The digital divide encompasses a number of inequities. Wikipedia defines the digital divide as “the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all.”(Wikipedia, 2009) It further specifies that this divide is not just related to physical access but also to the resources and skills that are required for digital citizenship.
Three factors which have been identified as relating to the digital divide are socio-economic status, rural-urban location, and gender. “Rural youths are less likely to have access to computers in the home; however, frequency of use and perceived competency levels are not compromised. Female youths and those from families with low levels of parental education are also less likely to have access to computers in their homes; they tend to spend less time on the computer and they tend to report lower levels of computer skills competency.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) The role of school libraries is one in which these factors are recognized and steps are taken to counter their effects. This is especially true when considering that “in every instance, those with less interest in, competence with, or experience with ICT (i.e. females, rural youth, youth from lower SES households) are more likely to have first learned to use a computer in school.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) Surveying my own class in a relatively rural community, I found that one-fifth of my students do not have a computer at home. Of these students, two-thirds are female and all, except one, are from a lower socio-economic family. I am cognizant of this “localized digital divide” when planning lessons to ensure that I provide opportunities to allow all students to explore the use of digital technology and to develop necessary ICT skills. As well, the computers in the school library are made available to students each lunch hour and are used to complete projects that students are unable to do at home due to lack of a home computer. The availability of computers at lunch also allows students to interact with their peers and to utilize various aspects of the web and its tools which aids in developing positive attitudes to digital technology and greater competency.
The implementation of Web 2.0 tools has been subject to “four levels of influence that take the form of ‘digital divides’ in schools.” (Mardis, 2008) These four levels are: access, skill, policy, and motivation. Within my school, access is the main cause of the digital divide. While teachers’ skill level and motivation are varied and do play a factor, the desire to implement Web 2.0 in individual classrooms has consistently met with difficulties due to access. One of the issues is the computer to student ratio. We have only one full computer lab and a partial lab in the library to meet the needs of 18 classes. It is quite challenging to develop ICT skills in students when they are not able to access the necessary technology. Teachers are also limited in their access to technology in the classrooms. We have one SmartBoard and four LCD projectors that are shared amongst the staff. It is difficult to implement technology through Web 2.0 when it is not readily available. The discrepancies between schools for this aspect of the digital divide are highlighted when comparisons are conducted between school districts not only on a provincial level but also a national level. Schools can be divided into the “haves” and “have-nots”. As well as access, the policy level demonstrates great variations between schools provincially and nationally. These have to do specifically with the types of filters in place and the Web 2.0 tools that are blocked. My school is fortunate in that the filters in place are not overly restrictive whereas other districts have filters that counteract the greater access they have to technology.
The digital divide is a relevant issue for teachers today because it affects us and our students. An awareness and understanding of the factors involved and the different levels of digital divide are necessary as we endeavor to minimize inequities and provide the greatest opportunities for our students to develop the skills and attitudes which will allow them to participate successfully in a digital world.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Filtering
The Internet allows access to a vast amount of information. This includes some information that is deemed unsafe and inappropriate. Should filters be utilized to minimize access to this type of information on school computers? How does this impact on intellectual freedom?
There are a variety of filters currently on the market, all of which use computer automation to prevent access to information. These filters use “five basic approaches to controlling and suppressing expressive content on the Internet: “bad word”, “bad phrase”, and even “bad syllable” stoplists, “bad site” lists, “bad topic” lists, site content rating systems, and “bad service” lists” (Schrader, 1999). The use of these approaches results in appropriate sites also being blocked because they may contain a word that is on the stoplist. Computers are not able to determine the context in which a word is used and are therefore unable to determine the actual appropriateness of a site. “No one disputes the need to protect kids from the harm that lurks online. What’s at issue is whether or not mandated internet filters are the best way to achieve these safeguards – or whether the filters aren’t up to the task and are actually interfering with the educational mission by obstructing use of important Web 2.0 tools.” (Villano, 2008)
The use of filters in my school district was not an issue I had previously considered. I have been fortunate in that any technology that I needed to access was readily available or was easily made available by contacting our technology support person. In other words, I lacked any knowledge of the negative impact of the use of filters and viewed filters as a means of keeping our network safe from the threat of viruses. It came as quite a surprise to read and take part in discussions that listed blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools as being blocked in other districts within the country and in other countries. I was curious then to find out what filters our district uses and if this has resulted in a loss of accessibility to sites. Our information technology person was able to supply me with the answers I sought. In our district, all school computers are filtered by Websense through the PLNet as mandated by the Ministry of Education. The purpose of using this filter as stated in a bulletin by PLNet is “to ensure students can use the Internet safely, with a reduced risk of visiting sites that contain inappropriate or harmful content” (PLNet, 2002). PLNet also recommends “that teachers and facilitators remain diligent in monitoring students use of the Internet” and explains the procedure when an inappropriate site is accessed through the filter or if an appropriate site is not able to be accessed (2002). As well as this filter, students are not able to download from the Internet (teachers are able to though) and individual sites are able to be blocked by our information technology staff. A site is blocked if a teacher or administrator requests it and is able to explain the negative impact this site is having on the education of our students. YouTube was recently blocked at one of our schools due to incidences of its misuse in the form of bullying. It is, however, still accessible at other schools in our district, as are all other Web 2.0 tools. As for student access to the Internet, our district requires that students and parents sign an “Acceptable Use Policy” and it is then left for individual teachers to monitor the use of the Internet within the classroom environment. Parents and guardians are also notified and permission requested when students take part in online activities such as class blogs or wikis.
How is intellectual freedom impacted by using filters to block information on the Internet? As a colleague of mine stated, it would be naïve to insist that filters should not be used at all. It is important to remember that one of the uses of filters is as protection against viruses which would wreck havoc with the network resulting in the inability to utilize the computers. However, when deciding on the use of filters “fear and misinformation should not triumph over logic and an agenda for learning” (Abram, 2007). The key components to using the Internet safely are education and communication, not censorship through the use of filters. Students have a right to access information. “Internet filters are an illusion. They impose a simplistic set of values on a complex and highly variable world of personal tastes, individualized family values, highly variable perceptions of age appropriateness, and widely varying thresholds of social tolerance” (Schrader, 1999). Overly restrictive filters do more damage than good. Educators and parents need to be responsible for teaching students about the Internet instead of relying on filters or blocking sites. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communications they receive will provide them with a set of skills to use information efficiently and successfully” (McDonald, 2007). Educators have other options available to them besides filters when it comes to protecting students online while students are learning about the safe use of the Internet. With younger students, the uses of databases or pre-selected websites (trailfires and pathfinders) are methods to prevent their exposure to inappropriate sites. I have always had a twinge of doubt when I request that students do not access certain sites. Instead of restricting access, I would rather teach students responsibility and the ethical use of the Internet. In a span of six years with daily monitoring of student use on the Internet, I have only had a few incidences of misuse and have dealt with them directly. I am concerned about decisions then such as a school-wide blockage of YouTube which affects all students and teachers regardless of whether or not they had acted irresponsibly.
Filtering is important with regards to protection against viruses but its impact on student learning and intellectual freedom must be kept at a minimum. Students, teachers, and parents need to communicate openly about Internet use and learn to use it in a responsible, ethical manner.
References:
Abram, Stephen. “Justifying the Social Tools: Improving the Conversation.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools; Jan/Feb 2007; 14, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 21 – 22.
McDonald, Dale. “Educating Students to Protect Themselves in Cyberspace.” Momentum. Nov/Dec 2007; 38, 4; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 88-89.
PLNet. “Bulletin: Websense Internet Filtering.” 2002 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/plnet/filtering_bulletin.pdf
Schrader, Alvin. “Internet Filters: Library Access Issues in a Cyberspace World.” 65th IFLA Council and General Conference – IFLA/FAIFE Open Session Lecture – August 25, 1999. http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.htm
Villano, Matt. “What Are We Protecting Them From?” T.H.E. Journal. May 2008; 35, 5; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 48 – 54.
There are a variety of filters currently on the market, all of which use computer automation to prevent access to information. These filters use “five basic approaches to controlling and suppressing expressive content on the Internet: “bad word”, “bad phrase”, and even “bad syllable” stoplists, “bad site” lists, “bad topic” lists, site content rating systems, and “bad service” lists” (Schrader, 1999). The use of these approaches results in appropriate sites also being blocked because they may contain a word that is on the stoplist. Computers are not able to determine the context in which a word is used and are therefore unable to determine the actual appropriateness of a site. “No one disputes the need to protect kids from the harm that lurks online. What’s at issue is whether or not mandated internet filters are the best way to achieve these safeguards – or whether the filters aren’t up to the task and are actually interfering with the educational mission by obstructing use of important Web 2.0 tools.” (Villano, 2008)
The use of filters in my school district was not an issue I had previously considered. I have been fortunate in that any technology that I needed to access was readily available or was easily made available by contacting our technology support person. In other words, I lacked any knowledge of the negative impact of the use of filters and viewed filters as a means of keeping our network safe from the threat of viruses. It came as quite a surprise to read and take part in discussions that listed blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools as being blocked in other districts within the country and in other countries. I was curious then to find out what filters our district uses and if this has resulted in a loss of accessibility to sites. Our information technology person was able to supply me with the answers I sought. In our district, all school computers are filtered by Websense through the PLNet as mandated by the Ministry of Education. The purpose of using this filter as stated in a bulletin by PLNet is “to ensure students can use the Internet safely, with a reduced risk of visiting sites that contain inappropriate or harmful content” (PLNet, 2002). PLNet also recommends “that teachers and facilitators remain diligent in monitoring students use of the Internet” and explains the procedure when an inappropriate site is accessed through the filter or if an appropriate site is not able to be accessed (2002). As well as this filter, students are not able to download from the Internet (teachers are able to though) and individual sites are able to be blocked by our information technology staff. A site is blocked if a teacher or administrator requests it and is able to explain the negative impact this site is having on the education of our students. YouTube was recently blocked at one of our schools due to incidences of its misuse in the form of bullying. It is, however, still accessible at other schools in our district, as are all other Web 2.0 tools. As for student access to the Internet, our district requires that students and parents sign an “Acceptable Use Policy” and it is then left for individual teachers to monitor the use of the Internet within the classroom environment. Parents and guardians are also notified and permission requested when students take part in online activities such as class blogs or wikis.
How is intellectual freedom impacted by using filters to block information on the Internet? As a colleague of mine stated, it would be naïve to insist that filters should not be used at all. It is important to remember that one of the uses of filters is as protection against viruses which would wreck havoc with the network resulting in the inability to utilize the computers. However, when deciding on the use of filters “fear and misinformation should not triumph over logic and an agenda for learning” (Abram, 2007). The key components to using the Internet safely are education and communication, not censorship through the use of filters. Students have a right to access information. “Internet filters are an illusion. They impose a simplistic set of values on a complex and highly variable world of personal tastes, individualized family values, highly variable perceptions of age appropriateness, and widely varying thresholds of social tolerance” (Schrader, 1999). Overly restrictive filters do more damage than good. Educators and parents need to be responsible for teaching students about the Internet instead of relying on filters or blocking sites. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communications they receive will provide them with a set of skills to use information efficiently and successfully” (McDonald, 2007). Educators have other options available to them besides filters when it comes to protecting students online while students are learning about the safe use of the Internet. With younger students, the uses of databases or pre-selected websites (trailfires and pathfinders) are methods to prevent their exposure to inappropriate sites. I have always had a twinge of doubt when I request that students do not access certain sites. Instead of restricting access, I would rather teach students responsibility and the ethical use of the Internet. In a span of six years with daily monitoring of student use on the Internet, I have only had a few incidences of misuse and have dealt with them directly. I am concerned about decisions then such as a school-wide blockage of YouTube which affects all students and teachers regardless of whether or not they had acted irresponsibly.
Filtering is important with regards to protection against viruses but its impact on student learning and intellectual freedom must be kept at a minimum. Students, teachers, and parents need to communicate openly about Internet use and learn to use it in a responsible, ethical manner.
References:
Abram, Stephen. “Justifying the Social Tools: Improving the Conversation.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools; Jan/Feb 2007; 14, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 21 – 22.
McDonald, Dale. “Educating Students to Protect Themselves in Cyberspace.” Momentum. Nov/Dec 2007; 38, 4; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 88-89.
PLNet. “Bulletin: Websense Internet Filtering.” 2002 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/plnet/filtering_bulletin.pdf
Schrader, Alvin. “Internet Filters: Library Access Issues in a Cyberspace World.” 65th IFLA Council and General Conference – IFLA/FAIFE Open Session Lecture – August 25, 1999. http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.htm
Villano, Matt. “What Are We Protecting Them From?” T.H.E. Journal. May 2008; 35, 5; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 48 – 54.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)