The digital divide: access, education, and employment inequality

Education

The Existence of the Digital Divide

The existence of the so-called digital divide can no longer truly be debated; the evidence that there is a present and growing gap in the access to computers and other technology of the digital age that creates an equally wide chasm in individual's ability to improve their lives through better employment and education is simply too great. Since 2000, there has been a measured difference in the ability to both attain and maintain employment for those with computer skills and those without, and this trend has almost certainly increased in the near-decade since this study was completed (Norris & Conceicao 2004). Individuals and families with lower incomes and that inhabit areas with traditionally poor infrastructure, such as in city centers and rural areas, are far more likely to lack regular access to a computer and thus are far less likely to develop the computer skills necessary for employment (Norris & Conceicao 2004).

Perhaps even more distressing is that this divide does note even effect the poor and the rural dwellers equally. Women are much less likely to be able to participate in adult education programs that make use of computers, and less likely to succeed in such programs when they do participate, again due to being less likely to have had regular access to a computer and thus possessing a lack of the basic skills necessary to effectively use a computer in an educational setting (Vandenbroeck et al. 2008). This, of course, only exacerbates the employment issue of the digital divide; as these women miss out on educational opportunities due to their lack of computer skills, they also miss out on opportunities for job-specific training as well as a basic increase in knowledge and skill that would be beneficial to any employer. Reduced employment and education opportunities also reduce exposure to computers, perpetuating the divide.

The advent of the Internet and other computer technologies were heralded by many as an opportunity and means to effect greater equality, particularly in urban settings and adult education programs and facilities (Norris & Conceicao 2004; Vandenbroeck et al. 2008)). This promise has not been borne out by current trends in technological and adult education progress, however, and new methods for closing the digital divide -- and thus narrowing the currently increasing class divide -- must be devised and implemented. One solution would be to establish more information technology centers in urban areas. Despite having the most densely populated square mils in the country, urban inner cities have an even lower percentage of access to information technology than rural areas; placing additional computer training centers in urban centers. Or increasing computer availability at inner-city library branches, could go a long way towards narrowing the digital divide in major cities (Norris & Conceicao 2004).

New approaches to computer and technology education for women are also called for, as evidence has suggested that utility does not play a large motivating role in women acquiring proficiency with computers when given the opportunity (Vandenbroeck et al. 2008). E-learning educational programs could be developed that emphasize self-sufficiency and efficacy with the machines before turning to practical applications, which some research shows would lead to improvements in many women's progress and success in acquiring the necessary computer skills as is fits more closely with their learning emphasis (Vandenbroeck et al. 2008).

An Andragogous Course Session

Were I to find myself teaching a course using the methods of andragogy, a course in computer literacy would not inappropriate given the context of the digital divide. An appropriate title for the course, in keeping with andragogy's notion of self-directed and application-oriented learning, might be Achieving Computer Independence (Knowles 1980). Two course objectives would be to increase the confidence of the learners in their use of a basic operating system (most likely the latest version of Windows, as this will be the most useful in the professional world), and to increase Internet search engine and navigation capabilities. These objectives both allow for an extensive amount of self-guidance, with the educator (myself) being approachable as a resource to help guide learners in the process of self-learning, helping them to achieve immediately practical goals as adult learners are won't to do (Knowles 1980).

At the same time as adult learners (according to andragogy) desire instantly applicable and practical results, andragogy also posits an internal motivation as the stronger motivating factor for most adult learners (Knowles 1980). Most adult learners who have signed up for a course entitled Achieving Computer Independence presumably already have personal and internal reasons for wishing to acquire basic ore more extensive computer skills, and throughout the course I would attempt to draw out these reasons and relate them to curriculum material. The course topic would also allow for a fair amount of almost completely self-directed learning, which would allow for a great deal of individualization in the specific concepts taught and methods used with each individual learner, thus ensuring that while each acquired at least the same basic level of computer proficiency, each would also do so in a way useful to their specific purposes.

Knowles (1980) also notes the resistance that can develop in adult learners when they feel forced to submit to someone else's will, which in this particular course would not only apply to me as the instructor but also to the computers used by the learners. The objective of the course would be to give the learners a sense of mastery over the machines, but frustrations would certainly be expected -- especially early on in the course -- when the computer doesn't perform in the expected manner (as they are prone to do). This might lead to feelings of resentment towards the computer, as though it were actually in charge instead of the learner, which could be very detrimental to the learning process (Knowles 1980). My own computer proficiency would have to be honed to a fine point before teaching this class, in order to effectively demonstrate how to overcome such frustrations rather then growing to resent and mistrust computers.

The objective of increased Internet proficiency could develop something of an opposite problem; there are few technical frustrations or limitations that might surprise a learner hoping for a self-directed experience, but instead thee is a vast playground of self-direction where finding one's way can be incredibly confusing. This is where Knowles' suggestion of involving the learner(s) in the planning process would be an essential benefit to the course (1980). By involving the learner(s) in determining where to take the course or a particular lesson, I would be allowing for self-direction without the expectation of complete self-sufficiency, thus fulfilling a role as an adult educator rather than simply an instructor with adult students.

Situated Cognition v. Experiential Learning

One of the key features of adult education is its consistent move away from the same type of classroom learning situations used to educate children in most schools, and an emphasis on self-directed and experiential learning (Knowles 1980). Ongoing research and experimentation has suggested other methods of learning that are equally or possibly even more effective for adults, with situated cognition purported to be the most "natural" and effective way for the human mind, adult or otherwise, to take in new information and skills -- to learn, that is (Hansman 2001; Pickles 2009). Situated cognition is, in fact, a specific type of experiential learning, and the similarities between it and other more general types of experiential learning are numerous (Hansman 2001). There are also significant differences, however, that will require some elucidation in order for the efficacy of situated cognition to become clear.

Standard experiential learning and situated cognition both rely on actually doing the thing that is being learned -- engaging in the skill if it is a skill that is being learned, or actually examining the rock when learning about geology -- it is "hands-on" that doesn't simply allow for touch and physical contact with the learning material, but that goes beyond that to allow for demonstrable and self evident processes and facts to emerge (Hansman 2001; Pickles 2009). Essentially, experiential learning is learning by doing, or experiencing. All of this applies to both more traditional concepts of experiential learning and situational cognition, which is a specialized type of experiential learning (Hansman 2001). Both can and often do take place in groups, as well, though group learning is not required of experiential learning as a broad class of learning and/or instructional styles (Hansman 2001; Pickles 2009).

This leads us to the primary differences between situational cognition and other types of experiential learning. First and foremost, situated cognition takes place in real world situations, and depends on the social interactions between learners, instructors, and possibly others (Hansman 2001). There is still a necessity for personal experience in a situated cognition setting; simply being a member of a learning group that is engaged in experiential learning does not qualify the event as situational cognition. This allows for an experiential learning where those in the group can aid in the progression of learning of the less experienced members of the group, directly reinforcing the learning through social interaction (Hansman 2001). Situational cognition has fewer controls than much experiential learning simply because it takes place in real-world social situations, and this can lead to the learning of skills and information that were not even necessarily consciously sought by the learner or the group, but which when encountered can be mastered through the group functioning as a learning unit and through individual engagement with the learning task at hand (Hansman 2001).

Research has shown situational cognition to occur in everyday situations such as a grocery store without the experience becoming consciously one of learning -- as various social interactions require the possession of new skills and/or the processing of new information, learning automatically occurs in order to facilitate the continued functioning of the social situation (Hansman 2001). This makes intuitive sense, as well as being backed up by extensive empirical evidence.

Self-Directed v. Transformational Learning

Two predominant perspective concerning how adults learn are self-directed learning and transformative learning, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive but which likely do not both equitably apply to the process (es) of adult learning. Adult learning is necessarily more self-directed than most childhood learning and instruction, as the adult brings both more experience and presumably a more developed sense of self (in most cases) to bear on their learning than the typical child learner as well as a more specific set of standards and expectations (Knowles 1980). Adult learning is also often transformative simply due to the strength and/or specific nature of the internal motivation to learn that is the hallmark of many adult learners (Knowles 1980). Truly transformative learning, however, can clearly be differentiated from other types of learning based on the specifics of the situation that can lead to it.

Transformative learning, according to Mezirow (1975), begins with a disorienting dilemma and ends with a restored equilibrium (as ctd. In Cranton 2002). This is highly similar to standard self-directed learning in that the learner defines the issue and how to go about solving or understanding it. In both self-directed and transformative learning, the issue or "disorienting dilemma" is most likely not something within the learner's control, but it is still up to them to define the specific issue and identify methods for resolving them (Cranton 2002). The more conscious this act of framing the situation -- and the more intense and/or immediate the situation is to the learner -- the more likely it is to lead to transformational learning (Isopahkala-Bouret 2008).

Transformative learning by definition requires a major shift in viewpoint or perspective, and this is usually instigated at the outset of the learning process -- indeed, is often the catalyst for learning -- when some incident, situation, or revelation causes the learner to realize that they have been in possession of an incorrect or incomplete worldview, and they set out to perfect this perspective (Cranton 2002). Self-directed learning, on the other hand, does not require epiphanies of the same degree, but does imply a greater deal of autonomy and conscious control over perspective. That is, the transformative learner is made more consciously aware of making a deliberate change to heir worldview, whereas the self-directed learner is more aware of making deliberate learning choices within their given worldview -- though this does not preclude self-directed learners from adjusting their worldview or perspective as well, of course (Cranton 2002). Transformative learning also often requires more input from exterior sources that might not be explicitly sought by the learner but that will nonetheless be applied by them to the process of establishing a new perspective (Cranton 2002).

The similarities between transformative and self-directed learning far outweigh the differences, and as mentioned above the two types of learning are not mutually exclusive; transformative learning can take place in a very self-directed manner. That being said, self-directed learning is almost certainly the more common and most applicable of the two learning types; it is more easily achieved by both the learner and the educator (Cranton 2004). This does not mean that transformative learning is not something to strive for, but a transformative learning experience often comes down to the individual learners' situation and need for transformation (Isopahkala-Bouret 2008).

Critical Theory v Postmodernism

The construction of knowledge and power in critical theory and a postmodernist perspective have many features in common, but there are key differences that render these two concepts quite distinct from each other. The implications that these different perspective might not be as noticeable in all learning situations, but an understanding of these theories and their assessment of how learning is accomplished is essential to an understanding of learning theory in general (Kilgore 2001). Both critical theory and the postmodernist perspective have developed concrete understandings and explanations of how information is transmitted and received both by individuals and by societies and cultures at large, and thus how learning is achieved on both macro and micro levels (Kilgore 2001). An objective analysis of these concepts is difficult in that such analysis inherently rejects basic postmodernist tenets, but it will develop some understanding of these different perspectives and the ways they interact with and predict learning (Kilgore 2001).

Both critical theory and postmodernism are concerned with power, and the way that power within a given society or other social framework works as a factor in determining the direction and degree of knowledge (Kilgore 2001). Both perspectives see learning as an activity made up of receiving and transmitting chunks of information or "discourses" to, from, and about the social world (Kilgore 2001). These two similarities illustrate the extent to which these theories are aligned, which is a remarkable degree -- both see the exchange of discourses as the means of learning and communicating, and both theoretical perspectives also suggest that various power structures exert control not only over the how, when, what, and to whom of these discourses but also our ability to create and transmit certain ideas at all (Kilgore 2001).

With this degree of similarity, however, comes an equally profound layer of difference between the two theories. The primary difference resides in the fact that critical theorists assume that rational inquiry is the most efficient and most commonly used mans to knowledge, while postmodernists do not hold this assumption at all, and in fact question the certitude of any and all knowledge (Kilgore 2001). This fundamental difference in the two perspectives, of course, leads to other differences in the two understandings of learning. Though critical theorists do not necessarily believe in absolute knowledge, they do believe that what is known through a certain lens or hegemony; the dominant worldview of the given culture and the underlying logic upon which all other rational thought in the culture is based (Kilgore 2001). Postmodernists, though also believing that knowledge is seen through a similar lens of the power structure, also argue that knowledge is multi-faceted and variegated even within that cultural lens, and there are differences in understanding, belief, and assumption within a culture or even an individual that are not based on logic or rationality at all (Kilgore 2001).

Again, the differences in these two perspectives are quite extensive, but the differences between them are also quite profound. The two agree that the world we see is largely dependent on our cultural perspective and forces that we have no control over, but they diverge entirely on what they suggest we can come to know within this limited context. Postmodernism allows for a greater potential of knowledge with less certainty, and critical theory a singularity of vision to the exclusion of all else.