9.2- Digital Divides

2) What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make? a) To socioeconomically related access issues within a society? b) To global access issues across countries and regions?

I think that the assumption is that the digital divide, certain people being able to afford to have the means to access the Internet and other new technologies, in terms of Prensky’s ideas, will result in digital natives having a better understanding of the things they are taught than those who do not have access to such technologies. As Prensky suggests that natives speaking a new language should be taught through this new language of technology.

However, one commentator on this topic, Henry Jenkins, in his blog writes about the way in which the term digital native is all encompassing and does not allow any room for variations. He states that his research suggests that whilst lots of the children he has worked with do use technology, there were variations in the way in which it affected their lives. For example, although lots of the children did not have Internet access or a computer at home, they were still able to use technology to express themselves, for example through computer games or DVD collections.

Therefore, the digital divide, according to Jenkins, will not necessarily mean that those with Internet access will not benefit from learning by using technology, as those without it still have the means by which to experience many of the same benefits, such as expressing themselves, finding information, and communicating with friends.

The result of this, in terms of global issues across countries and regions, will mean that those with access to the technologies will not be any better equipped or learn the content in an easier way, because, as Jenkins suggests, those who do not necessarily have Internet access at home, still do have a means of expressing themselves through technology as it is so ingrained in modern day life.

W9. Task e. Technophile student in 2020

e) Describe the experience of a fictional technophile student in 2020.

It is difficult to image what the world will be like in 2020, I assume their will be new technology I can’t even conceive at the moment. However, a part of me would like to see it as being not too far removed from today’s lifestyle. It makes me uncomfortable to think of a world where people no longer communicate face-to-face and everything is done electronically.

My prediction is that people will get sick of living electronically after it becomes even more ingrained into everyday life and a breaking point will occur. I predict a typical student will wake up, check their e-mails and Facebook, quickly check the news and their favourite blogs for updates as they wait for their first lecture to arrive on their computer. This will consist of an alert from the computer when a video file arrives, with a lecturer lecturing remotely, they will then transfer this over to their ipod. They will watch the file on the train or bus whilst on their way to actually meat their friends face-to-face as this is something I imagine will still occur. In this way I see technology as giving us increased flexibility, as opposed to the cyber-dystopian view that it will result in us all being social recluses, communicating exclusively through online medias.

Although technology has the potential to make meeting in “meet space” un-necessary, I think humans have a natural instinct to socialise, it is something which separates us from animals; we need physical interaction to feel fulfilled and I don’t think there will be a time when this doesn’t occur on a large scale. In general I think, or is it hope? That technology will enhance our social interactions as opposed to replacing them. I think technological advances will result in a greater amount of choice and ways to work which will result in more freedom to socialize rather than eliminating the need to.

Techno-determinism. 2.1

Whilst I would agree that the force of technology is outside of the control of society, I would argue that it isn’t quite on the same level as a ‘force of nature’ in that the force of nature is uninvited; we did not expect hurricane Katrina or the tsunami on Boxing Day in south-east Asia and I don’t think they can be compared to the effects of technology. Conversely, technology and its growth is something which we encourage and is assumed to be helping our lives, evidenced by the prevalence of technology in our day to day lives nowadays and the amount of money invested into developing new technologies. Whilst the individual may be powerless to resist the effects of these technologies, society itself shapes how they manifest themselves and how they are used. For example, the way in which technologies come to replace one another, with CDs replacing cassettes, mp3s replacing CDs and so on.

Socio-determinism seems the logical argument to me as the different technologies which replace one another are determined not by a whim or by chance, but by other social forces such as profit margins, distribution and marketing. For example, to go back to the music format example, mp3s were a more practical way to listen to music in that they weren’t physical in the same way that CDs and cassettes were, you can’t hold them or “give” one to someone as such. Therefore distribution was easier; it could come straight to you on your computer through ITunes, meaning that profit margins could potentially be higher (ignoring illegal file sharing) therefore the popularity of this format came about through social forces, as argued by socio-determinism.