Access to Technology

An elite minority of the population has the privilege of access to digital tools and advanced technology in their socio-cultural environments, giving them an unfair advantage. At the same time, a less privileged majority belongs to environments where digital technology is rare, socio-cultural backgrounds are under-resourced, and access is distributed unevenly. In the present world, attention has moved beyond the concern of basic access. The challenge we are facing is with what the youth needs to know about technology, and how the less privileged are deprived of this exposure and knowledge. When an individual has competence and understanding of how to use technology critically and effectively, s/he is considered to have “digital literacy” (Buckingham, 2010). However, many don’t even have access to or exposure to information or technology. Kajee & Balfour (Kajee & Balfour, 2011) highlight this disparity of access to technology in the context of privilege and marginalisation within South African educational institutions. They identify the teaching of this limited type of literacy as the culprit behind the disempowerment of individuals. Particularly because it facilitates privilege to a certain group of individuals who have exposure and access for learning the technical skills, all the while placing the ones without access in an unfavourable position. Simply due to the lack of opportunity in acquiring the dominating literacy. The underprivileged majority has consequently been excluded from society at large due to the lack of facilities that provide access to the dominant literacy, in this case, digital literacy. Hence, creating and expanding the digital divide and uneven access. Since literacy is a social practice, any demotivation, or hindrances in the instance of exposure and access to digital literacy can result in marginalisation. Eventually leading to isolation in society and perpetuating unequal opportunity.

Gardiner (Gardiner, 2020) points out the apparent growth of global outreach by highlighting digital services and e-commerce as the dominant factors in this period of production and refers to it as globalisation 4.0. in the sense that it is the fourth version or wave of globalisation. What needs to be understood is that our economy and its future depends on our digital capabilities and its strength. It becomes important to make links between the pieces of information from the past and the present and make predictions as to what the next wave of globalisation could be about/bring about as it springs off the board of technological advancements. The 21st-century era is often referred to as the era of technology due to numerous advancements and ever-growing dependency. In the present day, technology plays a very important role in the growth of societies and individual development. Expanding reliance on technology is seen as a basis for the growth of an economy. As portrayed by R. Raja & P.C. Naga (Raja & Nagasubramani, 2018), it is widely believed that any economy that hasn’t developed in terms of technology will never be able to grow and reach its potential in today’s competitive global scenario. In their perspective, technology is what holds the key to making our work easier, efficient, and less time-consuming. The point they made is convincing as the positive impact of technology has been felt in every industry and field out in the market. One of the concerning fields is Education.

Participation in the digital age associates lifelong learning, affecting the use of technology in teaching & learning along with its access. It is evident as professional educators and educational theorists turn towards digital literacy practices when examining their contributions and influences respectively on learning. Kajee & Balfour, and Raffaghelli (Kajee & Balfour, 2011; Raffaghelli, 2019) have observed the indications in the emerging themes that both the educators and learners perceive to have symbolic value, and facilitate access to cultural capital. The symbolic value has been derived from the ability to perform tasks using digital tools and aids pertaining to the needs that extend beyond education and communication. In Bourdieu’s (Bourdieu, 1979) perspective, what carries significant weight is the symbolic value and power that attributes with the perception of having the privilege and accessibility that makes an individual ‘able’ to utilize the digital tools, devices, and the internet resources. For instance, timid learners in Kajee & Belfour’s (Kajee & Balfour, 2011) observations were found inactive at the digital tools as they were lacking confidence and knowledge of how to perform given tasks. Being classified as competent and ‘able’ grants an individual a particular advantage and status within the group, and the capability to perform on a task is apparently a symbolic gateway to contribution. Various literacies are associated with various domains of existence and literacy practices are modelled by social institutions and power relationships. Student participants in Kajee & Balfour’s research expressed feelings of obvious marginalisation from the discourse of digital literacy. The marginalisation that results not because of the lack of intelligence or the question in cognitive ability, but simply due to the lack of access and privilege to develop the skills. A lack of access and privilege to attain digital literacy at the same time, pace, and even starting point as of those in the advantaged elite minority.

Many policymakers, corporate executives, administrations, and parents assume that wrapping schools in wires, purchasing hardware & software, and handing out devices to learners and educators will lead to abundant classroom use and enhance education. However, qualitative methodology including interviews with educators, learners, and administrations has shown this is not the case. Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001) conducted classroom observations, reviewed school documents, and surveyed learners and educators in the two different high schools to confirm this. They concluded that access to technology rarely led to its widespread use among educational stakeholders. Most educators were occasional users or nonusers of technology, and when they used technology for classroom work, it only sustained rather than altered the educational practices and its existing patterns. Their research did not factor in the age group that the educators belonged to, and neither did it touch upon the vision of the local educational institutions.

Technology is apparently the strongest factor shaping the educational landscape as Johnson et.al. (Johnson, Jacovina, Russell, & Soto, 2016) had predicted. Majority of the schools are in favour of technology in classrooms by facilitating portable and handheld devices and implementing programs for educational stakeholders designed to improve computer literacy. Although educators appreciated the benefits of technology, various factors made it challenging for new technology to be smoothly and effectively integrated. Despite the acquisition of technology, the adaptation of curricula, and technology integrated teaching techniques, educators continue to face various significant challenges. How is education integrated with technology comparable to education without technology?

Perhaps a study similar to what Nicholas (Spaull, 2013) conducted can model learners’ performance separately for the privileged elite minority with access to technology on one hand, and the under-resourced less privileged majority on the other. The differences in the factors influencing the performance of the learners are bound to be stark. What can be expected is certainly a bifurcated system where the process of acquiring literacy is fundamentally different for each of the sides. Policymakers and researchers would do well if they take note and pay attention to these unequal starting points and uneven privileges. They must put more effort in trying to comprehend the educational data, and reform policies to provide equal access & opportunities to the underprivileged majority. The disparity must be minimized, and marginalisation eliminated. Everyone should have equal resources, access to infrastructure, and the right to acquire technical skills and digital literacy that can help them in finding their rightful place in society with equal power and opportunity. The current patterns of poverty and privilege can be significantly reduced by acknowledging, understanding, and fixing these uneven accesses to technology.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic power. Critique of Anthropology, 4(13-14), 77-85. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0308275x7900401307?casa_token=gF3q0wdaYAEAAAAA:E9es6T6I9KSqNrx8mgSTds09OemtV7aMWZUcYwz2vKUBsAvpRrzePWMnFPhUTmrIKAcgg3gSHV5WUA

Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining digital literacy. In B. Bachmair (Ed.), Medienbildung in neuen kulturräumen: Die deutschprachige und britische diskussion (pp. 59-71). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92133-4_4 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92133-4_4

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813

Gardiner, B. (2020). Why COVID-19 will end up harming the environment. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2020/06/why-covid-19-will-end-up-harming-the-environment

Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. G., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom (Arizona State University ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis: ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577147.pdf

Kajee, L., & Balfour, R. (2011). Students’ access to digital literacy at a south african university: Privilege and marginalisation. Null, 29(2), 187-196. doi:10.2989/16073614.2011.633365

Raffaghelli, J. E.Developing a framework for educators’ data literacy in the european context: Proposal, implications and debate. Paper presented at the International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies EDULEARN, 10520-10530. Retrieved from http://lib.uib.kz/edulearn19/files/papers/2655.pdf

Raja, R., & Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 33-35. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3S1.165

Spaull, N. (2013). Poverty & privilege: Primary school inequality in south africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(5), 436-447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.09.009