Regarding the Sharples article when siting the page numbers I’ll actually be siting the numbers 1-14 since the online version is different then the published 5-11. The cover page is page number one.
One of the most interesting aspects of the article by Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) for me, was how it highlighted the change in the concept of the digital divide, page 181. In the original concept the focus appears to have been on what Sharple’ s would identify as two of his five critical success factors; availability of technology and to a lesser extent ownership pages 7 and 8 Sharples (2013). Within a relatively short period of time however, it was observed that the definition lacked the true scope of the issue. In that same article Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) page 203, discuss the idea of the social envelop for multiple segments of learner populations. While these learners may have access to the technology they do not necessarily have the resources to “geek out” that students who are able to benefit from “interest-driven participation” p. 192 Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010).
With this broader understanding for the new digital divide, in the Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) article, focusing on access and use the resource that appears to be the next phase in bridging the divide is two of Sharple’s other success factors Institutional Support and Intergration, Sharples, page 8 (2013). In regard to institutional support, it was interesting to note that the teachers were very conscious of the need for more dynamic use of instruction in relation to computing devices but that there were other factors that stymied their efforts. Lacking a number of areas of support have a great impact such as a lack of I.T. technical support as highlighted on page 189, Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) or of time, based on institutional or state mandated curriculum as discussed in the teachers quote on page 190, Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010). In some instances these roadblocks in turn lead to a integration issues in how to more effectively use technology page 200, Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) or to move away from basic application of the technology compared to a deeper constructivist based framework, pages 198-199.
In my opinion, just as the definition of the Digital divide has changed, the eight features of WILD devices Pea and Maldonado (2006) page 855, have evolved in regards to the smallness of screen size. Given the advances in the active screen size and the ability for pinch zooming I can’t help but think of the efforts of those working on the Stanford BuddyBuzz Project Pea and Maldonado (2006) page 858, and wonder if there is still a need for such a project and how they would feel? Additionally, given the popularity of phablets (phones with screen sizes larger than five inches) as well as ever increasing size of tablets screen size (Apples 12.9 inch display) does size really fit as a WILD need?
Wouldn’t the greater consideration be that of the weight of device? The above mentioned 12.9 inch display is around a pound and a half in weight. If we were to substitute screen size for weight, what would be the determining weight factor that would define a WILD device?
Pea, R. D., & Moldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge University Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Chapter 25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5), 5-11.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.
The digital divide: Sometimes, we get focused on the technology, but there’s interesting cultural spillover from the digital divide. It creates a culture of haves and have-nots, affects peer relationships, and can have a huge impact on the opportunities and advantages/disadvantages an individual may or may not have as a result of the divide. I stumbled across a really interesting website by Mark Warschauer: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/967/888/ It’s an old website, but it has some thought-provoking ideas. On this site, he writes, “A framework of technology for social inclusion allows us to re-orient the focus from that of gaps to be overcome by provision of equipment to that of social development to be enhanced through the effective integration of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) into communities and institutions.” Thinking of mobile technologies as tools for enhancing social development rather than focusing on the gaps presents a really interesting systems approach to this issue. Furthermore, moving the focus away from devices toward people and their human needs is integral. This could especially be explored in the arena of educational games and gamification of learning. Warschauer wrote that “Boys more likely to play games…Boys were more likely than girls to play every kind of genre except casual games.’ (2010, p. 195). Leveraging games by using mobile technologies to enhance the social development of male students sounds like a great way to engage boys in learning. Hmmm….that sounds familiar!!!
https://www.ted.com/talks/ali_carr_chellman_gaming_to_re_engage_boys_in_learning?language=en
I love your discussion on phablets and device weight. I also
really enjoy this quote: “While these learners may have access to the technology they do not necessarily have the resources to “geek out” that students who are able to benefit from “interest-driven participation” p. 192 Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010).”
Here’s to geeking out!
Steve,
I am familiar with the concept of the digital divide as it was frequently discussed in my library science courses. As Warschauer & Matuchniak (2010) mentions the original concept focused on “providing a computer and Internet connection (p.213)” which basically translates to the availability of technology between the socioeconomic classes (the haves and have nots). As discussed in the Warschauer & Matuchniak article the digital divide transformed to digital divide 2.0 which focuses on the “differential ability to use new media to critically evaluate information (2010, p.213).” Students have access to technology at schools, community centers, and libraries but in my opinion the critical analysis component can only be developed with knowledgeable professionals.
I concur with your point about WILD devices (smart technology) has evolved. I think some of the eight features the authors mention are not relevant today; such as “stylus driven interface (p.428).” I looked at the 2016 Consumer Reports Annual Buying Guide, regarding tablets which shows the review features such as size, portability, battery life, operating system, display, and versatility. I found that most tablets range from eight to eleven inches, and weigh less than two pounds.
Steve,
You made some very interesting analysis with cross referencing articles in your blog all dealing with the digital divide. This week’s readings spanned seven years and two topics (mobile learning and the other focusing on computers and related topics – access, use, and outcomes) but related.
First, the digital divide and the social envelope in Warschauer et al. article. It was thought-provoking since their article was a qualitative interpretation of these topics. How one SES group used the computers much differently at home, school, and socially. It would have been nice to see them add in mobile devices other than laptops (smartphones, tablets, etc.) into their research to see those findings.
Second, then you compared the digital divide again using the different approach with institutional support and integration. The great disparities of SES group teachers with use of digital instruction and support. Do you think policies for funding will increase in the lower SES group to bridge this gap with professional development on digital technologies and uses? Probably not, but it was good topic for the authors to discuss to see how the differences existed. I wonder if mobile devices are being used now in lower SES schools since almost everyone has smartphones nowadays.
Third, the digital divide relating to the WILD article was another good comparison. Good question about size and weight of the device. I cannot answer that one, but it is an interesting thought. I will need to explore more into it.