Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are an innovative solution to interactive lesson delivery. Encompassing a projector, touch-sensitive board and lesson creation software, the technology allows teachers to present concepts and ideas in a multitude of ways, from basic text and diagrams right through to videos, sound, animations, and online websites. These capabilities open up a myriad of options for creative teachers to enliven their delivery and engage their students with a novel and exciting technology.
As with any new technology, in the early stages of interactive whiteboard implementation there has been at once an explosion of interest and, simultaneously, a shortage of quantitative research. Qualitative studies abound on the uses of IWBs in the classroom, citing their ability to motivate and engage students (Haldane, 2007, p. 264) and their facility to encourage interactive learning episodes via the incorporation of multimedia resources (Higgins et al, 2007, p. 215). As yet there are fewer quantitative resources available on IWBs in the classroom, but the longer that IWBs are established in schools the more such studies will become available.
One such study was commissioned by interactive whiteboard provider Promethean Technologies in 2009. On behalf of Promethean, Robert Marzano conducted a study of the relationship between utilisation of the Promethean ActivClassroom package (including the IWB, software and learner response devices), and student achievement levels in over seventy US schools and across all grade levels. According to Promethean, student achievement was increased by an average of 17% in lessons delivered using the ActivClassroom (Marzano, 2009, p. v). This result was influenced by factors including the teacher's years of experience in teaching; the teacher's level of confidence with the technology and the length of time the teacher has been using the technology for; and the proportion of the lesson during which the IWB is utilised. (Marzano, 2009, p. v)
The extent to which the use of the ActivClassroom equipment improved student attainment differed across the year levels. Disappointingly, a minority of the subject groups actually recorded a decrease in results. Possible reasons for this negative growth were not articulated in the Marzano report, but may have included extenuating factors such as the loss or addition of individual students in the subject groups, teacher or student absences, environmental interruptions and so on. On the assumption that negative achievement is impossible - that is, that students cannot possibly exit a classroom having lost some of their subject knowledge - the negative achievement groups were excluded from the study's final results. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the average results in student attainments, however outside of this small number of negative achievement groups, the effect of the Promethean technologies in the study was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes studied, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Improvement in student achievement levels was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12) (Marzano, 2009, pp. 22-23). This is an overwhelmingly positive result, and supports the anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of IWBs.
The otherwise largely anecdotal evidence from teachers and students who use IWBs has been enthusiastic. Many teachers report the effectiveness of Iutilising WBs in their classroom for engaging and motivating students and facilitating more interactive lessons, as well as enabling the utilisation of a range of sources and stimuli that were previously either impossible or difficult to integrate into lessons, such as internet resources and audiovisual content. Students in some classes are reported to be highly engaged, displaying animated reactions to activities taking place on the IWB, "faces set with concentration and anticipation, delight when an observing pupil had got it right... excited and animated gestures to offer an alternative suggestion if the pupil at the board was having difficulty" (Haldane, 2007, pp. 264-265). While these behaviours may indicate enthusiasm and entertainment more so than students' measurable achievement levels, if engagement is the first step in effective teaching, then the IWBs certainly appear to be helping teachers get there.
While quantitative reportage on IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is ongoing, early signs indicate their effectiveness in fostering a more interactive and positive learning environment. Whether this interactivity is primarily between the teacher and the board, students and the board, or between all three parties, is less well documented. It has been noted that the high level of interactivity possible could encourage a teacher-centred focus within some classrooms, in which the teacher to some extent resumes their "sage on the stage" role. Similarly, a relatively low utilisation of the IWBs' interactivity does not necessarily correlate to a low level of student-to-teacher, or student-to-student interactivity.
For all the studies, articles and reviews, it is important to note that the interactive whiteboard, however novel and useful, is just a tool. Without sound pedagogical and content knowledge on the part of the teacher, the IWB may in some instances even be detrimental to class achievement (for example, where class discussion veers off-topic or where the board's capabilities become the focus of the lesson rather than the conduit of stimuli and information). To ensure that IWBs are properly utilised to their highest capacity, the pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the effectiveness of their teaching, should remain the central focus on studies on their use of interactive whiteboards.
Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112
Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au
Haldane, M., "Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 257-270
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., and Miller, D., "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., and Cardini, A., "Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 303-317
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Showing posts with label Research Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research Journal. Show all posts
Monday, April 12, 2010
Promethean ActivClassroom Study
Many thanks to Mark Sylvia of Logical Choice Technologies for kindly providing the report that today's journal entry is based on.
Mark has provided a fifty-four page report of a study of the relationship between teacher use of an IWB and student achievement, which reports an average increase in student achievement of 17% when their teacher employed the ActivClassroom in their instruction. The report suggests that this gain in achievement was the result of the following conditions:
• a teacher has 10 years or more of teaching experience
• a teacher has used the technology for two years or more
• a teacher uses the technology between 75 and 80 percent of the time in his or her classroom
• a teacher has high confidence in his or her ability to use the technology
(Marzano, 2009, v)
Promethean ActivClassroom is a product encompassing an interactive whiteboard, the accompanying lesson creation software, and "integrated learner response devices". The Marzano report is available from Promethean's website here.
Obviously some caution must be taken when analysing reports provided by a party with a vested interest (in this case, Promethean's sales volume). That said, the Marzano study appears to have created an optimum environment for testing the impact of the Promethean technologies. The same teachers taught the same unit to two separate classes: one, the treatment group, was taught with the aid of the Promethean technologies, while the second, the control group, was not. (Marzano, 2009, 2)
As noted above, an average of 17% increase in student achievement when utilising Promethean technologies was noted by the report. However, some groups in the study actually recorded a decrease in results - one year seven group reported a discouraging 30% drop in achievement levels. However this particular group gained four students during the course of the study, whose pretest results were not available. (Marzano, 2009, 16) Negative achievement groups such as this one were excluded from the final results, on the justification that students could not possibly exit a class having lost some of their subject knowledge. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Clearly their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the results, however without knowing the mitigating factors (teacher ability/confidence with the technology, possible teacher or student absences, etc) it is difficult to understand the dramatic drop in achievement.
The small number of negative gains aside, the effect of the Promethean technologies on the treatment group classes was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Some measure of improvement was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12). Regardless of the amount of individual students' improvement in achievement, I would count this as a fairly decisive win for interactive whiteboard technologies.
Note: no examples of assessments of students were provided in the report, so we cannot analyse the achievement gains, for example whether they were testing for lower- or higher-order thinking.
Source:
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Mark has provided a fifty-four page report of a study of the relationship between teacher use of an IWB and student achievement, which reports an average increase in student achievement of 17% when their teacher employed the ActivClassroom in their instruction. The report suggests that this gain in achievement was the result of the following conditions:
• a teacher has 10 years or more of teaching experience
• a teacher has used the technology for two years or more
• a teacher uses the technology between 75 and 80 percent of the time in his or her classroom
• a teacher has high confidence in his or her ability to use the technology
(Marzano, 2009, v)
Promethean ActivClassroom is a product encompassing an interactive whiteboard, the accompanying lesson creation software, and "integrated learner response devices". The Marzano report is available from Promethean's website here.
Obviously some caution must be taken when analysing reports provided by a party with a vested interest (in this case, Promethean's sales volume). That said, the Marzano study appears to have created an optimum environment for testing the impact of the Promethean technologies. The same teachers taught the same unit to two separate classes: one, the treatment group, was taught with the aid of the Promethean technologies, while the second, the control group, was not. (Marzano, 2009, 2)
As noted above, an average of 17% increase in student achievement when utilising Promethean technologies was noted by the report. However, some groups in the study actually recorded a decrease in results - one year seven group reported a discouraging 30% drop in achievement levels. However this particular group gained four students during the course of the study, whose pretest results were not available. (Marzano, 2009, 16) Negative achievement groups such as this one were excluded from the final results, on the justification that students could not possibly exit a class having lost some of their subject knowledge. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Clearly their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the results, however without knowing the mitigating factors (teacher ability/confidence with the technology, possible teacher or student absences, etc) it is difficult to understand the dramatic drop in achievement.
The small number of negative gains aside, the effect of the Promethean technologies on the treatment group classes was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Some measure of improvement was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12). Regardless of the amount of individual students' improvement in achievement, I would count this as a fairly decisive win for interactive whiteboard technologies.
Note: no examples of assessments of students were provided in the report, so we cannot analyse the achievement gains, for example whether they were testing for lower- or higher-order thinking.
Source:
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Friday, April 9, 2010
Research Journal 12: IWBs and student achievement
Interactive whiteboards are frequently presented as a miracle tool in terms of increasing student engagement. One of my concerns about interactive whiteboards, however, is that I wonder what the effect of the "novelty factor" is. That is, are students more engaged because the tool is new, cool, futuristic, exciting? And because the teacher is excited too? What will happen when the novelty factor wears off? Is the tool actually intrinsically motivating and engaging? I actually doubt it. Sure, they facilitate a more creative approach to teaching, which may engage students more, but if that's the case it's not really the board, it's the teacher, and how s/he uses the board.
Moss et al (2007, in Higgins et al, 2007), reporting a study of the Secondary Whiteboard Expansion scheme in London secondary schools, observed exactly this point: "that although the novelty of the technology was initially welcomed by pupils any increase in motivation appeared short-lived." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
"The key issue ... is that although the IWB may alter the way that learning takes place, and that the motivation of teachers and pupils ... this mayhave no significant or measurable impact on achievement." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
What I would say in defense of the IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is that if the lessons are more entertaining and engaging, and if the students begin to enjoy classes at least in part because of the use of the IWB, then this may have a positive influence on factors such as student motivation, attendance rates, a commensurate influence on truancy and dropout rates. All of these factors, in turn, demonstrably affect student achievement. So perhaps there is not a direct, measurable link between IWBs and student achievement yet - but there may be an indirect effect nonetheless.
Moss et al (2007, in Higgins et al, 2007), reporting a study of the Secondary Whiteboard Expansion scheme in London secondary schools, observed exactly this point: "that although the novelty of the technology was initially welcomed by pupils any increase in motivation appeared short-lived." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
"The key issue ... is that although the IWB may alter the way that learning takes place, and that the motivation of teachers and pupils ... this mayhave no significant or measurable impact on achievement." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
What I would say in defense of the IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is that if the lessons are more entertaining and engaging, and if the students begin to enjoy classes at least in part because of the use of the IWB, then this may have a positive influence on factors such as student motivation, attendance rates, a commensurate influence on truancy and dropout rates. All of these factors, in turn, demonstrably affect student achievement. So perhaps there is not a direct, measurable link between IWBs and student achievement yet - but there may be an indirect effect nonetheless.
"Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards": Research Journal 11
This article, as the introductory piece in a journal issue devoted to discussion of IWBs, explores some of the literature on interactive whiteboards and raises some interesting points.
One that sticks out to me is that "there is not a clear distinction made between the way in which the technical interactive affordances [of IWBs} ... and the way that these might intersect with the pedagogical interactive affordances (i.e. more effective interaction between teacher and learner or learners and learners that enhances the intended learning)." (Higgins et al, p. 219)
This is a very valid point that I think deserves unpacking. The technology may be highly interactive in nature, that is the user can manipulate the image by hand, but if it encourages a return to a didactic, 'sage on the stage' style of lesson delivery, then it actually reduces the interactivity of a given class.
Conversely, a teacher who under-utilises the interactivity of the screen may be facilitating a highly interactive class, that is one which involves a high level of interaction between teacher and students, or between students and students. The level of interactivity of the technology is not the important factor - that between the users is.
Source:
Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
One that sticks out to me is that "there is not a clear distinction made between the way in which the technical interactive affordances [of IWBs} ... and the way that these might intersect with the pedagogical interactive affordances (i.e. more effective interaction between teacher and learner or learners and learners that enhances the intended learning)." (Higgins et al, p. 219)
This is a very valid point that I think deserves unpacking. The technology may be highly interactive in nature, that is the user can manipulate the image by hand, but if it encourages a return to a didactic, 'sage on the stage' style of lesson delivery, then it actually reduces the interactivity of a given class.
Conversely, a teacher who under-utilises the interactivity of the screen may be facilitating a highly interactive class, that is one which involves a high level of interaction between teacher and students, or between students and students. The level of interactivity of the technology is not the important factor - that between the users is.
Source:
Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs)
Like most new teachers I am excited about the possibilities available to me through using interactive whiteboards in the classroom. My first exposure to an IWB has been at university, and the brief play I got to have in one lesson was enough to convince me of their potential for creating engaging, enjoyable and interesting lessons.
I do wonder about the educational outcomes for students and whether a link can be drawn between IWBs and higher-order thinking, however I realise that it is probably too early in the career of IWBs for there to be much in the way of quantitative research available on this link.
From an English teaching perspective I am still tracing out the connections in my brain in terms of how I can best utilise the IWB for my teaching. I think breaking the traditional whiteboard/projector mould of pedagogy is the toughest part - my visions of using an IWB tend not to break free of traditional methods of instruction, which could be carried out, to some extent, without an IWB. For example, grouping words on a board based on their grammatical properties; watching a video (which is really only using the IWB as a basic projector) and that sort of thing.
Despite these concerns I am excited to explore what interactive whiteboards have to offer and am sure, given their apparent popularity, that we'll be seeing them in the majority of Australian classrooms before very long at all.
Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112
Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au
Image: Interactive Whiteboards Australia, www.interactivewhiteboards.com.au
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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
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
Saturday, March 27, 2010
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
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
Friday, March 26, 2010
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.
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
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
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
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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
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.
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.
Friday, March 5, 2010
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".
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".
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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!
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!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Research Journal 1: The Digital Divide
I've just started researching the "Digital Divide" and only 15 minutes in I'm already learning things... My conception of the digital divide was rather simplified I'm afraid. I thought it referred primarily to the disparity in ICT access between socio-economic groups, whereas the document I'm reading at the moment (Blanchard, Metcalfe and Burns)* seems to conceptualise the divide as relating to disenfranchised groups as diverse as homosexual and bisexual youths, Indigenous and youths from ethnic minorities, youths who are carers, youths with disabilities and so on.
Looks like I'll have to broaden my scope on reflecting on this issue - it obviously spans a much greater proportion of the young population than I thought. But I'm concerned that this document, coming from a youth organisation whose aim is reducing youth suicide rates, may be more concerned with using ICT to 'reach out' to depressed young people, than using it in a more education-minded sense, which is what I'm more interested in.
Sources:
* 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)