Physical barriers to digital equity in the classroom can be defined as simply a lack of access to the computer itself and other necessary hardware, as well as to the Internet. Without the computers and hardware that they need, students cannot very well use technology to learn. Many individuals who do not have access to physical resources are generally those who come from lower socioeconomic brackets or belong to minority groups (Wagner, et al. 3). The personal computer is a potentially liberating, democratizing tool, and many of those people in the "Third World within the First World" are anxious to acquire it (Monroe xi). The simple fact that some people cannot obtain such technology creates a divide between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots."
Within the "have-nots," there exists yet another divide between those who have been termed the "wants" and the "don't-wants." Though the "have-nots" as a whole have not, for the most part, been terribly criticized for their lack of physical resources, the "don't-wants" have been consistently scorned, mocked, and accused. To attempt to save someone who does not wish to be saved is a lost cause, and the "don't-wants," a group that includes not only rich, but also poor people, have been deemed to have incorrect values that are simply inexcusable (Monroe 14). However, it would prove much more productive to recognize this group's reasons for hesitating to use ICT, and finding ways to assuage their fears and convince them that technology is not bad; rather, it can be used to their benefit.
The issue of physical access encompasses both school access and home access. Please click on the School and Home menu links to learn more about them.
Though some may argue that giving students access to computers and Internet technology would give them a way to play games rather than put it to good use, studies have shown that the majority of students who have access to ICT at school have been found to use it constructively: 94 percent of youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen who have Internet access say that they have used it for school research while 78 percent believe the Internet helps them with schoolwork. In addition, 71 percent of teens who have access report that they had used the Internet as a major source of information for a recent school report or project (Solomon, Allen, and Resta 16). Although it is possible that some students use their physical resources for recreational purposes, this number is either very small or they partake in such activities on their leisure time, after their work has been completed.
Just as important as school access, if not more so, is access to physical resources at home. It is certain that the presence of books and other reading materials in the home is positively influential on a child's early success in school, and later on in life. Similarly, in today's world of technological advancements, the availability of computers with Internet access at children's homes can be crucial to the development of their technological literacy (Solomon, Allen, and Resta 16). Researchers have found a positive relationship between achievement and the use of home computers for educational or communication purposes (Wagner, et al. 21). Regardless of how much money goes into providing poorer schools with physical resources, students from middle-class families who attend richer schools and have access to computers at home will have technological and linguistic advantages that are conducive to success in school and in life (Monroe 27). Pure logic coincides with experts' opinions and researchers' findings: if children are brought up with computers in their homes and are allowed to use them from a young age, by the time they reach elementary or middle levels of school they will have acquired a knowledge of how to use such technology to their advantage. If, however, they do not have access to physical resources at home, they are surely at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that not all schools provide their students with access to computers and the Internet. In the past, many studies simply counted the number of schools connected to the Internet; however, it was soon realized that this number is not an accurate measure of student access. Though a school may have Internet access, if it is not made readily available to the students, it is not very effective. The presence of computers in a few vague locations around the schools' campuses-even in a specific computer laboratory-is not as conducive to using ICTs for higher order skills as placing fewer computers in classrooms (infoDEV 3). The focus of such studies then switched to student-per-computer ratios and the number of computers per instructional room (Monroe 6). The data has shown that "a vast gap does indeed separate rich and poor . . . and that gap is at once economic, racial, discursive, and epistemological in character" (Monroe 5). The matter of who is on which side of this digital divide is dependent upon several factors, but there does exist a general trend that provides insight on who has access and who does not. This trend is consistent across different regions, schools, and even time periods: the determining factors of who has access and what the quality of that access is are race, gender, linguistic ability, cultural heritage, and income. Urban families with an annual income of $75,000 or greater are 25 times more likely to have Internet access than rural low-income families. White, Pacific Islander, and Asian American households make up the vast majority of those who have access, while Black and Hispanic households are very much in the minority (Solomon, Allen, and Resta xviii). In addition, those who live in rural areas are far less likely to have access to computers, use the Internet, or use new technologies to their advantage than those who reside in urban areas (Ministry). The numbers illustrate this trend. This issue of access is putting many individuals at a distinct disadvantage.
The causes of physical barriers to digital equity in the classroom are simple to name, but difficult to overcome. First and foremost is the issue of affordability: though the cost of computers decreases steadily over time due to increased efficiency in production, computers and internet access remain unaffordable for many. This is an issue at two separate levels: the individual, and the school level. Individual households may be unable to afford computer technology, and governments may also not have enough funding to improve the ICT infrastructure in their school systems. Secondly, there are many parents and students who do not realize the importance of ICTs in education. For the most part, it is not as though they do not care about their children's educations; they simply do not realize that incorporating ICTs into school and home life has very positive benefits. This lack of information can severely restrict a student's access to ICT.
It is not as though nothing is being done to overcome these physical barriers. There are many efforts currently in progress to solve the access issue by providing technology to schools and homes, increasing broadband connectivity, and providing public access centers. However, many of these solutions depend on the specific problem for a particular region or demographic group. For instance, in the region of Kerala, India, there are a surprising number of schools with access to computers and the Internet. During school hours, the students learn how to use the computers and the Internet effectively. After school hours, however, the schools double as Internet cafes for public use. Mayer-Schoenberger notes, "That's an intriguing way of offering connectivity embedded in the local institutions and structures" (interview). For all of these methods, however, it is essential that there is at least a rudimentary backbone structure of connectivity. Gerry Smith of River Oaks Elementary School in Oakville, Canada developed a very effective means of creating a structural backbone of connectivity and physical access for the students at his school. By partnering with various telecommunications companies-Microsoft, Apple, Perceptrix, and Sony, to name a few-Smith has acquired $500,000 worth of physical resources, including computers, scanners, CD-ROM players, and desktop publishing and video equipment. Despite the fact that River Oaks did not have any more funds than any other school in the area, Smith was able to obtain such comparatively incredible resources for his own school by using creative thinking and novel business tactics. He created deals with these major companies, for instance, arranging to buy, at discounted prices, equipment with slightly damaged exteriors that could not be sold for full retail prices through usual distribution chains, though the mechanics worked perfectly (Tapscott 208). Solutions like this, which involve partnerships that are beneficial to both parties, require ingenuity. The access issue is not unsolvable; it simply requires a different sort of thinking.
It is important to realize that many of the "don't-wants" are disinclined to use technology because of a lack of technological optimism (Monroe 16). Logically speaking, then, it stands to reason that the most effective ways to convince a large number of people in this group to embrace technology is to give them a reason to believe it will help them. As Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, states, Many of the "don't-wants" will move online if they see a specific benefit for doing so. Hence, if governments want to overcome the digital divide, they may want to create incentives for the "don't-wants" to go online. Digital cameras and easy to use applications like iPhoto have made many grandparents in the US and Europe go online, to stay in contact with their loved ones far away. That's the type of "killer application" that will change behavior. (interview) With "killer applications" such as this that give the "don't-wants" motivation to experience at least one facet of the world of ICT, it is possible to allow them to explore other parts of it as well, potentially converting them to "wants," and perhaps even "haves," with time. This process of converting people from the other groups to "haves" is imperative to the process of achieving digital equity.
In some areas, it may be helpful to try leapfrogging to wireless technology. However, this is contingent upon a few key characteristics of the region in which such changes are being considered. If the region is on the proverbial home stretch of solving the access issue, then wireless technology would be an excellent solution. However, if the backbones of connectivity are weak or lacking, or if endpoint equipment is lacking, then wireless technology would be of very limited use (Mayer-Schoenberger). Also, recycling old generation computers rather than disposing of them entirely could provide underprivileged individuals with a more affordable alternative to obtaining such technology. Though the technology in such machines may be slightly outdated or the exteriors may not be quite as flashy and attractive as newer models, provided they function sufficiently, older machines could be sent to schools in areas with lower instances of access to provide them with a more cost-effective means of obtaining technolo gy.
It is imperative to stress once again that while the access issue is still important, it is not as important as it once was. Since this was once the ultimate barrier to digital equity, past efforts to bridge the digital divide have focused immensely on this issue. Thanks to these efforts, the problem is being solved in various ways, by various people, and with varying degrees of success. Such efforts are aided by the natural economic progression of the computer industry; as production becomes more cost-effective, people in lower socioeconomic levels become more able to own computers. "As the power of the computer chip increases, [it is possible to] buy a computer with twice the power 18 months after the previous purchase, yet pay the same price" (Solomon, Allen, and Resta 8). With the increased availability of such technology to average people comes a significant increase of computing power in the hands of individuals and a redistribution of power from the technical minds to the ordinary people of the w orld (Solomon 9). From this point onwards, bridging the digital divide will no longer mean simply making machines available, because the machines by themselves will not be able to "transform problems of literacy, poverty, powerlessness, and cultural isolation and ignorance" simply by being present (Monroe xi). Physical access must be integrated with other factors as well.