Page 28 - Šolsko polje, XXVII, 2016, no. 3-4: IEA ICILS in druge sodobne teme, ur. Eva Klemenčič
P. 28
šolsko polje, letnik xxvii, številka 3–4
are boosted by the use of technology due to the control positions in a socie
ty with increasing complexity where the skills to acquire and sustain posi
tions are unequal (van Dijk, 2006). In this way, the information turns into
a positional good and some social positions create better prospects to ob
tain, process and use important information, which empowers those hav
ing the appropriate skills and their networks. Individuals and networks
that are not well-positioned are subject to social exclusion. Those who are
very included due to their dominant position (an “information elite”) be
come even more empowered and gain even more capital and resources, in
creasing the traditional social inequalities (van Dijk, 2006). Additionally,
the higher-SES individuals and families could afford the equipment earli
er than lower-SES ones and, as early adopters, have the advantage by hav
ing continuously more experience than the later adopters (Hohlfeld et al.,
2008; M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). The divide between the early and late
adopters tends to increase further in future because the information tech
nology also progresses with time, but also because the amount of informa
tion increases along with the complexity of its utilization (M.-C. Kim &
Kim, 2001). However, even if the homes were equipped equally, children
from higher SES families gain more (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). This
reflects a form of “capital” which is different than the social and cultur
al ones and is unequally distributed in society. The resources, in turn, are
material (equipment and software), social (networks possessing and using
technology, plus the social support in using it) and cognitive (constitut
ing literacy, numeracy and informacy [i.e. “informational literacy”, digi
tal skills for reading and searching textual information which is complex
and multifaceted]) (van Dijk & Hacker, 2003). Thus, CIL can contrib
ute to raising the cultural capital of those who have access to technology
and acquire the skills to use it, serving the interests of the dominant class
and reproducing the existing social structure and ideological framework
in power (Kucukaydin & Tisdell, 2008), although most authors at the be
ginning of the 21st century agree that “inequality in the information socie
ty is fundamentally different from that of industrial society” (M.-C. Kim
& Kim, 2001, p. 79).
The expansion of the concept and the issues beyond possession and
access to ICT allows three levels of the digital divide in society and edu
cation to be distinguished: 1) infrastructure and support; 2) frequency of
using ICT by students and teachers; 3) student ICT preparedness. These
three levels are assumed to be hierarchical (Epstein, Nisbet, & Gillespie,
2011; Hohlfeld et al., 2008). The first level preoccupies the public opin
ion and policy (van Dijk & Hacker, 2003), the third is hardest to address
(Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, & Barron, 2013), mainly due to the complexity of
26
are boosted by the use of technology due to the control positions in a socie
ty with increasing complexity where the skills to acquire and sustain posi
tions are unequal (van Dijk, 2006). In this way, the information turns into
a positional good and some social positions create better prospects to ob
tain, process and use important information, which empowers those hav
ing the appropriate skills and their networks. Individuals and networks
that are not well-positioned are subject to social exclusion. Those who are
very included due to their dominant position (an “information elite”) be
come even more empowered and gain even more capital and resources, in
creasing the traditional social inequalities (van Dijk, 2006). Additionally,
the higher-SES individuals and families could afford the equipment earli
er than lower-SES ones and, as early adopters, have the advantage by hav
ing continuously more experience than the later adopters (Hohlfeld et al.,
2008; M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). The divide between the early and late
adopters tends to increase further in future because the information tech
nology also progresses with time, but also because the amount of informa
tion increases along with the complexity of its utilization (M.-C. Kim &
Kim, 2001). However, even if the homes were equipped equally, children
from higher SES families gain more (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). This
reflects a form of “capital” which is different than the social and cultur
al ones and is unequally distributed in society. The resources, in turn, are
material (equipment and software), social (networks possessing and using
technology, plus the social support in using it) and cognitive (constitut
ing literacy, numeracy and informacy [i.e. “informational literacy”, digi
tal skills for reading and searching textual information which is complex
and multifaceted]) (van Dijk & Hacker, 2003). Thus, CIL can contrib
ute to raising the cultural capital of those who have access to technology
and acquire the skills to use it, serving the interests of the dominant class
and reproducing the existing social structure and ideological framework
in power (Kucukaydin & Tisdell, 2008), although most authors at the be
ginning of the 21st century agree that “inequality in the information socie
ty is fundamentally different from that of industrial society” (M.-C. Kim
& Kim, 2001, p. 79).
The expansion of the concept and the issues beyond possession and
access to ICT allows three levels of the digital divide in society and edu
cation to be distinguished: 1) infrastructure and support; 2) frequency of
using ICT by students and teachers; 3) student ICT preparedness. These
three levels are assumed to be hierarchical (Epstein, Nisbet, & Gillespie,
2011; Hohlfeld et al., 2008). The first level preoccupies the public opin
ion and policy (van Dijk & Hacker, 2003), the third is hardest to address
(Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, & Barron, 2013), mainly due to the complexity of
26
