Digital Inclusion in Education

Abstract

Digital inclusion refers to the movement to ensure that persons of all backgrounds have equitable access to the technological tools and expertise necessary for navigating the modern world. Too often, technology remains in the hands of a privileged few, and those who cannot access it are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to pursuing an education, finding a job, and many other necessary functions. Digital inclusion in education looks at the way that access to technology changes the way people learn, and tries to find ways to make the benefits of technology available to all students.

Overview

Access to new technology has rarely been freely available to all, no matter where one looks in history. Instead, only small numbers of people have access, either because the technology was expensive to develop and most cannot afford it, or because access by the general population is deliberately withheld for some reason. This is especially unfortunate in the field of education, because of the considerable impact technology can have on learning. Nothing has made this more clear than the arrival of the Internet and, somewhat later, mobile computing. The Internet provides a vast network of information resources, and can bridge enormous distances to allow users to connect to books, scientific data sets, and even scanned copies of ancient manuscripts. Mobile computing makes the Internet even more useful by allowing users to access the Internet from almost anywhere. When combined, these advances have transformed the field of education, changing what students learn, how they learn it, and much more (Newman, et al., 2017).

Almost from the beginning of the age of personal computers, observers have noted that not all students receive the same benefits from the digital revolution. Digital inclusion efforts seek to address this inequity, in the same way that traditional inclusion has sought to extend the benefits of students in mainstream classrooms to those receiving special education services (Smith, 2015). There are essentially three pieces of the technology puzzle where this becomes problematic: access to hardware, access to software, and access to expertise, primarily in the form of training in how to use the hardware and software.

Further Insights

Typically a person who is having challenges accessing technology resources will have at least some degree of difficulty with all three of these factors, but they are worth discussing individually since the manner in which each is addressed is distinct.

Hardware. Access to technology hardware is a simple enough problem to understand; the equipment itself, whether a cell phone, computer, tablet, or some other type of device, is either not available in the student's region or not affordable for the student. It is worth noting that in some of these cases, the equipment that is unavailable might not be of a type that an individual typically owns. It could instead be caused by the student's home being located in a place that is too remote to have Internet access. As of 2017, many rural communities in the United States had only dial-up Internet access, which was far too slow for most students' needs.

More often, however, the equipment is available but it is too expensive for the student's family to afford to purchase. This means that these students will not be able to practice using the technology at home or during their free time away from school, unlike those of their peers whose families are able to purchase technology devices that their children are allowed to use. Not being able to practice in this way means that if the student is required to use a particular device in school, the student will first need to become familiar with the device, while other students who already know how to use it will simply proceed with the lesson, able to focus solely on the curricular content (Clarida, et al., 2014). These devices could be almost anything, from a digital camera or document scanner, to a tablet computer, webcam, or a global positioning system (GPS) device. GPS devices are sometimes used in science and geography classes, because they allow one to pinpoint the device's exact location on the earth.

When technology devices are not personally available to students, the principle of striving for digital inclusion whenever possible demands that attempts be made to provide some form of shared access to the technology for students to use. Often, this involves an attempt by the students' school to purchase devices for students to either use at the school during their hours of attendance, or to check out from the school for a set period of time, at the expiration of which the devices must be returned or the checkout renewed. This can be challenging because of the cost of many technology devices. Sometimes no devices can be purchased due to the unavailability of funding, while in some cases devices may be purchased, but in limited quantities that make it necessary for students to share the devices instead of having sole access to them.

Teachers and school administrators often apply for technology grants that will fund such purchases. Even when these purchases can be made, however, equity issues remain to to be dealt with. For example, a school might purchase a set of computers for students to use, selecting the previous year's model in order to save money. This means that students from affluent homes will be able to use newer, faster computers while their classmates from families with lower incomes will have no choice but to use older, slower equipment to do the same assignments. One way around this is for school staff to design assignments so that students are all required to use the school's equipment. This will ensure that all students complete their work with the same tools (Hartley, et al., 2016).

Software. Closely related to technology hardware is the software that runs on it, including everything from the operating system to educational games to advanced applications used for photo and video editing, desktop publishing, and data analysis. Even the most state of the art computers will be useless without high quality software running on them, and this represents another difficulty for those fighting for digital inclusion.

Even though software is not a tangible resource, it is an expensive one—sophisticated applications often cost one hundred dollars or more per user. To make matters worse, many software companies do not sell their software outright. Instead, they license it to users for a limited period of time, such as one school year (Bertot, Real & Jaeger, 2016). At the conclusion of this period, if the school wishes to continue using the software in the future, it must pay to renew the license. Fortunately, many software companies offer discounts on their products if they will be used for educational purposes in a school setting, but even after factoring this discount in, many schools are still unable to afford software, or if they are able to buy it, must use an older version.

Many school computers continued to use as their operating system Windows XP a decade and a half after its release in 2001, because the school computers are so old that they will not run a newer version. If the issue of purchasing and supporting up-to-date software is challenging for schools seeking to serve all students fairly, it is that much more difficult for families to try to keep up. Often it is all a family can do to afford even a basic computer, and to have to pay hundreds of dollars more to acquire software for it would simply not fall within the realm of possibility. These students must either do without the software, use it at school if it is available there, or try to borrow access to it from a friend. Some students, unsurprisingly, even resort to downloading illegal copies of software (Menger, Morris & Salis, 2016). Digital inclusion efforts related to computer software focus on trying to obtain funding to make software available to all, and to giving preference to software that is useful during instruction but either inexpensive or free, as is the case with open-source applications and operating systems such as Linux.

Expertise. The third part of the digital inclusion dilemma concerns the availability of either training or expertise in the use of technological hardware and software. The central problem here is that even when students are able to access the hardware and software they need, there will be times when they need extra assistance in learning how to use these tools. It may be possible to provide this assistance when the need arises at school, but sooner or later students encounter difficulty when they are away from school. In this situation, it becomes clear that some students are at a disadvantage because their family members, especially those from lower income brackets, are unable to offer technical assistance to their children (Santarosa & Conforto, 2016).

A student who can get help at home printing out a report or presentation will have a much easier time completing her work than a student who has to figure things out on her own because her parents are less familiar with technology than she is. Some have suggested that this is not really the type of inequity that can be addressed by initiatives designed to foster digital inclusion, as no matter what steps are taken, there will be situations in which some students are more fortunate in the technical competence of family members. Still, there are steps that schools can take to ease the burden on students who do not have technologically literate relatives in the home to assist them, such as structuring technology-heavy assignments so that they are completed at school rather than at home. This gives all students who need help the chance to receive it from school staff (da Silva, et al., 2014).

Issues

Part of the blame for the unfairness that has given rise to the digital inclusion movement has been placed not simply upon the inevitable inequities between different students and their family circumstances, but on the ways that education is funded in many parts of the world. In a substantial number of areas, local funding for education is derived from, or at least connected with, property taxes. In practice, this means that school districts that have higher average property values, and therefore pay more in property taxes, see larger school budgets. The way this normally plays out is that the wealthier parts of a large city have schools that are well-funded, and have the latest technology available for students, including media labs, 3D printers, television and radio broadcast programs, and many other amenities, while schools in lower income areas may struggle to even provide the most basic level of technology service, such as having equipment to show DVDs and videos during classes.

Critics of the so-called digital divide have long decried this approach to school funding, because of the way it tends to perpetuate and magnify existing inequities, passing them on to the next generation. There are more equitable approaches to using tax revenue to support technology in schools, but to date the exploration of these has been opposed by those who benefit from the system currently in place (Gangadharan, 2017). Recent shifts in the economy, however, have called into question how much longer this is likely to continue, given the greater mobility of the modern workforce and the declining rates of home ownership among young people, both of which tend to undermine the use of property taxes to determine school funding.

Ultimately, the movement toward digital inclusion in education is one based on both compassion and reason, as its goals are to benefit society by producing more citizens who are capable of leading productive lives. Comprehensive instruction in the use of computer technology fosters students' abilities to solve real world problems and improve the lives of those around them (Geekie, 2016).

Terms & Concepts

Digital Divide: A term long used to describe the problem of having some groups of students cut off from access to the technology they need in order to be successful; these students are left stranded on the far side of a great chasm, unable to cross it and thereby join their peers in preparing for future advances.

Global Positioning System (GPS): A system for determining the precise location of the user on the earth, by using a portable device able to communicate with a network of GPS satellites orbiting hundreds of miles from the surface.

Mobile Computing: The use of devices such as laptops, cell phones, and tablet computers, which are designed to be easily transported while remaining connected to the Internet through wi-fi or cellular signals.

Open Source: A movement by some software developers to make their programming code freely available so that others can download it and test it, assess it, and try to improve it or repurpose it. The only limitation imposed by an open-source license is that if one modifies someone else's code, then one must also make the modified code freely available to all.

Operating System: A piece of computer software that assists the user in managing the computer's hardware, making routine tasks simpler and allowing the user to focus on more advanced operations.

Technology Literacy: The condition of having sufficient experience and comfort with technology to be able to use it most of the time to accomplish what one desires. A technologically literate person usually finds it easier to develop comfort with newly encountered technological devices and systems.

Bibliography

Bertot, J. C., Real, B., & Jaeger, P. T. (2016). Public libraries building digital inclusive communities: Data and findings from the 2013 digital inclusion survey. Library Quarterly, 86(3), 270–-289. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116282693&site=ehost-live

Clarida, B. B., Bobeva, M. M., Hutchings, M. M., & Taylor, J. J. (2013). Strategies for digital inclusion—towards a pedagogy for embracing student diversity with online learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Learning, 573–580. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=91956481&site=ehost-live

da Silva, A. S., de Brito, S. R., Martins, D. L., Vijaykumar, N. L., da Rocha, C. J., Albuquerque Costa, J. W., & Lisboa Francês, C. R. (2014). Social networks analysis and participation in learning environments to digital inclusion based on large-scale distance education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 12(2), 1–25. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=97950147&site=ehost-live

Gangadharan, S. P. (2017). The downside of digital inclusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal Internet users. New Media & Society, 19(4), 597–615.

Geekie, J. (2016). Digital literacy and digital inclusion TeachMeets in London and Leeds. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1), 102–103.

Hartley, M. T., Mapes, A. C., Taylor, A., & Bourgeois, P. J. (2016). Digital media education and advocacy: Addressing attitudes toward disability on college campuses. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 29(3), 239–247. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=120149398&site=ehost-live

Menger, F., Morris, J., & Salis, C. (2016). Aphasia in an Internet age: Wider perspectives on digital inclusion. Aphasiology, 30(2-3), 112–132.

Newman, L., Browne-Yung, K., Raghavendra, P., Wood, D., & Grace, E. (2017). Applying a critical approach to investigate barriers to digital inclusion and online social networking among young people with disabilities. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 559–588.

Santarosa, L. C., & Conforto, D. (2016). Educational and digital inclusion for subjects with autism spectrum disorders in 1:1 technological configuration. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 293–300. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=114628739&site=ehost-live

Smith, C. (2015). An analysis of digital inclusion projects: Three crucial factors and four key components. Journal of Information Technology Education, 14, 179–188. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=112643280&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Door, V. (2014). Inclusive language education and digital technology. Language Learning Journal, 42(3), 349–350. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=97902083&site=ehost-live

dos Santos, D. N., Schlünzen, E. M., & Schlünzen, K. J. (2016). Teachers training for the use of digital technologies. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1288–1297.

Lee, S. (2014). Digital literacy education for the development of digital literacy. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 5(3), 29–43.

Monteiro, A., & Leite, C. (2016). Inclusive digital online environments as a device for pedagogic differentiation: a taxonomy proposal. Journal of E-Learning & Knowledge Society, 12(4), 25–37. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119512158&site=ehost-live

Price-Dennis, D., Holmes, K. A., & Smith, E. (2015). Exploring digital literacy practices in an inclusive classroom. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 195–205. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=109228766&site=ehost-live