Spicing this overly texty blog up a bit...

Research Summary 2: Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is “the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others” (Belsey, in Butler et al, 2009, p. 1).

According to a Bill recently presented to the Queensland government, roughly one in ten Australian schoolchildren has been the victim of cyberbullying (Flegg, 2009). Cyberbullying has become a highly visible and worrying feature of the digital age, and one that receives a great deal of attention in the media, with high-profile cases making national news. A spate of cyberbullying-related suicides in recent years has heightened the profile of this worrying trend (Flegg, 2009, p. 1). While face-to-face bullying was once thought of and tolerated as a “normal part of childhood” (Campbell, 2005, p. 68), the rise of cyberbullying has invoked a greater public interest in this malignant use of information and communication technologies.

As often happens with the advent and adoption of new technologies, the Australian law system is struggling to keep pace with the ever-changing uses of information and communication technologies such as the internet, instant messaging, SMS, social networking sites and related technologies. At present Australia does not have any specifically anti-cyberbullying legislation, and only New South Wales has any legislation addressing face-to-face bullying. For victims who seek redress after a cyberbullying incident, cyberbullies must be prosecuted according to traditional legislation against crimes such as assault, stalking, threats, extortion, harassment and so on (Butler et al, p. 89). The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 also includes offences relating to the misuse of telecommunications, which may apply to cyberbullying. However, despite the likelihood of some of the above offences applying to individual cases of cyberbullying, no cyberbullying cases have yet made it to Australian courts, so we have no precedents on which to base a detailed discussion of how it will be handled by Australian law.

What is more worrying to the public than the illegality of cyberbullying, is the psychological damage it can inflict on its victim. Similarly to face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying can cause serious emotional distress to the bullied child, and by its very nature can be relentless. Whereas a child suffering from face-to-face bullying can physically escape their bully in their own home, the use of information and communication technologies to bully mean that the impact can be felt twenty-four hours a day (Butler et al, 2009, p. 2). There is literally no escaping a cyberbully. In addition to this, the Australian Institute of Criminology asserts that many victims appear to be reluctant to report cyberbullying to adults such as parents or teachers (AIC, 2010). This may be partly due to Australia’s “don’t dob” culture and partly due, in the school environment, to the victim’s perceived risk of being punished for using banned equipment such as mobile phones, and internet services such as YouTube, Facebook or MySpace.

The public and enduring nature of content shared on the internet is another reason why cyberbullying is being treated as more serious than traditional face-to-face-bullying. The ability to share bullying content with a very large audience brings with it a greater imbalance of power between bully and victim, and the range of information and communication technologies that a cyberbully may use makes it more difficult for authority figures such as teachers to compel the bully to stop. The large and public audience can exacerbate the effects of the cyberbullying, where the original bully is aided by bystanders who, although not the instigator, exacerbate the humiliation of the victim by viewing, forwarding, commenting on or replying to, and otherwise taking part in the use of ICTs in a manner which is insulting or hurtful to the victim. As an example of the way in which bystanders deepen the impact of cyberbullying, in a 2009 incident in Sydney, a young female victim of cyberbullying was approached by male strangers in Bondi Junction after slanderous statements about her sexual proclivities was posted on a public MySpace profile page (ABC News, 2009). Incidents such as this highlight the potential for ‘real-life’ danger to cyberbullying victims.

The public concern around cyberbullying stems from a general lack of knowledge about information and communication technologies, and an attendant reservation about allowing young people and children to access such technologies without sufficient supervision. While blocking websites and installing internet-censoring products such as Net Nanny can go some way to curtailing inappropriate use of the internet by children, cyberbullies, like face-to-face bullies, will find ways of circumventing technological blocks. The most effective weapon against cyberbullying, just like face-to-face bullying, is likely to still be sufficient adult supervision and open lines of communication with teenagers and children about ICTs, their use of them, and who to go to for help.

Cyber-bullying experts recommend that schools address cyberbullying with a similar strategy as has been applied to other social problems such as drink-driving, unsafe sexual practices and illegal drug use. This strategy involves a whole-school approach which includes the students, their parents, teachers and school administrators, as well as outside authorities such as the police. The strategy aims at crafting a social norm which looks down on cyberbullying and educates young people about the support networks available to them, to encourage victims to speak out (Bazelon, 2010). Such cyberbullying prevention programs should also seek to demystify ICTs and empower parents and teachers to speak with their children and monitor their online activities.

Cyberbullying has become a contentious contemporary issue, but if it is conceptualized as a social ill similar to other youth issues such as drug use, drink-driving or unsafe sexual practices, it can be addressed with similar community health education strategies. These include educating parents about the risks of information and communication technologies, creating a shared culture of disapproval of cruel online behaviours, opening up the lines of communication between young people and adult support networks, and specifically legislating against cyberbullying. With a concerted and shared approach, the prevalence of cyberbullying can be curtailed and ICTs can be harnessed in educational environments for their benefits, rather than mistrusted and restricted for their attendant risks.

Sources:

Bazelon, E., (February 8, 2010) “Could Anyone Have Saved Phoebe Prince?” Slate.com, Washington Post. Accessed at http://www.slate.com/id/2244057/pagenum/all

Butler, D., Kift, S., & Campbell, M. (2009) "Cyber Bullying In Schools and the Law:
Is There an Effective Means of Addressing the Power Imbalance?" eLaw Journal: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 16(1). Accessed at https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/index.php/elawmurdoch/article/view/24/8

"Covert and Cyber Bullying: Research in Practice No. 9" (2010) Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Accessed at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/09.aspx

Lifeline Australia, http://www.lifeline.org.au/find_help/cyber_bullying

David Mark, "Elite school's horrific cyber-bullying case", May 8, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/07/2563942.htm

Reach Out Teachers Network, http://teachers.reachoutpro.com.au/using-technology/supporting-young-people-to-be-safe-online/cyber-bullying.aspx

Research Journal 10: Cyberbullying and the Law

I am currently reading "Cyber Bullying In Schools and the Law: Is There an Effective Means of Addressing the Power Imbalance?" . This very interesting article explores the criminality of cyberbullying and the potential for cyberbullies to be prosecuted under Australian criminal law. As I have no formal training in law some of the finer definitions are unfamiliar to me, however in general it is an easy to read document.

Butler et al explore the possibility of cyberbullies being prosecuted in the criminal law system. At present only New South Wales has an anti- school bullying legislation, which applies only to bullying on the school grounds and cannot be extended to cyberbullying. However, if cyberbullies were prosecuted under an existing offence such as assault, stalking, threats, extortion, harrassment and so on (Butler et al, p. 89), victims could have some hope of legal redress.

Another means of redress may be via the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, Section 474.17, which makes it an offence to use telecommunication services to menace, harass or cause offence (punishable by 3 years) (Butler et al, p. 91). Butler et al include the internet in the definition of telecommunication services.

Since there is currently no specific legislation against cyberbullying, victims have to rely on laws such as discussed above for redress against their bullies. The good news is that there appear to be a number of ways in which cyberbullies could be prosecuted - the test will be a precedent in the courts, which has, as yet, not occured in Australia. The bad news is that these remedies are still only available for children who choose to report their victimisation to authorities - and studies such as that by the Australian Institute of Criminology show that children are reluctant to report cyberbullying, meaning that the law is unable to assist children that do not utilise it.

Source:
Butler, D., Kift, S., & Campbell, M. (2009) "Cyber Bullying In Schools and the Law:
Is There an Effective Means of Addressing the Power Imbalance?" eLaw Journal: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 16(1). Accessed at https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/index.php/elawmurdoch/article/view/24/8

"Covert and Cyber Bullying: Research in Practice No. 9" (2010) Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Accessed at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/09.aspx

Research Journal 9: The Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study

The first thing I have to say about cyberbullying, and bullying in general, is that I object to the tendency to define bullying as necessarily a repeated act. I believe a single, isolated nasty or mean act, whether in person or via ICTs, can be just as harmful to a bullying victim as repeat offences; and that one-off events should not be written off, as the "Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study" does, as not being an instance of bullying.

Taking the case of the Sydney private school girls that I mentioned in a previous post, the publication of a MySpace page dedicated to slandering girls based on their alleged sexual activities, alcohol and drug-related behaviours may have been, for some of the victims, a one-off incident. However I would argue that for some of the victims of that particular incident, being slandered on the internet, even if it was only once, would be just as upsetting as sustained 'real world' attacks could be. Every time a school friend or stranger mentioned that page, those girls would be embarrassed, ashamed, upset. That the page was only created once does not mean that its impact on those girls was felt only once.

My own experience of cyberbullying, which I would prefer not to go into in depth, was a sustained group email about me, which was sent to me by one of the perpetrators. As a recipient in the "Send to all" list, I saw, and was very upset by, what was said about me. In total there would have been between seventy and a hundred emails sent amongst the group. The whole episode lasted about 24 hours and was never repeated. But its effect was nonetheless deeply upsetting and embarrassing. However by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations' definition of cyber bullying, I was not a victim.

Research Journal 8: "Reach Out" on Cyberbullying

Youth organisation "Reach Out" draws some distinctions between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, one of which in particular I feel cuts to the core of why cyberbullying is being treated as so much more serious than traditional bullying. That distinction is the "24/7" nature of cyberbullying. Where a child is bullied in the traditional, schoolyard sense, once they go home they can effectively escape the torment and have a reprieve. The problem with the highly communicative, tech-savvy world that kids operate in nowadays however, is that even at home they are not safe from cyberbullying. Abusive SMS messages, Facebook and MySpace comments, emails, instant messages and so on can be sent and received at any time, day or night.

As well as the round-the-clock nature of cyberbullying, its publicity is another very harmful aspect. Having a large audience that are easily accessible through mailing groups, discussion boards, Facebook and MySpace friend lists, group email and so on means that a bully can share their antagonism with a wide group. A recent cyberbullying incident at a Sydney private school (see article) highlights the extremely public nature of this form of abuse. The long-term effects of defamatory cyberbullying can be far more damaging than traditional schoolyard bullying. As in the case of the above article, some of the female victims were actually approached by strangers based on defamatory information available about them online. This puts these girls at risk in the 'real world' as well as in the online world. Not to mention if any of this information resurfaces in their futures.

Sources:
Reach Out Teachers Network, http://teachers.reachoutpro.com.au/using-technology/supporting-young-people-to-be-safe-online/cyber-bullying.aspx

David Mark, "Elite school's horrific cyber-bullying case", May 8, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/07/2563942.htm

Research Journal 7: The Australian Institute of Criminology on Cyberbullying

The Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (2009) has found that 10% of Year 4 to Year 9 students had been cyber bullied in the term prior to the study being conducted. However the incidence of cyberbullying appears to be flying "under the radar", as its very nature makes it difficult for parents and teachers to monitor it, and students report a reluctance to involve adults in their cyberbullying conflicts.

Source: The Australian Institute of Criminology, "Covert and cyber bullying", Research in Practice no. 9, February 2010. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/09.aspx

Research Journal 7: Cyberbullying

Lifeline Australia defines cyber bullying as "when someone uses electronic communication tools (such as a mobile phone or computer) to bully and intimidate others. This may include slandering, blackmailing, spreading rumours, excluding from interactions, harassing, threatening or insulting someone."

Lifeline's examples include actions such as spreading rumours online, sending threatening emails, text messages or comments, sharing a person's confidential communications with others, breaking into someone's email or social networking accounts to send messages to others while posing as the victim, changing identity and sending messages which tease, humiliate, threaten, or harrass the victim, and creating web pages to make fun of the victim.

Bullying, and cyberbullying, are not restricted only to children. I have personally been the victim of cyberbullying as an adult. One of the hallmarks of cyberbullying, I think, is that the anonymity of interacting in cyberspace emboldens the bully, who can hide behind a false name or profile, and with less risk of being caught and punished, is more willing to say and do things that they might not have done in 'real life'.

Even though cyberbullying can affect adults as well, for the purposes of this assignment I will be concentrating on cyberbullying for under-18s.

Source:
Lifeline Australia, http://www.lifeline.org.au/find_help/cyber_bullying

Research Journal 6: Cyberbullying and Cybersafety

I've come across a Bill presented to the Queensland Parliament regarding the institution of anti-cyberbullying legislation. The Shadow Minister for Education and Training, Dr. Bruce Flegg, says that one in 10 schoolchildren are the victims of cyberbullying (Flegg, http://moggill.net/images/stories/cyber.pdf).

Dr. Flegg appears to be concentrating on the practice of schoolyard incidents such as fights or "bashings" being filmed and disseminated via the internet. The process of sharing the video evidence of such an event perpetuates the torment for the bullied child, so that the event lives on, not only in their memory but in a shared space in which their bully, the bully's friends, and the wider school community, can relive the incident again and again.

Part of Dr. Flegg's proposed solution to the problem of cyberbullying is the legalised, permanent confiscation of the equipment that a bully has used to cyberbully, such as the mobile phone that the footage has been captured on. I think Dr. Flegg has, at least partially, missed the point of cyberbullying. Part of the danger of cyberbullying is its ephemeral nature, the way in which the information is disseminated into a broader sphere, cyberspace. Confiscating a single piece of equipment will not remedy this fact for the bullied child. Certainly the confiscation acts as punishment for the bully; however the offensive material is still accessible online.

Research Summary 1

The “digital divide” is a topic of great concern with reference to the provision of equitable education in Australia. The debate over the digital divide surrounds the question of whether the introduction and proliferation of the internet is perpetuating social divisions and further disadvantaging already disenfranchised groups, or alternatively, whether the internet is leveling the playing field by providing disenfranchised groups with an alternative social setting. Proponents of the “digital divide” thesis argue that a lack of access to information communication technologies (ICTs) among disadvantaged groups such as low income earners is encouraging inequity between social groups and further widening the division between privileged and underprivileged members of society.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics, private enterprise and not-for-profit organisations have explored the proliferation of internet use in Australia and around the world. The ABS has verified the existence of the digital divide, although the instance of internet use is improving within multiple societal groups. Studies by the ABS have documented the influence of factors such as gender, age, geographical location and income on individual use of the internet. Gaps have been identified in the frequency of use of the internet between disparate groups such as youth and older generations, and in the early days of the internet gaps in usage were apparent even between males and females. The individual’s occupation also has an understandable impact on internet usage, with white-collar workers and professionals having a predictably higher rate of usage than blue-collar workers. However, although most of these gaps have been noticeably narrowing over the course of the last decade, the gap between income brackets is the area of most concern to educators, media commentators and policy makers, and this is the gap that has been the slowest to diminish.

From the perspective of educators, the greatest concern with the “digital divide” is its effect on the quality of education provided to students from low socio-economic backgrounds, who have a lower internet usage than students from middle- to high-income backgrounds. Employing ICTs in the classroom and beyond is problematic when students from low income backgrounds may be educationally disadvantaged by their lack of access to internet in the home. The risk of disadvantaging these students may affect some schools’ decision to implement online teaching practices such as learning management systems and the use of tools such as wikis.

However, as we see the implementation of the Rudd Government’s 2007 election promise of a computer for every student in years nine, ten, eleven and twelve, the question of individual accessibility is becoming less of a factor in education. The implementation of the one-to-one program is already underway, with the first year nine students across New South Wales having received their laptops in 2009. I would contend that the presence, or lack, of information communication technology infrastructure within schools will become more of a concern than the current “digital divide”. The notion of the “digital divide” may be more easily applied to differences in levels of ICT infrastructure between schools, rather than between individual students. For example, schools with lower access to funding will experience greater difficulty integrating the laptops into their ICT infrastructure than better funded schools.

A major difficulty in characterising the “digital divide” is that the name implies a dichotomous relationship between the digital “haves” and “have nots”. In reality, the divide is a spectrum, with individuals experiencing widely varying accessibility and usage. The “divide” does not take into account individual habits of use; that is, whether individuals use the internet for work related purposes only, for educational requirements, or purely for entertainment purposes. Similarly, a person who accesses the internet at their local public library, or in their school’s computer labs, may report that they have internet access; but their level of access is vastly different from a household with three or four wireless-enabled laptops and an unlimited broadband connection. Considerations such as these mean that the “digital divide” would be better characterised as a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.

The “digital divide” is quickly narrowing, thanks primarily to competition making ICTs more affordable and accessible even to people from low income backgrounds. Policies such as the Rudd Government’s “Digital Education Revolution” are also assisting to narrow the gap between the digital “haves” and “have nots”. Although the implementation of the “Digital Education Revolution” will increase the number of students with a computer, it will not increase the number with reliable, high-speed, affordable internet connections outside of the school environment. Educators must therefore keep their students’ varying levels of accessibility in mind when employing ICTs in their teaching methods, particularly where non-school-based learning such as assignments and homework are concerned, so as not to disadvantage students whose internet access is limited. I believe in the near future the nature of the “digital divide” will become not so much a consideration of varying internet accessibility between individual users, but between institutions. As better funded or more progressive schools implement ICTs in their physical school environment and teaching practices, and lower funded or more reluctant schools do not, the gap in performance between schools will widen. The introduction of national assessment and publication of NATPLAN scores on the My School website may also mean that this widening gap will have an effect on enrolments at lower-funded schools, which will in turn effect a self-perpetuating cycle of poor funding, poor ICT implementation, shrinking enrolments and decreasing academic performance by students. To avoid this eventuality, governments will need to mirror the “Digital Education Revolution” with substantial infrastructure funding and personal development for educators, not simply distributing computers to students.




Bibliography
Blanchard, Metcalf and Burns. 2007. Bridging the Digital Divide: Creating opportunities for marginalised young people to get connected. Available at http://www.inspire.org.au/what-we-do-actnow-bridging-the-digital-divide-youth-action-project.html. Accessed 28th February 2010.

Blanchard, Michelle; Metcalf, Atari; Degney, Jo; Herman, Helen and Burns, Jane. ‘Rethinking the digital divide: findings from a study of marginalised young people's information communication technology (ICT) use.’ Youth Studies Australia, 27, 4, Dec 2008, p. 35-42. Accessed 12 Mar 10.

“Learning to be part of the knowledge economy: digital divides and media literacy”, Lyndsay Grant, September 2007, www.futurelab.org.uk

“Episode 31: The Culture Shift”, The Virtual Classroom podcast, 19 January 2010, Accessed 3 March 2010.

“Equipping Every Learner for the 21st Century”, CISCO, 2008, http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/ekits/Equipping_Every_Learner_for_21st_Century_White_Paper.pdf?POSITION=LINK&COUNTRY_SITE=us&CAMPAIGN=Century21Learning2008&CREATIVE=Equipping+Every+Global+Learner+for+the+21st+Century&REFERRING_SITE=NewsatCiscoPressKit, Accessed 28 February 2010.

Research Journal 5: The Digital Divide

"Beyond the 'digital divide': internet diffusion and inequality in Australia.

According to the above article, advocates of the 'digital divide' thesis contend that the Internet further advantages already privileged groups within society, whilst further marginalising already disadvantaged categories. On the opposite side of the debate, critics of the 'digital divide' thesis believe that the Internet levels the playing field, promoting social inclusion and egalitarianism.

The article examines the statistics on internet use between groups defined by gender, age, income and education, and finds that although the "divide" between genders and even between age groups is quickly narrowing, the divide between individuals of varying incomes increased between 1990 and 2000. Admittedly, statistics on internet use from ten years ago are already "old news", and the researchers predict that as the high-end income brackets become saturated with internet use and the low-end catch up, the gap will narrow markedly. However it is the time in which the gap persists that is the concern - inevitably the gap WILL close, but the effect of the gap on people in the "have not" side of the divide can be substantial. In this sense, the article upholds the "digital divide" thesis: that there IS a difference in internet accessibility and use between social groups, and that this difference affects their lifestyles and opportunities in tangible and important ways.

The above article was published in 2006; and in four years there has obviously been a marked increase in internet use across the board. However I think the concept of the "digital divide" is changing shape now. No longer solely about who has access and who does not, the importance of the divide in education is now more exclusively linked to funding and school infrastructure. Particularly in this era of national assessment, the "haves" and "have nots" are becoming the schools and classes with varying ICT access, rather than the individuals. That is to say, that the "divide" has become the difference between the quality of education delivered in a large school with an IWB in every classroom, wireless broadband throughout and a laptop for every student, and a small, poorly funded school which relies on traditional, non-technological methods of teaching.

Willis, Suzanne and Tranter, Bruce. Beyond the 'digital divide': internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. [online]. Journal of Sociology, v.42, no.1, Mar 2006: (43)-59. Availability: ISSN: 1440-7833. [cited 12 Mar 10].

Something To Keep Me Inspired

Research Journal 4: The Digital Divide

Learning to be a part of the knowledge economy: digital divides and media literacy"
Lyndsay Grant

In the above article, Lyndsay Grant explores the digital divide and how the concept is an oversimplification of reality. Grant rightly points out that the "divide" is in fact a spectrum of ICT accessibility and use. For example, a person with computer access in their workplace may have access for only work-related purposes; similarly, a family with three or four laptops in the one household may only use their ICT for entertainment purposes, not for intellectual or educational support.

Grant also explores what is meant by the "knowledge economy". According to Grant, the importance of bridging the digital divide is to allow the disadvantaged 'disconnected' people on the wrong side of the divide to take part in the "knowledge economy". Grant quotes British ex-PM Tony Blair who argued that “Universal internet access is vital if we are not only to avoid social divisions over the new economy but to create a knowledge economy of the future which is for everyone” (p. 4)

What is a knowledge economy? Grant defines it as a facet of "informational capitalism", which is an economic system in which value is ascribed to producing knowledge and processing information rather than producing goods. (p. 5)

I would contend that the "knowledge economy", which people are excluded from if they are on the wrong side of the "digital divide", is not a true representation of the real world, which I would argue is still very much a world of consumer capitalism rather than informational capitalism. I think there is a danger for intellectuals and academics to assume that everyone wants to take part in the same ceaseless exchange of information and "knowledge" as they do. Many individuals, on both sides of the "digital divide", are uninterested in taking part in an "informational capitalist" world. Many individuals who do access to ICTs, will nonetheless not take part in the "knowledge economy".

I think the salient point in Grant's article is that the term "digital divide" is an oversimplification of an issue that should perhaps more accurately termed a "digital spectrum".

Research Journal 3: The Digital Divide

I was listening to a podcast by "The Virtual Staffroom" this morning on the way to university. The topic was a fairly general discussion about integrating ICT into the classroom and some of the implications concerning curriculum and so on.

A couple of the speakers discussed the Rudd Government's election promise to provide laptops for every student in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 in public schools in Australia, and in particular detailed the implementation of this promise as it is taking place in New South Wales. According to Ben Jones, who is involved with the laptop rollout in the NSW Department of Education, all year 9 students in New South Wales would be provided with a laptop in 2010, with subsequent year 9 students being provided with the computers in 2011, 2012 and 2013, by which time the election promise would be fulfilled in New South Wales.

According to Ben Jones on "The Virtual Staffroom", the implementation is not as simple as unloading a truck full of laptops at each school. Serious consideration has been made for factors such as wireless networks and the amount of traffic they will need to support. For example, according to Mr Jones' discussion of the rollout, every wireless router in a school will be required to support up to thirty students connected at any one time. Considerations like this will ensure that the new technologies are not hampered by substandard "background" details.

Once again I find my conception of the "digital divide" shifting: if the government provides a laptop and software worth $5,500 to every student (source: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/gotoschool/highschool/dernsw/transforming.php), surely there should be very little concern about a "divide" at all?

If implementation of the laptop scheme runs as smoothly as the New South Wales Department of Education purports, the "digital divide", at least in schools, should be practically nonexistent. So, is the "digital divide" a mountain made out of a molehill? Is it just another buzzword used by conservative educators and commentators to create an obstacle for educational engagement with technology?

At this point, I am inclined to think so... But we'll see what the next source says!

Research Journal 2: The Digital Divide

Thoughts:
I'm reading CISCO's White Paper "Equipping Every Learner for the 21st Century" and it's just struck me that I've been thinking about the "digital divide" in terms of intra-national, primarily socio-economic inequality.

But of course the digital era is also adding an extra barrier to equality between the developed and developing world - further disadvantaging people in countries that are already disadvantaged. The "divide" between what used to be called the "first world" and "third world" countries, which used to be a primarily geopolitical, economic divide, is now encompassing the divide in digital literacy which comes about from lack of access to technology.

According to www.internetworldstats.com, only 25.6% of the world's population uses the internet. Twenty-five percent!! North America boasts the largest proportion of internet uses, at roughly 74%. Australia is grouped with Oceania, at 60.4%. By contrast, only 6.8% of Africa's population uses the internet.

All this time I've been thinking about how the digital divide will affect my classroom practice: how can I make assignments fair to students who don't have unlimited access to the internet at home. I realise that the international digital divide is a "big picture" problem, and that my approach to the digital divide in the classroom is very much a "small picture" approach, so the two problems, although related, are in very different spheres.

Thoughts on my Teaching Philosophy

Why do I teach?
I teach because I enjoy learning, and I enjoy helping others learn. I teach because I want a job that inspires me, challenges me, provokes me and makes me feel alive.

How do students best learn?
Students learn in different ways - we've all heard of the ways of learning: visually, aurally, kinesthetically... I think it's easy to think everyone learns in the same way we do, and to close off our minds to the other options available to us.
In a nutshell, I would say that students learn by being immersed, being engaged, being interested, being challenged, being inspired... That may sound like an echo of my first paragraph, and it' supposed to. Teachers can be learners, and learners can be teachers - I think it pays to keep that in mind, both for teacher humility and student empowerment.

What are my goals for my students?
My goals for my students are for them to leave my classroom as "more" than what they were when they met me. That is, for my students to have grown as individuals and as members of their society and culture. Obviously, my goal is for my students to take away something productive and useful to them, and hopefully some measure of my own enthusiasm for learning.

How will I know when I — and they — have succeeded?
I think this is almost a trick question, because it implies that there is an end-point to my teaching and to my students' learning. Success in learning is not a destination, it is a journey - and one, in my view, that should never end. That said, when I see that a student's marks are higher at the end of a year with me than they were the previous year, I'll feel good about my achievement and theirs. When I see students help their peers, or actively debate a topic as a group, or take an interest in what I've introduced to them, I'll feel great.

What qualities are important for a teacher?
Empathy, passion, love, courage, strength, enthusiasm, ethics, a love of learning, equal capacities for criticism and encouragement, people skills, intuition, curiosity, honesty, reliability, fallibility, humility, pride, approachability, knowledge, and more.