Welcome! In this presentation we will explore definitions and data concerning the "digital divide," issues that our campus faces specifically, and how we might address those issues. At the end, we'll discuss why it is important to address technological access and equality.

So what exactly are we talking about when we say "digital divide"?

The digital divide can be defined by access: at its most simple, it's who has access to technologies and who does not. It also can refer to who understands technology and those that struggle.

SOURCE: Hargittai (2003)

Perhaps a better definition, though, comes from digital inequality. Since access and understanding of digital technologies has significantly increased over the last two decades, the "divide" is not necessarily the best way to approach the issue. Instead, we should focus on the different levels of access and use and how that can impact a person's life, as well as society.

SOURCE: Hargittai (2003)

There are many factors that influence a person's use of, knowledge of, and access to technology. Five of the major factors are listed here. Let's explore some of the data associated with these demographics.

This graph shows a sampling of the latest data from the Pew Research Center. As you can see, a person's income has a significant correlation to the likelihood that they have broadband Internet access at home--90% of households making over $100,000 have access, while only 42% of households making less than $10,000 do. In fact, approximately 1/3 of those who make less than $20,000 a year are not online at all.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

Age is also a largely determinant factor for technology use and access. It's not very surprising to see that the older generations are less likely to have broadband Internet access at home. Those in the youngest generations have grown up surrounded by the technological advances we enjoy today and feel much more comfortable in a tech-driven environment: in fact, one common nickname for the newest generation is "digital natives."

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

What becomes interesting, however, is how the numbers for online connectivity change when mobile access is added. 95%, a 15% increase, of those aged 18-29 have some form of Internet access, while those 65+ have only increased their usage by 3%.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

This chart shows the percentages of Internet usage (or lack of) and how it corresponds to a user's age. Nearly half of those who don't use the Internet are 65 years or older, with only 6% under the age of 35.

SOURCES: Smith (2013)

A person's race or ethnicity also plays a part. 74% of White non-Hispanic households have broadband Internet access at home, while only 64% of Black non-Hispanic and 53% of Hispanic households do.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

Again, when we add in smartphone usage, the data changes significantly. While there is only a small 5% change for White non-Hispanics, Black non-Hispanics' Internet access increases 15% and Hispanics' access jumps 22%.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

Educational level also has a role to play: Those who complete college are over twice as likely to have broadband Internet at home than those who are not high school graduates.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

When smartphones are considered, however, the gap narrows slightly, with an additional 15% of non-high school graduates now having access to the Internet and only an additional 4% of college graduates.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

While the numbers do not vary as largely as some of the other categories, a person's geographical location also plays a part in Internet access, with those in rural settings have the least access.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

Smartphone usage adds an additional 10% access to both urban and suburban residents, while rural access increases only 8%.

SOURCE: Rainie (2013)

Globally, Europe has the highest rate of Internet penetration with 78% of the population. The United States ranks 14th in global Internet penetration, and nearly 2 out of 3 households in the entire Americas have access to the Internet. Africa, however, ranks far behind the rest of the world with only approximately 1 in 10 households having at-home Internet access.

SOURCES: ICT (2014a&b)

One heartening statistic, however, is that computer-based Internet access in the developing world has doubled in the last five years. In addition, mobile Internet access has nearly quintupled since 2008 to 2.3 billion users globally.

SOURCE: ICT (2014b)

Now that we know some of the data behind digital inequality, let's explore some issues that we are facing specifically at our institution.

One of our most significant issues centers around student, staff, and faculty access. Let's talk about four of the main factors that have influenced access at SUU.

One of the largest barriers that students run into each semester is CSIS 1000, Introduction to Computer Applications & the Internet, which is a General Education course. All students are required to take it, but not enough seats are offered each semester to support the demand, causing some students to wait two to three semesters before they can successfully register. In addition, half of the available seats are offered in an online-only format. Since the in-person sections are the most popular, students who are not able to register early enough--either due to their own tardiness or because they have limited access to the Internet--are essentially forced to take a class in a format they may not be prepared for. Finally, CSIS 1000 attempts to cover too much information in too short a time. For example, do students really need to learn Linux commands and programming alongside Word and Excel?

A second barrier is the level of skill and self-efficacy that students, staff, and faculty have when it comes to technology use. Many people on campus are digital natives or digital adopters, but many others are also on the other end of the spectrum. There is also an uneven use of technology among departments and faculty members that further confuse the issue.

Third, we are in a rural community, and as we saw from the data earlier, only 62% of rural households have broadband Internet access. While our campus offers wireless Internet, it's unrealistic to expect all students to stay on campus all the time to complete their required work.

Finally, we do not have a homogeneous student population. While a significant majority are White, non-Hispanic first-time college students, we cannot ignore our minority populations simply because they are not easily seen. We have online-only learners and hybrid learners. We have adult returning students and international students, many of whom are from the Arab world and Asia. We must keep all of these backgrounds in mind when we talk about access to technological resources.

Another issue we face is we don't really know our needs.

For example, do staff need tablets in order to do their job effectively? How often do we need to replace their computers? What programs would they find helpful in their work?

What about students? What do they want or expect out of campus resources? Do they want additional computer labs, more computer programs, tablets, stronger wi-fi, or something else entirely?

And perhaps most importantly, what are we actually able to do? We may want to give all our students tablets, but would that make enough of an impact on student learning that it would justify the cost?

Of course, money is always an issue, no matter where you go or who you talk to. Let's explore three ways in which funding has become an issue in digital equality on campus.

Historically, technology has not been a high priority at our institution. This is why many staff and faculty have computers over 6 years old and printers, copiers, and phones that consistently break down. Limited budgets have also caused many departments to only be able to afford cut-rate programs that have limited or incomplete features.

Additionally, there is a large disparity between departments in terms of available monies. Those programs with larger student pools or higher course fees are able to update their technology on a regular basis, while undersubscribed programs can struggle simply to stay afloat.

We've gone over three overarching issues with digital inequality on campus--now let's look at some potential solutions.

First, we need to look at equitable solutions.

The main problems with CSIS 1000 is that there aren't enough seats, too many sections are online, and too much information is covered. The university needs to focus on making more in-person seats available, and could explore other options like creating broken-up modules for students to complete over multiple semesters so they are not overwhelmed with information.

Expectations for faculty and staff adaptation of technology, as well as the appropriate training, also need to be set. If all faculty members are expected to use the campus learning management system, they must be told this and be trained on how to appropriately use it. Further training and seminars for students and community members who would like additional instruction could also be made available at little cost.

Finally, we need to focus on outreach efforts. If there are students in the surrounding communities who have difficulty registering for classes because of lack of Internet access, we need to go to them with our services. Late registration often leads students to extend their time to graduation and pay significantly more money than necessary in order to earn a degree.

If we don't really know what we need in terms of technology on our campus, we need to create an assessment to find out.

We need to survey the faculty members to know what their expectations for technology use are, as well as where they commonly experience pitfalls.

We need to know what staff and administration need and want in order to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.

We need to talk to students to see what they want on campus, and what kind of knowledge they feel they may lack.

We need to know what the community expects that we will offer them, and how we can meet those expectations.

We also need to determine how best to utilize our space on campus, and where would be the most effective places to increase technology's presence.

Finally, in order to tackle the funding issue, we need to prioritize using our campus assessment.

We must create some sort of funding plan--after all, taking money from one budget to put into increasing technology will only cripple that other area. We should look at grants and private donors. We should also look at the cost benefits of raising tuition or student fees to support increased tech.

In addition, the upper administration needs to support closing the digital gap in order for it to gain any traction on campus. The administration needs to make technology a priority for everyone, not just the departments that can afford it already.

Finally, we need to look at how to consolidate what we already have. There are different programs being used across campus by various departments that essentially do the same thing. As an example, many faculty use Cranium Cafe, a web-based video chat and file sharing program. However, the School of Continuing and Graduate Studies has already purchased licences for Adobe Connect. By terminating our contact with Cranium Cafe and using what we've already purchased, monies can be transferred into a new, unduplicated technological need.

So why should we actually care about making these changes? Haven't we made do with what we have?

First, the Association for Education Communication & Technology's Code of Ethics have several principles that address the necessity of equal access and representation regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, or religion. It also stresses that it is the educator's duty to provide opportunities for all to access to technology.

Secondly, groups who have less access to the Internet are those who are already marginalized--the poor, the elderly, the minority, the rural. Limiting their access to the major form of worldwide communication today sets them up for further disenfranchisement. Not only do they have less access to information, they are less able to produce their own information and stories, thus leaving the information propagation to the already dominant culture.

Finally, the world now is a technological marketplace. Tech skills are critical for almost any job, especially those that require bachelor's degrees. We already know that those who earn their bachelor's degree will earn significantly more over their career than those with a high school diploma. We need to ensure that our graduates are entering the workforce with the necessary technological skills to excel.

We can help shift the current paradigm by focusing on making changes to our campus culture that increases student, faculty, and staff access to technology to help bridge the digital divide. It will take time, effort, money, and community, but it is possible and it should be done.

SOURCES: AECT (2007), Robinson et al. (2015), & Leadership Conf (n.d.)