In this presentation I will discuss the importance of thinking about the digital divide and digital inequality in higher education.

In addition to published articles, I will reference a survey that I did asking my philosophy colleagues to respond to questions about their experiences with the digital divide and digital inequality.

In this presentation I will discuss the distinction between the digital divide and digital inequality.

I will also discuss what I see as four primary digital inequality issues in higher education, including infrastructure, training, culture, and cost.

The digital divide is structural. The divide is a metaphor used to describe the vast and clear difference between those who have access to technology and those who do not.

Dimaggio et. al describe the digital divide as inequality of access to the internet, broadcast media, print media, telephones, and other educational technologies and how this has changed, and is changing, over time (1-2).

Digital inequality, like other socioeconomic inequalities, can persist even if the gap is closed.

Factors involved in digital inequality include socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, age, geographic location, and educational background. As Dimaggio et. al note, the concern is "the impact of social inequality on where, how easily, and with how much autonomy people can go online; the quality of the hardware and connection users have at their disposal; how skilled they are at finding information; how effectively they can draw on social support in solving problems that they encounter in their efforts to do so; and how productively they use
their Internet access to enhance their economic life chances and capacity for social and political
participation" (2).

Digital inequality, then, is a vast issue with serious and far-reaching effects on those who are marginalized from the skills and benefits of technology.

The digital divide is global, with clear differences in access between developed, developing, and lesser developed countries.

This graph shows the percentage of households with internet access, by level of development, 2005-2014 (Measuring the Information Society Report, 11).

While nearly 80% of households in the developed world had internet access in 2014, only 5% of households in lesser developed countries and 31% in developed countries have internet access. The global digital divide is stark.

There is, however, reason to believe that the digital divide is closing. The same report shows the annual investment by telecommunication operators, world and by level of development and annual growth.

Despite the global recession in 2008, the developing world has shown strong net growth in investment since 2007, although net growth in the developed world has been relatively flat.

As Clothey reports that Rwanda plans to use the internet to transform its economy from an agriculture economy to a knowledge-based society. Since 200, Rwanda has constructed 2,300 km of fiber optic cable, which cost about $95 million (Clothey, 52). Access is being made part of global development plans.

Although it looks like the digital divide is narrowing, given the close ties of access to the internet and other technologies with global development standards, it's not clear how these efforts influence digital inequality, which affects those who have access, but may not have equal access to the training, skills, and benefits of available technologies.

How does the digital divide and digital inequality affect higher education in the United States?

Given the ubiquity of the internet and the saturation of digital resources in our personal and professional lives, digital inequality is a fundamentally important issue. Those who do not have equal access to the skills, training, and benefits of educational technology are at a disadvantage in most areas of their lives, as technological competence is required in most facets of life. As Dimaggio et. al argue, "Competence destruction increases inequality," (5).

Further because production, consumption, and information are driven by access to technology and the capability to use and benefit from it, digital inequality and the digital divide have become major issues in setting educational standards as well as global development goals.

I took a poll of a small group of philosophy instructors on survey monkey. Twenty-one of my colleagues who work in two and four year colleges and universities across the United States responded. I used this data, along with published articles to think through some of the issues with digital inequality in institutions of higher education.

Even if the global digital divide is closed, there are still local issues of access and global and local digital inequalities. In higher education, the infrastructure that provides access to students, faculty, staff, and parents must be accessible as a first step to ensuring digital equality.

This is a good sign. All but one philosophy professor thinks about students' ability to access the internet when planning course activities and assignments. Awareness is the first step!

Results were similar when asked about student access on campus, with 76% saying yes, 19% saying they weren't sure, but only 5% said no. Faculty access seems to be a bit more constrained for this group with 71% saying they were offered adequate access, but 29% of faculty saying they did not receive adequate access.

Colleges and universities are integrating technology at a rapid pace through online and hybrid classes, as well as by integrating more technology into their classes. In order to integrate technology successfully to meet learning outcomes, students must have access, to technology and technological skills despite socioeconomic, gender, age, race, and other factors.

Even if/when infrastructure needs are met, faculty, staff, students, and parents need training to learn the skills and reap the benefits that educational technology can offer.

This question is interesting because it shows that despite their awareness of the importance of digital equality, training and support are not priorities for many institutions.

Many--though not most-- professors are aware of training and support, but for some it's not available and for others, they either aren't sure or they think so, i.e. "I think they have techie people that help with techie things, but I have never asked for help." Without training for students, faculty, staff, and parents, digital inequality will be perpetuated, rather than mitigated.

As universities change their business models to reach out to diverse and non-traditional students, training is required to ensure that those who are already disadvantaged in higher ed are not further disadvantaged by unequal capabilities to use and benefit from educational technology.

It has been said that "anyone can now learn anything from anywhere at anytime," (Bonk in Clothey, 54). Yet, this is only true theoretically, since digital inequalities, by definition, make this untrue. Anyone can't; only those who have access and training can.

Colleges and universities are integrating technology at a rapid pace through online and hybrid classes, as well as by integrating more technology into their classes and using more digital materials.

In order to integrate technology successfully to meet learning outcomes, students, faculty, staff, and parents need training to lessen digital inequality. It needs to be part of the model. For this reason, hiring more instructional designers and educational technologists to train students and faculty and work with faculty to develop curricula would help solve this problem.

In addition to the infrastructure and training another major obstacle to digital inequality is culture.

I refer here to culture in terms of aspects of identity as well as in terms of climate.

The marginalization of members of non-dominant identity groups plays a factor in digital inequality and the climate of institutions higher education play a role in digital inequality.

In my informal poll, many seem to be aware--at least to the degree that they have encountered digital inequality issues in their schools--that digital inequality exists.

It's not clear, however, how active a role this awareness plays for professors, given their time constraints, course loads--especially adjunct and other non-tenured faculty--, and service publishing commitments.

Most seem to be aware that digital inequality is a real concern and affects students in their classes.

At 84% of respondents answering in the affirmative, socioeconomic (class or income) identity seems to be most prominent factor, though the intersections of these identities are complex.

Cultural factors exacerbate digital inequalities just like other forms of inequality. Without awareness of and action to undo it, inequality saturates marginalized classes, races, ethnicities, genders, locations, and ages. As Clothey explains: "Nearly nine-in-ten families earning annual incomes of US $75,000 or more reported having at least one computer, and about eight-in-ten had at least one household member who used the Internet at home. However, among family households with
incomes below US$25,000, the picture is vastly different. Only three-in-ten reported having a computer and about two-in-ten had internet access," (Clothey 2008).

Although income is a primary factor, its intersection with other axes of identity like race increase the odds of digital inequality: "The U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey estimated in 2009 that about 47 percent of Hispanic and 45 percent of African American households still have no Internet access at home, as compared with only 29 percent of White and 19 percent of Asian households without Internet access (Clothey, 2011).

Yet, there seems to be some doubt among this group as to the importance of mitigating digital inequality in higher education.

Ten percent of respondents answered that digital inequality was probably important, but it should be handled at the administration level, and fifteen percent answered that it's not important in higher ed, but it probably is in K-12 culture.

So, there seems to be a disconnect between the two senses of cultural awareness here. There seems to be a fairly solid understanding of the real effects that aspects of identity play in digital inequality, yet there is less understanding about the importance of changing the climate in higher education to undermine digital inequality.

The biggest solution for cultural aspects of digital inequality, like other forms of inequality, is awareness. There needs to be an awareness that the issue exists and an awareness of the need to change the culture of institutions of higher education.

Also, like other forms of inequality, inclusion is integral to overcoming digital inequality. People of diverse class, gender, racial ethnic, age, and geographical locations must be included in learning the skills and accessing the benefits of educational technology.

Further, collaboration can help to change the culture--climate--of higher education to be a paragon of digital equality.

Of course, the cost of digital inequality, like the cost of closing the digital divide, is a major factor.

As one survey respondent noted as a primary issue affecting the digital divide: "Some schools are more or less capable of budgeting money for tech / access."

As setting development goals helped to shift logic toward investing in infrastructure, so should setting educational goals help to shift logic towards building local infrastructure, training students, faculty, staff, and parents, and changing the culture in higher education.

For example, some of the 2010 National Education Technology Plan Executive Summary are:

"[To] focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn, where and when they will learn, and who needs to learn."

"[To] bring[s] state-of-the art technology into learning to enable, motivate, and inspire all students, regardless of background, languages, or disabilities, to achieve."

"[To] leverage[s] the power of technology to provide personalized learning and to enable continuous and lifelong learning."

"To improve student performance, and involve multiple stakeholders in the process of designing, conducting, and using assessment."

"[To] shift to a model of connected teaching."

"[To] provide[s] every student, educator, and level of our education system with the resources they need when and where they are needed."

"To achieve our goal of transforming American education, we must rethink basic assumptions and redesign our education system. We must apply technology to implement personalized learning and ensure that students are making appropriate progress through our P–16 system so they graduate. These and other initiatives require investment, but tight economic times and basic fiscal responsibility demand that we get more out of each dollar we spend. We must leverage technology to plan, manage, monitor, and report spending to provide decision- makers with a reliable, accurate, and complete view of the financial performance of our education system at all levels," (Executive Summary of the NETP, 2010).

Digital inequality saturates higher education from the infrastructure, budgeting, and climate, down to classroom activities and interactions.

Similarly all of the AECT standards are implicated in thinking through digital inequality. The first AECT standard, design, is particularly relevant.

Standard 1: Design requires digital equality. Specifically, meeting the following standards that require meeting the needs of ALL learners:

1.1.a Utilize and implement design principles which specify optimal conditions for learning.
1.1.2.b Create instructional plans (micro-level design) that address the needs of all learners, including appropriate accommodations for learners with special needs.
1.1.4.a Use instructional plans and materials which they have produced in contextualized instructional settings (e.g., practica, field experiences, training) that address the needs of all learners, including appropriate accommodations for learners with special needs.
1.3.d Select motivational strategies appropriate for the target learners, task, and learning situation.

We can see that the AECT Standards require attention to digital equality in the classroom.