The difference between a jogger and a runner is an entry blank. – George Sheehan

This has been the week to examine differences – differences between those with computers and those without, those possessing technology skills and those with little knowledge, those with unrestricted access and those with impediments to usage. In preparation for my upcoming wiki assignment on the gender divide, I have been reading about other aspects of the digital divide – age, ethnic, economic status, geographic situation, etc. Who knew that there were so many differences or digital divides, all different reflections of a fluctuating gap between the digital haves and have not’s. The one major point that comes through in every article I have read on the subject of the digital divide, is that there is no single cause for this disparity and no easy solution to eliminating this gap. Simply purchasing more computers for schools does not deal with the related underlying social issues. The digital divide is part of a much bigger picture of social inequities and complex influences.

The digital disparities which exist were clearly illustrated a few days ago when I discovered a YouTube video entitled Bridging the Divides that described the impact of a new telecommunication centre upon a rural village in Uganda. At the time I was curled up in bed, surfing through videos about the digital divide on my iPod touch. My first thought was that the video was a propaganda-style charity piece but as I watched I realized that it was simply demonstrating what an profound, far-reaching effect access to the simplest of technologies can have. As for the villagers, a man who sold bicycles was now able to improve his business because he was able to telephone to order necessary parts and a farmer was able to produce more food after learning more productive agricultural techniques. This really brought home, in highly visual terms, the disparity between technology access on a broader scale and how it influences global economies. But it also made me realize that even small changes towards closing the digital gap can produce positive results.

()

Bridging the Divides

The pattern of technology access explained in The Digital Divide in Canada Stats Canada article was heavily based on statistical analysis. I've suffered from math anxiety - my Print Generation's version of computer anxiety - and have always shied away from anything involving numbers. However, I made myself read through the article and was quite amazed how the author George Sciadas used numbers to explain that the divide is usually most pronounced when new technology is introduced and then closes as it becomes more mainstream. However, even statistics do not fully explain why there continues to be a persistent divide with computer technology, one not explained by affordability.

The digital divide which perhaps holds the most immediate implication for educators is the growing gap between the information technology knowledge of those who teach and their students. The four levels of this divide are explained in the AASL article Our Digital Divides are Showing. This article forced me to consider what actions I have taken to promote the use technology in my school and to help my staff develop their knowledge of technology. I even went so far as to assign myself progress letter grades for each level: Access(B), Professional Development (A), Policy (C-) and Motivation (C+). Definitely room for improvement.

The technology knowledge divide between the staff and students is evident in my school. We have teachers who are capable of designing software programs and others who don't even know where the on button is on the computer. We have students who do all their work on laptops and can't walk down the hall between classes without texting messages, or reorganizing their playlists. Other students have to ask me how to log in on the library computers. I can see that opportunities exist to offer instruction and guidance. I can share information and initiate discussions with the administration, become part of the Technology Committee, lobby for open access for students, continue my own self-directed technology learning, and formulate a library vision to introduce the new literacies to both students and staff. I can teach

One practical idea to begin to “scatter the seeds of Schools 2.0” is offering technology lessons to our teaching assistants when I return in September. I can teach them how to search effectively, use databases, create wikis and VoiceThreads. I know the TAs will share this knowledge with their students and perhaps even the teachers they work with. They will become my ambassadors for integrating technology practices into teaching and the beginnings of grassroots change. I also forwarded the Digital Divide video to my administrator with a note saying I’d love to sit down and chat with him sometime about how we can effectively integrate technology in our school. I loved this video because it clearly delivers the message that purchasing computers and new technology doesn't bridge gaps. Traditional teaching practices must also change to truly accommodate the needs of today's Net Generation.

I am quite looking forward to actually apply my new insights about technology in education in a practical way. It's time to take some of the ideas I've read about and try them out. My first step will be to get myself on the Technology Committee so I can identify what I can help positively change about the four levels of influence that create digital divides in schools. I also want to share my knowledge about Web 2.0 tools by finding ways to incorporate technology into library lessons. I’ve got quite a challenge ahead of me but hopefully I will be able to make progress at leveling the playing field in our school for both teachers and students. After all, this is all part of the 21st Century Librarian Manifesto!

To filter, or not filter...there is no question

Image

I was first introduced to Internet filtering during my Intellectual Freedom coursework last summer. However, classmate Rhonda’s presentation on whether the Ministry of Education should create levels of standard web filtering, and our course readings this week gave me a chance to re-examine this issue.

The issue of filtering is not so black and white. I appreciated the articles which discussed the concern for student safety through using a degree of filtering. I agree wholeheartedly that students need to be afforded opportunities to critically evaluate online information. Even though the Ministry of Education may have the best of intentions, such filters actually deny our students opportunities to internalize their own filtering criteria and tend to develop complacency about Internet use in educators and parents. Then there is the issue of restricted access to the very technology educators should be using with students to instruct in the "new literacies".

While the salient points about filtering were addressed, I realized there was little emphasis on the aspect of intellectual freedom. During my coursework in area, instructors Toni Samek and Dianne Oberg encouraged examining all library issues through the lens of intellectual freedom and made constant reference to library position statements. This week I decided it was an opportune time to revisit my intellectual freedom binder full of course notes, reflections and articles. I began by rereading the Canadian Library Association’s (CLA) Code of Ethics which directs members to “support and implement the principles and practices embodied in the current CLA’s Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom.” This emphasis places the issue of intellectual freedom front and centre in librarianship and demonstrates the depth of the CLA’s commitment to intellectual freedom. The CLA’s Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom sets further high expectations with regards to full access to information, including materials considered by some to be “unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable”. Filtering of the Internet is recognized as limiting access. Removing library services warrants the involvement of teacher librarians to speak on the behalf of patrons – the students and staff. Although based upon the principles outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the CLA’s Intellectual Freedom document is a recommendation without basis in law. Although we may be passionate about intellectual freedom, and argue against the limiting use of software filters, realistically teacher librarians are school employees and must also adhere to the School Board and Ministry directives. We may passionately believe in these underlying library principles, but lack the base of power to take matters into our own hands. It was encouraging to read that respected technology leaders such as Mary Ann Bell and Nancy Willard are carrying the torch for filtering freedom by addressing this issue with those who make the filtering decisions.

Teacher librarians can encourage change in attitudes towards filtering and work towards achieving broader digital access for our patrons. We are nicely placed to provide knowledge about using the Internet responsibly with students, staff and parents. We can initiate conversations to help others understand how filters work and to appreciate their implications beyond censoring bad words and inappropriate images. A starting point would be to become more aware of how filters are used in our own backyard. I realized that I did not know about the level of filtering in my school district and contacted our IT department to learn more. The answers I received helped me gain new perspectives and have encouraged me to further investigate District filtering decisions. This dialogue was this teacher librarian's first small step towards "walking the walk" and accepting my role as an promoter of intellectual freedom. I also appreciated Doug Johnson's comments in his article Change from the Radical Center of Education about being open-minded, listening to all points of view and knowing your own values.

Technology and the Politics of Choice might be an oldie but it is an excellent commentary on filtering by the University of Alberta’s own Alvin Schrader. Rereading it helped me to recall issues about the realibility of filters. I pulled out a few of Schrader's key points which I can potentially work into discussions – a sound byte with punch – perfect for making a point about the ineffectiveness of filters.

“Filtering products rely almost exclusively on automation – not on human eyes and brains.”

“Internet filters fail to block as promised, but they also “overblock” – preventing access to thousands of site that have no “objectionable” content even by the most conservative standards.”

“Students detest [filters], are frustrated by them, feel insulted by them, have the technology skills to subvert them, and consequently get around them anyway.”

“Censorproofing the Internet…is doomed to failure for many reasons [new sites, new terms, new jargon, use of other languages, etc.]”

“Another price of the filtering solution…is the loud and clear message to young people that the right response to bad ideas is censorship, not debate – not that bad ideas should be examined and driver out by better ideas, but that they should be silenced, that there is only one view, one truth, one choice.”

Rereading Schrader’s article, reviewing Canadian library documents, and participating in our group's discussion topic combined for another serious look at filtering. Each of the articles in our course reading helped to clarify my thoughts about filtering. An improved understanding of technology, combined with insights about the new learnings needed for this Net Generation has enhanced my perspective of how filtering fits into the big picture of Learning 2.0. I can’t control the level of filtering dictated by the Ministry of Education, but I can now speak with greater confidence and insight when discussing filtering issues with my administrators, technology support, staff, parents and students. I have waded into the fray, and am determined to do my best to ensure that my students are provided with as full digital access as possible.