Traditionally, “Digital Divide” is viewed as a distinction between those who do and do not have access to internet while “Digital Inequality” identifies differences among persons who have formal access to the internet (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001).
It is necessary however to understand the context in which both terms bring meaning to educators in their attempts to harness on technology in teaching and learning.
In 1997, only 14% (IDA, 2004) of Singapore household has access to internet. In other parts of Asia like Taiwan and Japan, the figures are much lesser at 5% (IDA, 2004) and 6.5% (AMI,1998) respectively. Hence, in the context of only less than 15% of the nation’s household with access to internet, it was a priority to implement measures to reduce the “Digital Divide” in most Asian countries.
However, within a span of 12 years, internet household penetration rate has increased significantly, almost six-fold in Singapore to 81%. With more than three-quarters of the nation on internet access, the context is not longer just about who do and do not have access to internet, but it requires us to go further to discuss about “Digital Inequality” – whether there are differences among persons who have access to internet.
DiMaggio and Hargittai indentified 5 aspects of Digital Inequality:
1. Technical Means
2. Autonomy
3. Skill
4. Social support
5. Variation in Use
In this paper, I will address three of these inequalities, namely 1)Technical Means, 2)Automony and 3)Variation in Use, especially in the context of Singapore.
Inequality in Technical Means
Inequality in Broadband Access at Home
In a survey conducted by Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, it was observed that in 2009, while 83% of all households have at least one computer; only 81% of households have internet access at home. While majority of those with internet access have broadband access (80%), a small percentage has only narrowband access (1%).
Though considered a very small percentage, educators must ensure that we do not ignore the needs of students with narrowband access at home. Some learning resources that we have today (e.g. YouTube videos, Podcasts) are huge in file size and learners with narrowband access will require a much longer time to download the resource, as compared to their peers with broadband access.
Implications
Educators should consciously planned alternatives for students to access the learning resources, especially outside school-hours. Schools could make necessary arrangements with public libraries or other community partners (E.g. Student Care Centres, Non Profit Organisations) to provide broadband access to students outside of school-hours.
Learning resources could also be stored on portable media (such as DVD, CD-ROM) so that learners could loan them to use on any computer.
Inequality in Autonomy of Use
Inequality in Number of Computing Equipment Per Household
While 35% of Singapore’s households have only one computer; 48% of the households have two or more computers (IDA, 2010). It is not uncommon to have various members of the household requiring internet access at the same time.
Working parents may be required to use the computer to check their emails at night, while the children may require the computer to complete their assignments online. This also implies that 48% of the household with two or more computers will have an advantage over the 35% with only one computer. In households with only one computer, household members will have to negotiate their own time ‘slots’ in using the computer, thus reflecting a ‘limit’ on the duration of internet that each member has.
While most households relied on desktop computers, it was also noted that portable computing equipment are gaining popularity among individuals. Among the 7 to 14 years old, 53% have a portable laptop and 66% have mobile phones/smart phones. The figures were even higher among the 15 to 24 years old, with 78% having a portable laptop and 99% having a mobile phone/smart phone. About 28% of those with portable computing equipment access the internet wirelessly (IDA, 2010). Learners with these portable internet devices can access internet while they are travelling to schools, maximising travelling time for learning online.
Implications
In view of inequality in autonomy of use of computer and internet, school administrators and national policy makers could consider moving towards a one laptop per student approach, rather than one computer per household approach.
Some existing examples include the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) organisation whose mission is to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child (OLPC, 2010).
Another example is at the Maris Stella High School in Singapore, where all students from Secondary One (13 years old) to Secondary Four (16 years old) are required to purchase an Apple MacBook. The school also made necessary considerations for students from the low-income group and rendered financial assistance and provisions for them accordingly (Xavier, 2010).
Budget Limits Duration of Internet Access at Community / Commercial Facility
In terms of location of internet use, for 7 to 14 years old, 8% access it at community facility (e.g. public library) and 4% access it at commercial facility (e.g. cybercafés).
For the 15 to 24 years old, 10% access it at community facility (e.g. public library) and 11% access it at commercial facility (e.g. cybercafés) (IDA, 2010).
It is quite likely that students access internet at community or commercial facility because they do not have computer/internet at home and require access during off-school hours. In Singapore, both internet access at the community or commercial facility is chargeable at approximately SGD$1.80 per hour (Estimated US$1.42). One could also imagine a student rushing to complete his assignments online because he could only to pay for one hour of internet access after school-hours. This could put him at an unfair advantage compared to his peers who have unrestricted access to internet at home after school-hours.
Implications
In 2006, Singapore introduced the Wireless@SG initiative, which provides free wifi access speeds up to 1 Mbps at over 1000 Hotspots. Though a very beneficial initiative as a whole, challenges remain for students who live or study away from the Hotspots areas. Policy makers could consider how they could work with Internet Service Providers (ISP) to provide substantially-subsidised rates of home broadband services for low-income families.
With the merge of new technology devices like 3G Wireless Modems, school administrators could also consider the loan of 3G Wireless Modems and Laptops to students. This could aid in reducing unequal duration access to internet after school hours.
Inequality in the Variation of Use of Internet
Employed More Time on Social Networking than Learning Resources
It is also crucial to study the type of activities employed on the internet. Not everyone who access the internet use it for learning activities. Research evidence seemed to imply that most young people use the internet for a limited range of activities (Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005).
Studies have also shown that internet activities ranked highest primarily in use of social networks (e.g. Facebook) – 31% ( 7 to 14 years old), 54% (15 to 24 years old) and much lower in Remote Acccess to Learning Resources from School Server – 22% (7 to 14 years old), and 16% (15 to 24 years old) (IDA, 2010).
Implications
In spite of the fact that most students have access to internet, educators have to acknowledge the fact that our students spend a dominant amount of their internet access time on Social Networking sites, rather than accessing Learning Resources from School Server. Though there are multiple reasons that account for this behaviour (E.g. Not all schools embark on eLearning, Learning Resources are not engaging enough), educators should consider on how to enable a greater engagement of learners through developing engaging online learning resources.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the extent of digital inequality in Singapore and explores possible measures which could be put in place to reduce the digital inequality.
Despite an overall high household internet penetration rates, there remains a clear divide in at least three identified areas 1) Technical Means, 2)Autonomy and 3)Variation in Use.
Therefore, I find that educators, administrators must work closely with policy makers to narrow his digital inequality gap. Future studies into how other countries beyond Singapore has reduced the digital inequality would provide helpful data for further research and development in Singapore.
References
Access Media International (AMI). (1998). Internet Users in Japan Total 10.1 Million in February 1998. Retrieved from http://www.ami.co.jp/home5/japanese/press/items/japan_980601.html
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality:’ Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~arts…gittai.pdf
InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA). (2010). Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals for 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/Publications/Publications_Level3/Survey2009/HH2009ES.pdf
InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA). (2004). Asia Pacific Information & Communication Technology Technical Meeting – Singapore Country Report. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/stat/ict/ict2004/6.Country_report-Singapore.pdf
Livingstone, S. Bober, M., & Helsper, E. (2005). Inequalities and the Digital Divide in children and youth person’s internet use. London: LSE Report. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/398/1/UKCGOdigitaldivide.pdf
One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). (2010). Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml
Xavier. L. (2010). Singapore’s 21st century school of the future. Retrieved from http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/12/13/singapores-21st-century-school-of-the-future/
Into the 7th week of the EDTECH 506 module, I believe my peers felt the same way as I do – that it can take a lot of time just to design and develop an image for learning and teaching.
Faith Foo: EDTECH Learning Log 