This article is part of our digital equity series, which assesses the complexity, interconnectedness, and diffuse nature of the digital divides that comprise it.
Over the last several decades access to computing devices and internet connectivity in schools has greatly accelerated.
Digital inequity persists with ensuring connectivity in family homes, public libraries, and other after school gathering areas.
According to the most recent survey in 2015:
The takeaway is fairly simple: access and connectivity rates are impeded by longstanding inequities in society that affect minorities, low-income families, non-English speaking households, and those residing in rural areas.
The persistence of the access and connectivity divide, which runs in parallel with learning that depends upon access to devices and connectivity to the internet, further alienates students who are already underserved and disadvantaged.
A study led by John B. Horrigan, who is a researcher and consultant, quantified this divide among adult Americans:
Those ranking with low levels of digital skills tended to:
In a separate study by Pew, researchers surveyed adult Americans to gauge their Web IQ.
Findings:
Why does this matter? The digital native narrative often overlooks and even perpetuates the digital readiness divide among youth, according to recent research by Paul A. Kirschner and Pedro De Bruyckere.
Students who lack access and connectivity, whether in school or at home, have less experience using technology and are likely to have families with less experience. The digital readiness divide, in this context, is more likely to impact non-white, impoverished, and rural students, which preys on already existing inequity.
The digital use concerns the nature of technology integration in student learning.
A study by Connected Learning Alliance found that students in higher-income schools experienced technology as a creative and playful medium while those from middle and lower-income schools used it at a far more basic level.
A second report also uncovered that lower-income, non-white children were more likely to use technology for drill and practice compared to their more affluent peers, who used technology in learning for problem solving and higher-order thinking.
The fourth digital divide, as featured in our digital equity whitepaper, is in reference to representation in the learning content, technology industry, and computer science workforce.
In order to feel a sense of belonging, connection to the curriculum, and empowerment to pursue advanced academics and employment in technology, diversity and representation are necessary.
In an article by Kevin Clark in the Journal of Children and Media, he explains:
“The digital divide will not be truly closed until the content available reflects the full spectrum of our experiences and perspectives, so that fathers and mothers of all hues and demographic categories have access to books, videos, websites, and a whole host of media created by and containing characters who look like their daughters and sons.”
Especially in STEM and computer science contexts, special considerations need to be made to ensure that learning represents all students, even when the fields may lag in this.
To illustrate the lack of diversity and representation, the following section will examine the computer science field as an example. In the industry:
This lack of representation impacts us all.
Pipeline Build:
Technology Accessibility:
Wealth Gaps:
It’s essential that all students have access to computer science and technology-driven learning experiences.
A study by Computer Science Education Week found that the likelihood women will major in computer science increases tenfold when they are enrolled in AP Computer Science. And black and Latinx students are seven times more likely to major in it.
Beyond reaching younger students, progress will also require that curriculum be inclusive and representative.
In summary of all this data, Michele Knobel and Leeann Stone in the Educational Policy Journal explain:
"There is no single digital divide in education but rather a host of complex factors that shape technology use in ways that serve to exacerbate existing education inequalities."