505 – Entry #6

Over the past two weeks we have been engaged in another collaborative assignment which has proven somewhat more difficult than the last. This assignment includes the development of another evaluation based on a senerio that involves making a recommendation to a superintendent about the development of local delivery of online high school credit courses as mandated by the state. The evaluation is to determine potential problems associated with the development of local delivery of these online courses and make recommendations to the superintendent. In finding a direction for this evaluation our group has had some difficulty finding a focus. We have spent considerable time trying to establish the parameters of the evaluation, specifically whether or not we should include a comparison of the potential benefits and drawbacks of online courses at all and whether or not to include a comparison of positive and negative aspects of local versus distributed delivery of the program.

One question we developed: What are the academically established benefits and drawbacks for students enrolled in online courses?

If the state has mandated the requirement should we address whether or not online courses are educationally valuable? My take on this is that if a committee is tasked to find problems with the development of local online courses, one of the issues for teachers (those that will be required to deliver this instruction) will be how is this method better/more efficient for students? Teachers will need convincing that this is a good thing, and we need to be able to tell them why.

Another area of contention is the projected outcome for staff when a mandated online component is required. It is my contention that even though the number of students will remain the same and theoretically there shouldn’t be a reduction in teacher jobs, an online component will require a restructuring of teacher assignments. Some teachers will be unable, or unwilling to adapt. This is a major problem area for me as a member of the evaluation committee.

Our group has arranged to meet tonight on an established Google doc to try and clarify and focus our evaluation…we will see!

In terms of my final evaluation, I have completed my EPD and timeline. After some advise from Dr Perkins I have scaled back the number of over-riding questions in an attempt to reduce the scope of the evaluation. I have interviewed the coordinator of the Challenge program at our school and have developed the surveys for the students, teachers and parents. I will be administering the surveys this week as well as organizing interviews and observations.

Digital Divide versus Digital Equity – A Canadian Perspective

Over the last hundred years there have been astounding advances in information and communication technologies with access to these technologies, at least initially, being directly related to income levels. It is logical that a lower income household would not purchase a new form of technology unless it is proven to be invaluable. This is the basis for the “Digital Divide” that has existed globally since the introduction of the Internet to our society. The more valuable a commodity proves to be, the quicker the divide closes. Television in Canada, for example grew from almost nothing in 1952 to 10% of households in 1953 to an amazing 80% in 1960, reaching total statistical penetration before the telephone, which was introduced much earlier. Time has proven that the Internet is our most valuable and beneficial form of communication, and with older forms of communication converging onto the Internet it can only increase in value. Consequently, statistics have shown that the digital divide is lessening in relation to economic status. Schools in lower economic and rural areas now have equal access to the Internet. Communities across Canada have equal access to the Internet through government initiatives with some Provinces and Communities building infrastructure to support free wi-fi services to large geographical regions. The result is that in 2011 most people in Canada do have access to the Internet; however, there still remains an inequity between people who simply have access and people who use that access effectively. Thus the term “Digital Divide” has evolved into “Digital Inequity”. It is no longer an issue of access but an issue of who can and will use this access effectively.
Schools may have the ability to provide access to the Internet, but there are inequities between training and instruction in technology in rural and urban areas. A child from a low income family is likely to have access to the Internet at school but not at home. The Internet can be a tool for education and career building, as a result the economically deprived child will not have the same advantages of a child with continuous Internet access, which may further restrict the child’s potential for economic success. The reverse is also true, that students who have proper training in all areas of Internet use will graduate with a distinct advantage over others who have not, creating “digital elitism”.
The inequity continues for people with a low income, low education, unemployed, age, race, single parents, people with disabilities, and gender.
Again, one of the prevailing issues in equality is economics. Service providers will have to charge more in rural or isolated communities simply because they have fewer customers; however, since 1995 the Government of Canada has taken a proactive approach by striving to provide the infrastructure, training, and assistance needed in isolated areas, especially in Northern Aboriginal communities. The government maintains that the Internet is integral for these communities in building opportunities for economic improvement, education, employment, and business and community development. There is little doubt that the inequity exists and that the Internet is an element of our society that has the potential for improving the lives of all people.The question remains; how do we provide equal access in terms of connectivity, training, and constancy for all?
It is imperative that teacher training institutions across the country provide the latest, quality instruction on the use of technology in education followed by consistent, relevant professional development opportunities for teachers as the technology evolves. Government agencies and businesses must recognize the importance of equity in technology education and access by providing economic support for individuals and programs for training. School district policies must look outward to global resources as sources for student learning and understanding.


Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269-278. (PDF file)

Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003. (2006). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006065

Cooper, M. (2004). Expanding the digital divide and falling behind in broadband. Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. Retrieved from http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/digitaldivide.pdf

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality:’ Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~arts…gittai.pdf

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social Inequality, 355-400. Retrieved from http://www.eszter.com/research…uality.pdf

Hargittai, E. (2003). The digital divide and what to do about it. New Economy Handbook, 821-839. Retrieved from http://www.eszter.com/research…divide.pdf

ITU Country rankings. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2010/03/26.aspx

McConnaughey, J., Nila, C. A., & Sloan, T. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the “have nots” in rural and urban America. National Telecommunications And Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

Howard, P. N., Busch, L., & Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing Digital Divides: Internet Access and Social Inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1), 109-128.

Adjarkwa-Smillie, C. (2005). Is the Internet A Useful Resource For Indigenous Women Living In Remote Communities In Canada, Australia and New Zealand To Access Health Resources? National Network for Aboriginal Mental Health Research. (PDF file)

Sciadas, G. (2000). The Digital Divide In Canada. Science, Innovation, and Electronic Information Division, Statistics Canada. Retrieved from dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/…/56F0009XIE2002001.pdf