.

The sample unit was the school. In consideration of thedifficulties for accessibility, the sample size was calculated byaccepting a 6.6% margin of error, on a 2-sigma reliability level andwith maximum variance (p and q = 50%).

In each school 10 students from 6th to 8th grade and twoteachers were selected at random. In the smallest schools fewerstudents and teachers were obtained.

Table 1 represents the total samples obtained once theinstruments were applied.

The student sample was made up of 47% male and 53% femalestudents, and the average age was 12 years old, ranging between 8and 18 years of age. The teachers sampled had an average age of 46years old, ranging between 24 and 63 years of age. The averagenumber of years that the teachers had been working in the ruralschools was 18 years, and 63% of the teachers surveyed werefemale, while 37% were male.

The procedure for this investigation followed the standard stepsfor tasks of this kind. In the initial stages the research team focusedon the bibliographic review and the definition of variables andhypotheses that would be worked out in the study. Then themethodological framework was defined in detail, which includedthe sample design and the design and validation of the datacollection instruments by independent experts. For this process ofvalidation, each one of the instruments to be applied was discussedwith experts in order to check the formulation of the questions,their alternative responses and the coherence of the instruments,given the variables that we were interested in measuring. For the

Fig. 1. Relations between the

fieldwork we then proceeded to select the schools where theinstruments were to be applied, based on available nationaldatabases. In order to contact these schools and apply theinstruments, we had help from university research teams basedin the regions where the schools were located. The questionnairesand interviews were applied during a visit to each school, aspreviously arranged by the regional university teams. Once thedata had been collected and sent to the central research team, itwas transcribed and an SPSS database was built. The data analysisincluded various successive stages, which went from a generaldescriptive analysis to more specific analyzes, as well as thecreation of indices, clusters and a multivariate analysis in the caseof the quantitative data.

In order to analyze the conditions with which the schools couldbecome an effective space for reducing the digital divide, weconstructed a chart detailing the three dimensions associated withrural school teachers: access, expectations and skills. In accordancewith the hypothesis, the combination of these dimensions, whichare attributable to teachers, would bring about the conditions forthe students’ appropriation of technology. This was measured asthe students’ knowledge of ICT tools and the frequency of theirInternet use (see Fig. 1).

Each one of these dimensions was measured through the use ofdifferent variables and indicators. The teachers’ skills weremeasured through the report that they themselves wrote on theirmanagement of standard productivity and communications tools:email, Internet, word processing and spreadsheets. An index wascreated from these variables by adding up the points obtained foreach separate tool surveyed. Each variable was assigned a scorefrom 1 to 4 points, in which 4 represented the most developedperception of skills. The access dimension was measured by askingthe teachers about the frequency of their use of the computer,email and the Internet. Just as in the skills dimension, an accessindex was created by adding up the values obtained for eachvariable included in the dimension, in such a way that 1corresponded to the least amount of access and 4 to the most.

The expectations variable was measured by using a Likert scalewith two sub-dimensions: the social and educational impact of theInternet. Each of these sub-dimensions was composed of variousvariables and indicators. These dimensions, sub-dimensions andindicators were defined according to the information provided bythe different actors to whom the in-depth interview was applied.

The sub-dimension ‘‘expectations for the social impact of theInternet’’ was measured through three variables, each of which wasmade up of various indicators (see Fig. 2). Access to information was

dimensions of the study.

Fig. 2. Variables and indicators of the sub-dimension ‘‘social impact of Internet’’.


measured as access to information faster, cheaper and immediately.Social recognition of the community was measured as opportunitiesto relate to people from other places outside the community, thedegree to which the community was known by other people, and asthe possibility to actually ‘‘be someone’’ in modern life. Equity wasmeasured as improved quality of life for everyone and equality withthe city in terms of opportunities. The scores for each index weremeasured on a Likert scale from 1 to 4 points, in which 4 expressedthe highest level of agreement with the idea that the Internet has ahigh impact on the given dimension. Each item was given the sameweight in the creation of the index.

The ‘‘expectations for the educational impact of the Internet’’sub-dimension was measured through the use of the followingvariables: ‘‘learning conditions’’, ‘‘educational results’’ and‘‘resources for teaching’’ (see Fig. 3). Just as in the social dimension,to measure the impact on education various items were measuredon a Likert scale from 1 to 4 points, in which the higher the scorethe higher the level of the respondent’s agreement that theInternet had a big effect on any of the given items. For ‘‘learningconditions’’ the items inquired unto the impact of the Internet onstudents’ motivation, self-esteem and the relationship betweenteachers and students. For ‘‘educational results’’ respondents wereasked about the Internet’s impact on students’ skills, learning ofcontent and their results on standardized tests.

In the interest of reaching a summarized measurement of theinformation obtained from the teachers, a variable was calculated

Fig. 3. Variables and indicators of the sub-dim

that reflects the three main dimensions analyzed: skills, access andexpectations. This index was called ‘‘conditions for technologyappropriation’’, and was created by adding up the values obtainedfor each of the teacher dimensions from each school, assigning thesame weight to all dimensions. The values obtained for the indexoscillated between 2.4 and 4 points and it had Cronbach’s alpha of0.786.

To obtain an ordinal variable with fewer categories we made acluster analysis of k-averages with iteration, in such a way thatthree groups were obtained: one with a low level of conditions fortechnology appropriation (cluster center = 2.57), another withmedium level conditions (cluster center = 3.29) and another witha higher level of conditions (cluster center = 3.74). The clusterassigned to each school’s teachers was associated with thestudents that studied with each teacher.

In order to analyze different models for identifying therelationships between these variables we made a regressionanalysis using the stepwise method.

The students’ adoption of technology was measured by usingthe variables ‘‘students’ knowledge of ICT tools’’ and ‘‘frequency ofInternet use’’. In the survey the students were asked about theirperceived level of knowledge for standard productivity andcommunication tools like the Internet and email. Each tool hada corresponding range of values between 1 and 4, 4 being thehighest level of knowledge. Just as with other variables, an indexwas created that summarized the values obtained for each tool,

ension ‘‘educational impact of Internet’’.


which was organized into 4 categories of equal width. Thefrequency of Internet access was measured by asking the studentsabout the number of times per day, week or month that they usedthe Internet at school. In this variable the values oscillated between1 and 5, in which 1 is the least frequency and 5 is the most.

4. Results

4.1. The context of rural schools

Socio-familiar environments of rural schools are characterizedby economic vulnerability and the scarcity of cultural resourceswithin families. It should be noted that the in-depth interviewsheld during the research revealed that in many communities thefamilies depend on fishing, mining, and subsistence agriculture ortemporary agricultural labor. Most of the mothers of the studentswere housewives.

In terms of the cultural capital of the students’ families, theinterviews showed a panorama in which the parents had, onaverage, an incomplete high school education, at times only up to amiddle school education, or in some cases there were evenilliterate parents. The survey demonstrated that the majority ofparents had a low level of education. Up to 59% of the fathers and62% of the mothers had never gone to school or had only attendedup to a middle school level.

In spite of this low level of education, the data also showed thatparents had a high level of willingness to help out with theirchildren’s schoolwork. Up to 40% of the students said that theirparents always help them, and 48% said that they sometimes help.In sum, these were good-willed parents, but who had a lowcapacity to help their children due to their reduced levels ofeducation.

4.2. Student access and ICT skills

The survey reflects the situation at the beginning of the massiveprocess of Internet penetration into rural schools. In the survey, thestudents were asked about their access to different sources ofcommunication and about the places where they have access tothem. Two places were found in which access to the various meansof communication was considerably more important than others:at home and in school.

Home is the privileged space of access to radio, TV and cellularphones. Such access to television and radio at home is not

Fig. 4. Students access to me

particularly surprising, considering that the penetration of both ofthese technologies in Chilean homes has been almost universal formany decades now. The information on access to cellular phoneswas new. As Fig. 4 shows, 84% of the students have access to thesedevices in their homes. A fixed phone line at home had a presenceof only 14%. During the interviews, students said that normally oneor two cellular phones are available at home, and they used themto communicate with relatives and friends through SMS or voicemail.

If home was where students had access to traditional media,school was where they could access computers and the Internet. Ineffect, 76% of the students were accustomed to using the Internetand 71% were accustomed to using a computer at school. Access tothe Internet was much lower in other places such as cyber cafes,public libraries, stores or community centers.

Thus, in the case of Chile, school became an early focal pointfor the diffusion of technology into poor communities. It is inschool where a significant number of the technologicalinnovations related to informatics and the Internet that arenot available either at home or in other community spacesbecome available.

In this context, the students declared a certain degree ofdispersion regarding the level of their knowledge of ICT tools. Some20% of them declared a minimum level of knowledge (with anaverage score of less than 1.75 points on a scale of 1–4), 32%declared a low level (with scores that oscillated between 1.75 and2.49 points), 30% claimed to have a medium level (with scoresbetween 2.5 and 3.24 points) and 12% said they had a high level(with scores higher than 3.25 and up to 4 points).

Regarding their frequency of use, 36% of the students indicatedthat they never used the Internet, 7% used it three times a month orless, 27% used it once a week, 23% used it twice a week and only 5%used it every day or almost every day.

In school, students combined serious and leisure Internet uses(see Fig. 5). Most of them searched for information during classes(78%), researched information for homework (44%) or readnewspapers (27%), but they also used the Internet to play (39%)or listen to music (28%).

When asked in the survey who had taught them how to use theInternet, 55% of the students replied that ‘‘their friends’’ had taughtthem (see Fig. 6), while 34% said that ‘‘others’’ had taught them touse the Internet (siblings, workshop leaders or cyber cafes). On theother hand, 29% said that they learned by themselves and 9% saidthat their teachers had taught them.

dia and ICT technology.

Fig. 5. Students’ uses of the Internet in and out of school (multiple choice).


Teachers do not seem to be fundamental agents of socializationin this case, having been passed up by peers and other actorspresent in rural communities. However, their schools have asignificant role in facilitating access to ICT in contexts where usersdo not have any other options. So, what role does the teacher playin students’ access to and use of ICT in schools?

4.3. Teacher access, expectations and ICT skills

The teachers declared having a high frequency of access. Weconsulted them on the frequency of their access to a computer(productivity and educational software), email and the Internet.Most of them (41%) had a high frequency of access (every day oralmost every day), and 38% said they had sufficient access (two orthree times a week). Only 17% had a low or a minimal access (lessthan once a week).

Internet produces high expectations in the various educationalactors who use it. Rural schools are no exception. One commonelement that connected the wide array of interviews held was thepresence of a positive valuation of ICT sustained over a diffuse andunstructured perception.

When parents, students and teachers expressed themselvesfreely about what they expected from the Internet, they tended torepeat a general and somewhat naive idea that could besynthesized as ‘‘the Internet is a door to the world, filled withopportunities’’, and ‘‘provides opportunities to get to know other

Fig. 6. Who teaches students to use the Internet?.

people and places beyond physical and social frontiers that shapethe educational context in rural areas’’. Teachers, parents andstudents had only a modest consciousness of the social and culturalconditions for accessing and participating in the Internet. Teachers’expectations about the relevance of the Internet in education werenot very well aligned with real reflections on the educational andpedagogical conditions that would allow for ‘‘good practices’’ whenusing the Internet in the classroom.

The scores obtained for teachers’ expectations of the socialimpact of the Internet indicated an inclination towards agreeing orhighly agreeing with the different sub-dimensions of its impact.Teachers expected the greatest effect to be on access toinformation (3.5 points in a scale oscillating between 1 and 4),followed by social recognition and equity (3.3 points for each one).In analyzing the indicators within each of the dimensions, it couldbe seen that the teachers’ greatest expectations had to do with thepossibility of accessing information immediately, followed by anequality of opportunities with people who live in big cities and thepossibility that the community would be better known by others.

In the realm of pedagogy, teachers perceived the Internet tohave a considerable impact on all three of the dimensionsanalyzed. According to them, teaching resources was most affected(3.7 points on a scale oscillating between 1 and 4), while learningconditions and educational results were relatively less affected(3.5 points each one).

The third dimension involved the skills the actors profess tohave regarding the management of informatics tools. The dataindicated that the majority of the teachers could be classified in thecategory of sufficient skills (57%), and 27% could be classified in thehigh skills category. Only 12% were shown to have low skills and 1%could be classified in the minimal skills category.

As seen in Fig. 7, most of the teachers used the Internet to searchfor information to prepare their classes (89%), to search for dataand information about national standardized tests or otherpertinent information from educational portals (82%) and to learnby themselves (78%). The data collected also shows that 39% of theteachers did not use or did not frequently use the Internet in theirclasses.

4.4. Conditions for technology appropriation

The relation between these four variables (access, skills,expectations for the educational impact of Internet and expecta-tions for the social impact of the Internet) demonstrated a strong,statistically significant correlation between the expectations forthe social and the educational impacts (r = 0.55; p < 0.05) on one

Fig. 7. Uses of the Internet among teachers (multiple choice).


hand, and between skills and the use of the Internet (r = 0.43;p < 0.05) on the other (see Table 2). This means that those who hadhigh expectations for the social impact tended to also have highexpectations for the educational impact, while those who used itmore frequently also had more knowledge of the Internet. Therewas a weak and negative correlation between the expectations forthe educational impact and the frequency of use (r = �0.11), whichis not statistically significant (p = 0.21), and between educationalexpectations and skills with ICT tools (r = �0.08), which was alsonot statistically significant (p = 0.35). Although the relation wasnot statistically significant, there seemed to be a very slighttendency that whoever used and knew more about the Internethad lower expectations for the educational impact. The relationbetween the social impact of the Internet and the frequency of usewas even weaker than the others (r = �0.01) and was notsignificant (p = 0.89), while the relation between the social impactand skills with ICT tools was somewhat stronger (r = 0.12), butwithout achieving statistical significance (p = 0.14). This meansthat there was most likely no relation between expectations for asocial or educational impact and the use of and skills with ICT. The‘conditions for the appropriation of technology’ variable waspositively correlated to the other variables, which is not surprisinggiven that it was a component of the other variables. It isinteresting to point out that the highest correlation resulted

Table 2Pearson correlations between the dimensions analyzed.

Social impact Frequenc

Educational impact Pearson correlation 0.55 �0.11

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.21

N 117 131

Social impact Pearson correlation �0.01

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.89

N 157

Frequency of use Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Skills of ICT tools Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

between the conditions variable and the frequency of use variable(r = 0.71; p < 0.05), followed by its correlation with skills using ICTtools (r = 0.69; p < 0.05).

A regression analysis between access, skills, expectations forthe educational impact of Internet and expectations for the socialimpact of the Internet shows that the most important variables forexplaining variations in the conditions for the appropriation oftechnology were access (Beta = 0.547), followed by skills(Beta = 0.454) and expectations for the social impact (Beta = 0.328).Expectations for the educational impact showed a lesser degree ofimportance (Beta = 0.298).

In order to analyze the relation between the conditions for theappropriation of technology and the frequency of use and students’skills with ICT tools, a difference of means was calculated as well asANOVA. As seen in Table 3, those students that studied in schoolcontexts with low conditions for the appropriation of technologyhad the lowest ‘‘skills with ICT tools’’ index (mean = 2.21). Thisindex increased along with improved conditions. In the case of theconditions for the appropriation of high technology, the meanskills index reached 2.4. This was even clearer when analyzing theaverages obtained for the frequency of Internet use. In this case, thefrequency increased as the conditions improved, going from afrequency of 2.1 when there were low conditions to a frequency of2.8 when the conditions were high. As already mentioned, the

y of use Skills of ICT tools Conditions of technology appropriation

�0.08 0.4

0.35 0.00

129 113

0.12 0.54

0.14 0.00

153 113

0.43 0.71

0.00 0.00

190 113

0.69

0.00

113

Table 3Difference of average between the skills with ICT tools index and the frequency of Internet use according to clusters of the conditions for the appropriation of technology

variable.

Skills with ICT tools index Frequency of Internet use

Low conditions (center = 2.57) Mean 2.2083 2.1000

N 30 30

Std. deviation 0.79080 1.21343

Medium conditions (center = 3.29) Mean 2.2320 2.5255

N 374 392


High conditions (center = 3.74) Mean 2.4212 2.8087

N 165 183


Total Mean 2.2856 2.5901

N 569 605


Table 4Correlations between conditions for technology appropriation and skills in ICT tools index and Internet use among students.

Cluster of conditions for

technology appropriation

Frequency of

Internet use

Skills in ICT

tools index

Cluster of conditions for

appropriation of technology

Pearson correlation 1 0.126 0.108

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.01

N 614 605 569

Frequency of Internet use recorded Pearson correlation 0.126 1 0.434

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.000

N 605 1158 1098

Skills with ICT tools index Pearson correlation 0.108 0.434 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.000

N 569 1098 1.106


range of scores for the frequency of Internet use oscillated between1 and 5 points.

What the data demonstrated is that, in effect, the conditions forappropriation that stem from the teachers were related to the skillsthat the students had with some aspects of ICT use. As Table 4shows, the clusters of conditions for appropriation was signifi-cantly, although weakly, correlated with skills using ICT tools(r = 0.11; p < 0.05) as well as with frequency of Internet use(r = 0.13; p < 0.05).

5. Conclusions

The hypothesis that we have followed in this article is thatteachers in Chilean rural schools operate as gatekeepers in such away that they do not explicitly teach students how to use ICT;rather when they have high expectations, a higher level of skillsand more access, they bring about the conditions for the students’adoption of information technology.

The data that we have analyzed points in the direction indicatedby our hypothesis. Teachers are not those who directly introducethe students to the technology. In rural communities this task ismore strongly associated with peers and other people. However,the teacher’s skills for using ICT tools, the frequency of his/her useand the expectations that he/she has for the social and educationalcontributions of ICT is significantly associated with their students’frequency of use and skills in ICT usage. This means that althoughin the sphere of ICT teachers are not direct agents of socialization,when they have higher expectations, more skills and use ICT morefrequently, they generate fundamental conditions for theirstudents’ appropriation of technology. It is very probable thatthis is so because a teacher who is more willing to use ICT and whohas a higher degree of mastery and use of this technology produces

conditions for computers to work better within schools, as theystimulate their students to use them and create an environmentprone to their students’ use of technology.

This is interesting because, first of all, it allows us to progress incharacterizing the role that the teacher plays in rural schools. Theteachers do work as gatekeepers (Kiran Gopakumar, 2007),generating conditions for students to learn how to use ICT inschool, but leaving the work up to other people (mostly peers).

Teachers’ skills, expectations and usage of ICT are importantconditions for promoting schools as triggering centers for thediffusion of technology into rural communities. A large part of thetechnological innovations related to informatics and the Internetthat are not available either at home or in other community spaces,are available in the schools.

If knowledge and practice have already been developed in ruralcommunities, schools could use such advancements for a peertraining strategy. This implies the development of two strategies:to improve the teacher’s role in integrating ICT into their teachingpractices, and to improve and deepen their role as a gatekeeper.

Secondly, the data allows us to advance on the identification ofmore precise factors for the analysis of the digital divide. As waspreviously mentioned, the ‘‘have/have not’’ dichotomy must benuanced by using other variables that would allow us to explainand better understand this problem (Valadez and Duran, 2007). Inthis way, the dimensions used in this paper ended up being usefulfor such an analysis.

Rural communities are highly motivated to learn about and useICT. For teachers, the Internet can be a very positive tool forimproving learning conditions, accessing resources for teachingand improving educational results.

In addition to exclusively educational expectations, teachers,parents and students have high expectations in terms of ICT


providing access to information, recognition and social inclusion.The Internet also represents a function of symbolic integration. Asone of the students interviewed said, ‘‘we aren’t going to be somuch like farm people as they sometimes call us’’.

This is important in the way that, in rural contexts, the schooland the Internet access that it provides constitute a space that goesway beyond purely instrumental ends. The school plays, and hasalways played in these communities, a role of social and symbolicintegration and a space of sociability; but with the Internet, theschool begins to play a new role through the dissemination oftechnology and by providing equitable access not only for students,but for many of their families as well.

These high expectations however, tend to be rather ambiguousand overrated. When parents, students and teachers expressthemselves freely about what they expect from the Internet, theyare likely to repeat a general and somewhat overstated idea aboutthe Internet’s impact on their lives. They are only modestlyconscious of the social and cultural conditions related to accessingand participating in the Internet. Also, the teachers’ expectationsabout the relevance of the Internet in education are often unrelatedto real insights about the educational and pedagogical conditionsthat would allow for a ‘‘positive use’’ of the Internet inside theclassroom. Both of these elements should be considered in a detailedtraining and support process for all people involved in rural schools.

In this way, high expectations can lead to blocking the adoptionof technology if unfulfilled. This reaffirms the need to consider therole that each dimension plays in the process of technologyadoption more carefully and more in-depth. Under certainconditions, a given factor could contribute to such adoption.Under others, it could make adoption more difficult, or block it alltogether. For this reason, in processes of this nature, a negotiationis necessary between the expectations of the students, teachers,and the communities, which might not be completely aligned tothat which the schools can offer.

Expectations for symbolic integration in schools located incommunities with high levels of poverty and low educationalresults could constitute a singular trajectory for the adoption oftechnology (DiMaggio et al., 2001; Steers et al., 2008). Internetdoes not seem to be a mere ‘‘tool’’ available to instrumental endsfor members of these communities.

In this way, the boundary between what happens in school andwhat happens in the community is much less clear in rural areas.For this same reason, the school is a very important place forcommunity development in the case of Chile.

Thirdly, the data allows for a description of the widening of therole of social and symbolic integration that the school hastraditionally played in Chile. With the arrival of the Internet, thisrole acquires a new dimension. Rural schools in Chile are generallyplagued by low educational results; they are small and usuallylocated in areas with higher levels of poverty. This context makesthe process of technology adoption in school more complex, but atthe same time more urgent. Without any real access toparticipation in the knowledge society, the Internet risks becomingjust a new dimension being incorporated into an already existingsocial and educational inequality.

According to this new dimension of social and symbolicintegration that promotes rural schools, it seems that what isexpected from the school is no longer limited to the modernrepublican project of integrating the nation, forming citizenry andculture and preparing students for work (Dill, 2007; Dubet, 1991).Rather it includes new dimensions, such as integration into theknowledge society and symbolic recognition of the spaces forinteraction created on the web.

Some conclusions can be drawn for teachers, students, parentsand administrators from this study. To promote more autonomousspaces for students’ use and appropriation of ICT in school, teachers

in rural schools must upgrade their role as a gatekeeper, in order toorganize and promote students’ access to and use of ICT in schools,to promote peer learning of ICT among students and to encourageparents and community members to access computers in theschool. Teachers must develop and promote some rules and advicefor best practices when using ICT, such as when dealing with theprotection of students’ privacy.

The teacher’s role as a gatekeeper is not in itself sufficient forICT having a more relevant impact on student learning. Infollowing Sandholtz et al. (1997), this role seems to be significantonly during the first stages of ICT integration into schools. It isnecessary to expand and deepen the teacher’s role in order tointroduce computers and the Internet into their teaching practices.

Teacher training and support, as well as digital resources forlearning, are fundamental to promote ICT use for student learning.However, considering the cultural and geographical characteristicsof rural schools, ad-hoc programs and resources must also bedeveloped. Thus, the integration of the Internet into thesecommunities should not imply only training activities; rather itmust also consider actions that incorporate mechanisms ofconstruction and a negotiation of expectations that the commu-nities themselves have for the Internet.

Students have the resources available to profit from open accessto ICT. The most important issue for teachers seems to be guidingstudents to use these resources for educational and culturalpurposes, as well as for their own well-being.

In addition, if parents are more involved with their children’sschool activities and tasks, there will be more opportunities to usecomputers and Internet as a real tool for community developmentand integration.

Support from administrators is crucial to promote and enhanceteachers’ role as a gatekeeper and to integrate computers intoteaching practices by providing time flexibility, open access to ICTin schools, training resources as well as other financial andadministrative resources. Such support will trigger teachers’opportunities to be both a good gatekeeper and a good teacher.

There is still more work to be done in the future. Research oneach dimension included in this study must be analyzed morethoroughly; for example, considering the kind of motivation(Hargittai, 2007) that the different actors have, and not only aranking (higher or lower). The data, as a whole, provides for weakbut statistically significant relations. This indicates that the resultsobtained, more than definitive conclusions, are clues for futurestudy that must be understood more completely in order toappreciate their true value.

The question on the transformations that are taking place in theschool as an institution is left open and future research must bedeveloped to understand how the expectations, mission andculture of schools change in this new context.

It is probably in the rural sectors where the tensions in thecultural model of the school, brought on by these transformations,are more evident. This is because it is in these sectors where ICTrepresents a confrontation between more traditional and moremodern cultural patterns.

Acknowledgements

This study was partially funded by the Center for Education andTechnology, Enlaces, Ministry of Education of Chile, and ProjectCIE-05 Program Center Education PBCT-Conicyt.

References

Anderson, B., McWilliam, A., Lacohee, H., Clucas, E., Gershuny, J., 1999. Family life inthe digital home—domestic telecommunications at the end of the 20th century.BT Technology Journal 17 (1), 85–97.


Arancibia, M., Carrasco, Y., 2006. Incorporacion de computadores en escuelasrurales. Estudios descriptivo de cuatro casos del sur de Chile. Estudios Peda-gogicos 32 (2), 7–26.

Barzilai-Nahon, K., 2006. Gatekeeping in virtual communities: on politics of powerin cyberspace. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Hawaii International Con-ference on System Sciences HICSS’06, Hawaii.

Brainin, E., Bar-Lev, S., 2005. The social construction of Internet use among parentsand teachers and its relation to teenagers’ digital literacy. In: Annual Meeting ofThe American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, pp. 1–17.

Bruce, B., 1999. Speaking the unspeakable about 21st century technologies. In:Hawisher, G.E., Selfe, C.L. (Eds.), Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Tech-nologies. Utah State University Press and NCTE, Logan, UT/Urbana, IL.

Castells, M., 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell, Oxford/Malden, MA.Cilesiz, S., 2004. Internet cafes: bridges of the digital divide. Paper presented at the

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Con-ference 2004, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., Peck, C., 2001. High access and low use of technologies inhigh schools classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educa-tional Research Journal 38 (4), 813–834.

de Haan, J., 2004. Theorizing the digital divide. Paper presented at the ConferencePapers Annual Meeting of The American Sociological Association, 2004 AnnualMeeting, San Francisco.

Dill, J.S., 2007. Durkheim and Dewey and the challenge of contemporary moraleducation. Journal of Moral Education 36 (2), 221–237.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Coral, C., Shafer, S., 2004. Digital inequality: form unequalaccess to differentiated use. In: Neckerman, K. (Ed.), Social Inequality. RussellSage Foundation, New York, pp. 355–400.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., Robinson, J.P., 2001. Social implications ofthe Internet. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1), 307–336.

Donnermeyer, J., Hollifield, C.A., 2003. Digital divide evidence in four rural towns. IT& Society 1 (4), 107–117.

Dubet, F., 1991. Les lyceens. Ed. du Seuil, Paris.Enlaces, 2008. 15 anos integrando TICs a la educacion chilena. Centro de educacion y

Tecnologıa, Ministerio de Educacion, Santiago.Foster, J., Snider, S., 2000. ‘‘At-risk’’. Learners and the ‘‘digital divide’’: exploring the

equity in access issue.In: Society for Information Technology and TeacherEducation International Conference 2000. AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp. 249–255.

Goolsbee, A., Klenow, P., 2002. Evidence on learning and network externalities in thediffusion of home computers. Journal of Law and Economics 45 (2), 317–343.

Hepp, P., Laval, E., 2002. ICT for rural education: a developing country perspective.In: Marshall, G., Katz, Y. (Eds.), Learning in School, Home and Community. ICTfor Early and Elementary Education. IFIP TC3/WG3.5 International WorkingConference on Learning with Technologies in School, Home and Community,Manchester, United Kingdom.

Holloway, S.L., Valentine, G., 2001. ‘It’s only as stupid as you are’: children’s andadults’ negotiation of ICT competence at home and at school. Social & CulturalGeography 2 (1), 25–42.

INE, 2007. Compendio estadıstico. Estadısticas demograficas. INE, Santiago de Chile.

Kiran Gopakumar, R., 2007. E-governance services through telecenters: the role ofhuman intermediary and issues of trust. Information Technologies & Interna-tional Development 4 (1), 19–35.

Leigh, A., Atkinson, R., 2001. Clear thinking on the digital divide. Policy Report.Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.ndol.org/documents/digital_di-vide.pdf.

Livingstone, S., Helsper, E., 2007. Gradations in digital inclusion: children, youngpeople and the digital divide. New Media Society 9 (4), 671–696.

Martin, S., 2003. Is the digital divide really closing? A critique of inequalitymeasurement in a nation online. IT & Society 1 (4), 1–13.

McEwan, P.J., 2008. Evaluating multigrade school reform in Latin America. Com-parative Education 44 (4), 465–483.

Norris, P., 2000. The Worldwide Digital Divide: Information Poverty, the Internetand Development. John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University,Cambridge, MA.

Norris, P., 2001. Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and theInternet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PNUD, 2006. Desarrollo Humano en Chile. Las nuevas tecnologıas:

?

un salto alfuturo? Santiago.

Rambla, X., 2006. Globalization, educational targeting, and stable inequalities: acomparative analysis of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. International Review ofEducation 52 (3/4), 353–370.

Riel, M., Schwarz, J., 2002. School change with technology: crossing the digitaldivide. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 2002 (1), 147–179.

Rogers, E., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. Free Press, New York, NY.Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., 2008. ICT & learning in Chilean schools: lessons learned.

Computers & Education 51 (4), 1621–1633.Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., Dwyer, D., 1997. Teaching with Technology: Creating

Student Centered Classrooms. Teachers College Press, New York.Schement, J.R., 2003. Measuring what Jefferson knew and de Tocqueville saw:

libraries as bridges across the digital divide. IT & Society 1 (4), 118–125.Steers, R.M., Meyer, A.D., Sanchez-Runde, C.J., 2008. National culture and the

adoption of new technologies. Journal of World Business 43 (3), 255–260.Tironi, E., 2003.

?

Es Chile un paıs moderno? In: Tironi, E., Larranaga, O., Valenzuela,E., Bravo, D., Teitelboim, B., Gubbins, V. (Eds.), Cuanto y como cambiamos loschilenos. Balance de una decada. Cuadernos Bicentenario, INE, Santiago deChile.

Valadez, J., Duran, R., 2007. Redefining the digital divide: beyond access to com-puters and the Internet. The High School Journal 90 (3), 31–44.

Valentine, G., Holloway, S.L., 2001. A window on the wider world? Rural children’suse of information and communication technologies. Journal of Rural Studies17 (4), 383–394.

Warschauer, M., 2004. Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the DigitalDivide. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Warschauer, M., 2008. Whither the digital divide? In: Kleinman, D.L., Cloud-Hansen, K.A., Matta, C., Handesman, J. (Eds.), Controversies in Science & Tech-nology: From Climate to Chromosomes. Liebert, New Rochelle, NY.

http://www.ndol.org/documents/digital_divide.pdf

http://www.ndol.org/documents/digital_divide.pdf

Documents

Digital inclusion in Chile: Internet in rural schools