Patterns of internet use by English students

Introduction

The children who participated in this research are ahead of the technology itself in some ways, demanding a higher level of performance and efficiency than it is often able to deliver. Issues such as speed, filtering (especially at school), viruses, spam, spy and other malware are seen as an irritation. Restrictions that are placed upon them at school, whether through web filtering, timetabling, access or other issues, are however tolerated and children are phlegmatic about their schools’ provision of internet services. By contrast they usually find their access at home more enjoyable, beneficial and helpful to their school-related, recreational, private and social lives.

 

According to their own report, it seems that children regard themselves as having a well-developed, sound and perceptive sense of the accuracy and veracity of the information that they commonly access from the internet. They are likely to use the design, web address and general ‘feel’ of a website to assess its potential and likely accuracy. They use their personal experiences when evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from a specific website, and will often self-filter websites that they have discovered in the past to be unreliable, inaccurate or misleading. This is especially true of wikis. Children often evaluate a website by quickly assessing the amount or type of advertising or pop-ups encountered. Websites that include excessive advertising or inappropriate (e.g. gambling) advertising are often avoided by children as they self-censor websites they encounter. This is true of both home and school usage, although the school will usually filter out inappropriate websites before they reach the students’ desktop. Children often indicated that they use effective methods of triangulation or verification when obtaining information of doubtful authenticity. Methods of verification include comparing data extracted from a number of websites, seeking information from an adult or peer or referring to books for confirmation of information.

 

Unsurprisingly, children used search engines more frequently at school than any other category of website. This was stated by them in their surveys and during interviews and was also validated by logs recording their usage. For recreation, in their out-of-school environments they liked playing games, browsing and downloading music and videos. For social communication, across both genders they preferred using instant messaging and social networks as their mode of social communication. Most children reported using the internet extensively for helping with homework and revision, with a preference for using the internet in private areas out-of-school such as bedrooms or other private living and recreation areas.

 

Both online and offline literacy practices were seen to be strongly related to internet use,  with children who reported spending significant amounts of time reading books and magazines also reporting moderately high internet use. The internet was certainly seen by children as forming an important part of their social and educational activities with words such as “accuracy” and ”learning” occurring frequently during the interview group discussions. The internet is clearly valued as a dependable source of information and as a means of social communication.

 

As has been noted in the presentation of findings, some gender differences in internet usage were observed in the survey. Girls generally indicated that they were more likely to use social software such as instant messaging or social networking sites than boys, whereas boys were more likely to use internet games for recreation than girls. Girls’ usage of social networking generally focused around keeping in touch with existing friends rather than making new ones. Children of both genders reported not only downloading music and videos as favoured activities but also the creation and publishing of music and videos as popular pastimes. They also described how they enjoyed constructing artefacts on the internet such as web pages, virtual postcards and other internet-hosted construction activities. Whilst acknowledging the possible gender stereotyping that these conclusions may imply, girls’ higher use of social networking and boys’ higher usage of games may be seen as being consistent with both genders’ offline interests. This is also supported by the apparent greater likelihood of boys undertaking more risky online behaviour than girls, such as visiting chatrooms.

 

Unsurprisingly, children generally perceived themselves as having a greater degree of freedom in internet usage out-of-school than in-school. Those children who felt they had the greatest amount of freedom also reported the highest levels of confidence in internet usage. Relatively moderate usage (up to two hours per day) of the internet seemed to be mostly appropriate, being focused on a range of recreational, social and educational activities. Relatively low levels (less than one half-hour per day)  of internet use were often associated with low levels of reading generally, whereas relatively high levels (more than two hours per day)  of internet use was often also associated with low levels of reading.  Usage at the high end was often also associated with unfocused, random use of the internet such as browsing. Those children who reported structured home supervision and the application of some usage rules also reported a balance of recreational, social and educational usage at both home and school.

 

Notwithstanding children’s observations as noted above on the accuracy of information obtained from the internet, there was also a fascination with its fallibility. Children were interested in encountering information that was apocryphal, misleading or just plain wrong and believed they were efficient and adept at uncovering such websites, although they were unlikely to revisit them for research purposes. Children also found the potential of the internet to distract interesting, depending on the context of what they found and were often intellectually engaged by stimulating diversions.

 

Many of the above observations are supported by postmodern theories. Butler (2002) and Sellinger (2004) have described the internet as being a postmodern phenomenon. Their separate pieces of research have picked out three key postmodern descriptors of the internet, namely its non- hierarchised nature, its virtuality and its mutability. These three descriptors can be related to much of the children’s use of the internet as described in this paper. Its non-hierarchised form relates to and appeals to children in the way in which they can create, share and seek information and communicate using internet-based technologies. The virtuality of the internet places sources of information, recreational spaces and their network of friends in an easily accessible and synchronous environment created by them wherever they have an internet-enabled device, but especially out-of-school.

 

These ideas are also consistent with theories expressed by other researchers. Hernwell has described the internet as being a function rather than an object and describes it in virtual terms (Hernwell, 2005). Gee (2004) expresses similar ideas, placing experience ahead of information and seeing the internet in terms of process rather than product. Again, children’s process-oriented usage of the internet is consistent with ideas such as these.  At an early stage in the  popular use of the internet, Nune was also writing in similar terms (Nune, 1995), realising quickly that the internet had no frontiers and as such was not bounded in the same way as other systems of communication or methods of storing and retrieving information. These descriptions closely match, in spirit anyway, the ways in which children spoke, sometimes naively but often perceptively about the internet.

 

The children’s use of and perspectives  on the internet are also supported by the ideas of Granic and Lamey (2000) who have spoken about postmodernism in terms of perspectivism, multiplicity and decentralisation and by relating  these three concepts to both the internet itself and to learning on the internet. Children’s discussion of the internet and the various viewpoints and relativism that pervades both the content and the spirit of the internet is consistent with Granic and Lamey’s, and although children did not exactly describe the internet in those precise terms, the perspectivism can be related to the points of view that children expressed and encountered on the internet,  the multiplicity related to the variety of people and information sources with which they interacted, and the decentralisation related to the hyperlinked, shared and democratic nature of their online communication and research. This is also coherent with Chapman’s description of the internet and postmodernism in terms of the multiplicity of competing and subjective narratives (Chapman, 2005). These competing narratives can also be seen in terms of how (in)formal  learning itself is seen.  Sefton-Green (2004) describes informal learning as being no longer seen in terms of being merely casual, disorganised and accidental but as being an integral part of the same learning process that occurs in more formal settings. This certainly appears to be validated by the comments by children on the way in which they used the internet informally for educational, social and recreational reasons.

 

Children discussed their use of the internet in very human and interactive terms, in turn revealing many of their values with respect to honesty, respect and other ethical issues. The revelation of these values and beliefs are consistent with the theories of Butler (2002) who has written about how technology reveals the outcome of our human values. However, and the children in the study have indicated this, the use of the internet is not a utopian state of being. There are challenges, idiosyncrasies, frustrations and blind alleys, all of which can on the one hand reduce the effectiveness of the internet for research and communication but on the other hand can help raise the social and intellectual capital gained through working through these issues. Zembylas and Vrasidas (2004) have spoken of the pedagogy of discomfort with respect to online learning and this can be translated to the postmodern context of children’s use of internet where there are unprecedented freedoms, but also challenges, new rules and new responsibilities for parents, teachers and those who care for children in both in-school and out-of-school contexts.

Patterns of Usage

There appears to be some common patterns between students’ responses to the online survey, their discussions during the interviews and the logs on internet usage. The logs show that search engines are by far the most common category of website accessed by students at school. This is supported by the results of the survey where 72% of children use the internet for obtaining information. It is worth noting that the logs indicate that there is often little use of the schools’ websites and the use that is recorded often relates to those schools that set their website as the default homepage upon logging in, with students quickly navigating away. The survey indicates that only 24% of students use the schools’ websites, which raises the issue of the purpose and role of the school website. Is it purely for marketing? Could it be used more effectively for children’s learning? Should it more effectively incorporate learning platforms, blogs, e-portfolios or other more interactive elements?  These are issues that schools may be prompted to consider.

 

The interviews yielded a large number of children’s comments on the accuracy of content on the internet, especially with respect to their learning. The interviews included much discussion about online games, and this is also supported by the survey which reported 81% of students using the internet for games. There appeared to be little variance between what children say they did and what the logs reported as actual usage.

 

I believe that the methodology chosen for obtaining and analysing the data in this paper has worked effectively. Both the survey and the interviews produced rich data that assisted my understanding of the area being researched. My positionality as a keen advocate of the internet and as a senior member of my organisation placed me in a privileged position to interpret the data made available through the methodology. At the top level of questioning, the main research question was: How do year children use the internet both in-school and out-of-school? This was broken down into four subsidiary questions.

 

In retrospect, the main question has been a little less about the children’s actual behaviour and more about their perceptions about how they use the internet, their beliefs and the way they report these perceptions and beliefs. . With respect to the question How is out-of-school internet behaviour of year 7 students similar to in-school internet behaviour? a number of conclusions can be drawn from the data and analysis in the preceding sections. Children were critical of the accuracy of information on the internet, especially with respect to their learning. This was drawn out of experiences with a number of websites that were cited as examples. They did, however, demonstrate good ways of checking and validating information, and felt the internet was a valuable resource. This was consistent with both in-school and out-of-school access.

 

Children complained about the things that got in the way of their internet use. This included their experiences with viruses, spyware and pop-ups at home, yet they also complained about the restrictions placed on them by firewalls and filtering at school. This shows their impatience with the technology and their need for immediacy and reliability of access. Children disliked things that got in the way of them using the internet when and where they liked. I believe this needs a curriculum response, educating children about skilful practices on the internet and explaining the reasons and the technologies involved for firewalls and filtering. However, generally children demonstrated a good awareness of internet safety issues. Schools could further encourage and nurture safe practices whilst providing adequate safeguards such as filtering and caching facilities. A good safety policy and code of practice is important.

 

With respect to the question  How does out-of-school internet behaviour of year 7 students differ from in-school behaviour? and its corollary If the behaviour of year 7 students differs, is this important?, there are a number of observations to be made and conclusions to be drawn. There often appears to be a different relationship between the children and their informal learning and that which occurs in a formal educational setting. Schools should look at ways of making the formal educational experience more related to and built upon that which the children bring from home. In order to do this a deeper understanding must be developed of what children do and how they interact with others online. Bringing the home and school practice together is important. This is more relevant than trying to emulate home practice at school. New kinds of learning are taking place involving, amongst other things, online exploration, collaboration and networking and this should be embraced and contextualised by schools to allow young people the opportunity to practice, enhance and apply their skills in a transferable way both in-school and out-of-school.

 

Children mainly used the internet at home in private or other designated areas, whereas at school, usage was more public and exposed. However, children believed that teachers were less likely to know what they were doing on the internet at school than parents were to know what they were doing on the internet at home. Videos and games were favourite activities for children at home, whereas search engines were favourites at school. Children unsurprisingly preferred using the internet at home, mainly due to the privacy and freedom afforded to them. Those who spent the most time on the internet at school also tended to spend the most time on the internet at home.

 

The use of the internet by young people differs in informal, formal and non-formal settings. However, there are perpetual and changing overlaps between these settings, and the contexts will be largely determined by the learners themselves. In this sense, although we might aspire to a framework for learning with the internet, it is a framework that itself is in perpetual beta form. Children develop self-organised learning practices (or contexts) using the tools which are sometimes taught in schools and sometimes learnt informally. It is apparent that children bring informal learning to school. Schools should use this, but not necessarily appropriate it. This has also been commented upon recently by other researchers (Green and Hannon, 2007).  Schools should also however, look at ways of developing context-based models for learning, and seek to understand ways in which informal and formal learning can be realigned. Children should also be encouraged in the school setting to be creators of content as well being articulate and discerning consumers. This is consistent with trends observed in the 2007 Ofcom report on the communications market where the most notable impact of the internet in recent years was seen to be the conversion of consumers into content producers (Ofcom, 2007, p. 97). It is also consistent with recent research into the CBBC online game ‘Adventure Rock’. In 2008, Gauntlett and Jackson conducted a case study on ‘Adventure Rock’, a virtual world for children aged 8-11 (Gauntlett and Jackson, 2008). This free, downloadable program from CBBC provides creative studios where children can draw pictures, animate cartoons, choreograph dance, compose music and construct machines. CBBC has taken up the challenge of providing safe and appropriate social networking and interactive games for children in this age group. At the time of writing, Adventure Rock is the latest in a series of virtual worlds, created specifically for children in the past two years. Others include Club Penguin, Nicktropolis, Moshi Monsters and My Tiny Planets.  Gauntlet and Jackson describe eight types of players in these virtual worlds: explore-investigator, self-stampers, social climbers, fighters, collector-consumers, power users, life-system builders and nurturers, all engaged in a series of online activities ranging from solitary to sociable. Gauntlett and Jackson found a number of benefits to be apparent in children’s usage of Adventure Rock including the creation of mental maps, rehearsal of responsibility and self-expression. Research such as this is important in informing the future appropriation of in-school and out-of-school online experiences for children.

 

Schools need to listen to children and their use of the internet, and develop strategies to bring together the richness that both informal and formal learning can provide. Schools also need to provide the opportunity for children to practice the skills that they bring from informal learning and enable them to use those skills in a range of contexts and settings. In doing this, schools should not attempt to mimic out-of-school use, but concentrate on enabling responsible and effective use of IP-based technologies by students. The development of a set of ethical, safe and critical approaches to the internet is crucial. However, it also apparent that children already have some good critical skills in finding and analysing information, and that they are good at verifying and validating information found on the internet. On the social aspect of the internet, there is a need to further develop safe practices with respect to social networking, blogging, e-portfolios and other online activities.

 

Given children’s frequent interest and participation in internet games, there is further scope to explore the educational possibilities available through these activities. The fun elements of the internet greatly appeal to children of this age, and the appropriation of creative and constructivist activities continue to be a desired outcome for children. Teaching children to be disciplined users is important too. My research showed that those who spent a lot of time just browsing were often those who had unrestricted use of the internet at home. The encouragement of supportive, responsible parental supervision is important and schools should have a role in promoting this. Where the response from home is apathetic or negative, schools should look towards the education of parents and the provision of the internet during out of hours time in the form of after school, or homework clubs where good out-of-school internet behaviours and habits can be demonstrated and developed.

 

Informal learning using the internet often appears as self-motivated with a strong sense of ownership both of content creation and social networking. It is often generated by a real purposeful need by the children themselves, often with the assistance of their peers.

 

Schools should be places where literacy in new media can be developed. The sample of schools in which children were consulted in the research represents a broad set of demographic profiles across England. As the sample was restricted to children at year seven, responses from other year levels would most probably have shown a different set of responses. This is especially likely with respect to the ownership of social networking sites. Older children may be more inclined to use the internet for communications, to explore and test boundaries and to behave in a more independent manner.

 

All the students included in the sample were from schools with good internet provision and it also appeared that children were also generally immersed in the internet in their out-of-school contexts. In this sense, perhaps the internet is a non-issue, being such a natural part of their lives that it holds no awe or surprise for them. This contrasts with my own response, where I am still easily impressed by new internet-based applications. The danger is that school and home practices will diverge to the point where school provision of the internet becomes increasingly irrelevant to children’s lives, especially if a significant gap between teacher and student competencies emerges and grows.

 

Perhaps a more longitudinal study is required, following the patterns of usage over a number of years and possibly examining other types of ICT usage such as mp3 players, mobile camera phones and emergent technologies.

 

Both internet use and reading are popular activities and seem to be related i.e. children who like using the internet also like reading. This clearly links internet use as being a literacy activity. Games, homework, browsing and instant messaging are favourite activities and the literacy activities associated with these are worthy of exploration. As internet use and reading are closely related, literacy is a key skill for internet use and also a key way of improving and practicing that skill. The motivational level for activities such as these is high, as children enjoy the levels of engagement that are afforded by use of the internet.

 

There appears to be a mixed set of rules for home usage, and education of parents is important, especially if their skills and understandings of children’s social practices on the internet are low. Because of children’s high levels of confidence with the internet (66% think they are good users), rules for both school and home usage should perhaps be constantly reviewed.

 

There is a bigger gap between those with access and those without access for boys and girls, and this inequity of access should be explored further. Certainly, the research shows that more emphasis is needed on reading for boys. Girls’ interest in social networking applications also demands a curriculum that teaches responsible use. My research shows that social networking owners are more independent, less likely to look at recommended websites and although children are quite aware of safety issues and can recognize dangers, we must continue to equip them with the necessary skills. The use of resources from Childnet International and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is to be encouraged.  Resources outlined by the Cyberspace Research Unit’s 2004 report (O’Connell, Price and Barrow, 2004) into emerging trends amongst primary school children’s use of the internet has been taken up by many schools and local authorities. This trend is also to be encouraged and cascaded into the family homes of children. As noted previously, boys tend to use the internet more for chatrooms, games and music, possibly partially because they have less strict rules at home than girls but possibly just because this is what boys enjoy doing anyway. A curriculum response that teaches responsible use is also required here.

 

The role of the internet in schools certainly needs constant examination. Students generally don’t see its usage at school as being as relevant as might be hoped. Indeed, Lankshear and Knobel describe how “…much classroom appropriation of new technologies is ineffective, wasteful, and wrongheaded. For a start, they [educators] are likely to see that effective use of the internet calls for sustained continuous periods online with minimal constraints” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006b, p. 258).

 

A response is required to address this relevance, possibly through further research into teachers’ perceptions and usage, and there is arguably a need to revisit professional development models for the use of internet applications in the classroom for learning and teaching. Much of what the young people appear to do on the internet is play, not just with respect to online games but playing with video, music and social networking. The institutional rationale for the expense of providing the internet in schools is primarily for the transmitting of information to learned. This is how the cost can be justified. The dichotomous nature of the internet for play/learning is managed by young people, although ‘play’ is still the key word. This is consistent with Sandvig’s view of the internet as a place for ritual and play as well as for information retrieval and work (Sandvig, 2006). Again, Lankshear and Knobel “…do not advocate turning schools into ‘playgrounds’ for new literacies at the level of popular cultural engagement, Educational practice is distinct from and different to popular culture. The day we give that distinction away is the day we give formal education away” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006b, p. 259).

 

Some authors speak of the necessity of engaging children with the use of the internet (Pritchard and Cartwright, 2004). Most children who responded to my research were soundly engaged, with the engagement being a natural and embedded part of a child’s habitus. I believe that the issue here relates more to giving children the critical and ethical capabilities to use the internet more skilfully.

 

Lack of access to the internet at home by children can mean exclusion from a range of social, creative and constructivist skills. Children not using the internet for communicating with friends, music, games and homework are missing out on a great deal. Perhaps this is a future role of schools’ internet provision, not just as an enabler of access, but also a promoter of innovative practice. Teachers employing strategies such as personalised learning, formative assessment and other contemporary approaches to education may find in the usage of the internet mechanisms by which children can become more independent, directing their own curriculum and managing their assessment for learning. Internet tools such as learning platforms require teacher engagement at the same time as letting go of the locus of control. The negative side of increased online engagement is that excessively heavy use of the internet is often related to music downloading and chat room use and the dangers of internet addiction should be an area of future concern both for parents and schools. Children who use the internet for more than two hours per day could be prone to internet addiction, and excessive internet use should be monitored by parents and teachers, as has already been noted by researchers (Yoo et al, 2004). The issue of internet addiction is also explored by Cao and Su who found that, certainly in China, young people with internet addiction possess different, and often disturbing psychological features when compared with those who use the internet less frequently (Cao and Su, 2007). The reality at the time of writing of this paper (2006-2008) is that a significant proportion of children use the internet to watch videos and claim that they are more likely to use the internet than television to learn about things (Ofcom, 2007, pp 94-95). As they get older (and approach the age of my sample group) they are also more likely to use the internet to keep in touch with other people (Ofcom, 2007, p. 96).

 

Both parents and teachers need to listen to and observe children’s online behaviour whilst at the same time respecting their privacy. Byron talks of how “in terms of adult input with the young person and technology, this is a time to move towards collaborative management” (Byron, 2008, p. 38). Zembylas and Vrasidas discuss the principles of Levinas’ view on ethics and how they relate to internet use. Internet use has an ethical significance which all parties must discover on a journey together. The ethics will evolve through a sensitive and sympathetic partnership (Zembylas and Vrasidas, 2005). With respect to the education of both parents and students, parental and child use of the internet together as a shared experience could improve the effectiveness of parental monitoring. This is supported by the findings of Wang et al (Wang, Bianchi and Raley, 2005). This also is supported by other writers who stress the importance of understanding parents’ and children’s interaction with the internet at home (Valentine and Holloway, 2001).

 

Looking back on my own research process in examining these areas, I can see issues relating to the time sensitivity of the data. The internet has changed significantly during the time of writing of this paper (2011) and in a short period of time the internet will further mutate and children may become engaged in a range of online activities that are yet to be invented. Activities described in this paper may be discarded by children in favour of new technologies affording fresh opportunities for leisure, for learning, communicating and collaborating. In this sense, this paper is an artefact representing a snapshot of the state of children’s internet usage during 2011.  

 

Further work will certainly need to be undertaken to ensure that we are constantly revising our own practices as educators, parents, builders of schools and collaborators with children’s online and offline worlds. New theories will in time emerge to support these and we must constantly reflect not just upon what is happening, but on what new ideas could emerge from future research.

References

BUTLER, C. (2002) Postmodernism: a very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BYRON, T. (2008) Byron Review: Children and New Technology. London, DCSF.

CAO, F. and Su, L. (2007) ‘Internet addiction among Chinese adolescents: prevalence and psychological features.’ In Child: Care, Health and Development, 33 (3) pp. 125-132.

GAUNTLETT, D. and JACKSON, L. (2008) Virtual Worlds: users and producers (Case Study: Adventure Rock). London, Communications and Media Research Institute, University of Westminster.

GEE, J. (2004) Game-like learning: an example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. Madison, University of Wisconsin.

GRANIC, I. and LAMEY, A. (2000) ‘The self-organization of the internet and changing modes of thought.’ In New Ideas in Psychology, 18 (1) pp.93-107.

GREEN, H. and HANNON, C. (2007) Their Space: Education for a digital generation. London, Demos.

HERNWELL, P. (2005) ‘Children and 21st century challenges.’ In Childhoods 2005 Children and youth in emerging and transforming societies. Oslo pp. 47-53.

LANKSHEAR, C. and KNOBEL, M. (2006b) New literacies, Buckingham, Open University Press.

NUNE, M. (1995) ‘Baudrillard in cyberspace: internet, virtuality, and postmodernity.’ In Style, 29 (22) pp. 314-327.

O’CONNELL, R., PRICE, J. and BARROW, C. (2004) Emerging trends amongst primary school children’s use of the internet. University of Central Lancashire, Cyberspace Research Unit.

OFCOM (2007) The communications market 2007. London, Ofcom.

PRITCHARD, A. and CARTWRIGHT, V. (2004) ‘Transforming what they read: helping eleven-year-olds engage with internet information.’ In Literacy, 38 (1) pp. 26-31

SANDVIG, C. (2006) ‘The internet at play: child uses of public internet connections.’ In Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 11 (4) pp. 932-956.

SEFTON-GREEN, J. (2004) Report 7: literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. Futurelab series. Bristol, Futurelab.

VALENTINE, G. and HOLLOWAY, S. (2001) ‘On-line dangers?: geographies of parents’ fears for children’s safety in cyberspace.’ In Professional Geographer, 53 (1), pp. 71-83.

YOO, J. Y., CHO, S. C., HA, J., YUNE, K. Y., KIM, S. J., HWANG, J., CHUNG, A., SUNG, Y. H. and LYOO, A. I. K. (2004) ‘Attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms and internet addiction.’ In Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 58 (5), pp. 487-494.

ZEMBYLAS, M. and VRASIDAS, C. (2004) ‘Emotion, reason, and information and communications technologies in education: some issues in a post-emotional society.’ In E-Learning, 1 (1) pp. 105-127.

 

Cyberbullying

With increasing new communication technologies being made available to children and young people, there will always be a potential for them becoming a victim to online bullying. Online bullying, e-bullying or cyberbullying, is defined as follows: ‘the use of information and communication technologies such as email, [mobile] phone and text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal websites and defamatory personal polling websites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or a group, that is intended to harm others.’

Children and young people are keen adopters of new technologies, but this can also leave them open to the threat of online bullying. An awareness of the issues and knowledge of methods for dealing with online bullying can help reduce the risks. The issue of cyberbulling must be specifically addressed within a school/academy’s anti-bullying policy.

 Text Messaging

Bullying by text message has become an unfortunate and unpleasant by-product of the convenience that SMS (short message service) offers. Children should be advised to be careful about giving out their mobile phone number, and ask that those that have their number never pass it on. If only known and trusted friends know the number, it is less likely to be abused in this way. If being bullied by text message, children should immediately seek help from a teacher, parent or carer. They should not respond to the messages, but should keep a detailed diary recording information such as the content of the message, the date, the time, the caller ID or whether the number was withheld or not available. If space permits, the messages should also be stored on the phone in case they are needed later as evidence. Abuse in the form of bullying should be reported to the mobile phone company who can take certain steps to try to resolve the situation, and in some instances it may also be necessary to involve the police. In some cases it may be necessary, or easier, to change the mobile phone number or to purchase a new phone.

Like bullying by text message, email provides a reasonably ‘anonymous’ method of communication which bullies have seized upon to harass their victims. If being bullied by email, children should not respond to the messages, but should seek help from a teacher, parent or carer. Likewise if they receive an email message from an unknown sender, they should exercise caution over opening it, or ask an adult for assistance. Don’t delete the message but keep it as evidence of bullying. If the email is being sent from a personal email account, abuse should be reported to the sender’s email service provider. Many email programs also provide facilities to block email from certain senders. If the bullying emails continue, and the email address of the sender is not obvious, then it may be possible to track the address using special software. Email service providers may be able to offer assistance in doing this. In certain cases, it may be easier to change the email address, and exercise caution over who this new address is given to.

Instant Messaging and Chat Rooms

Aside from the general risks of using chat rooms and instant messaging (IM) services, these services are also used by bullies. Children should be encouraged to always use moderated chat rooms, and to never give out personal information while chatting. If bullying does occur, they should not respond to messages, but should leave the chat room, and seek advice from a teacher, parent or carer. If using a moderated chat room, the system moderators should also be informed, giving as much detail as possible, so that they can take appropriate action.

Instant Messaging (IM) is a form of online chat but is private between two, or more, people. If a child is bullied or harassed by IM, the service provider should be informed giving the nickname or ID, date, time and details of the problem. The service provider will then take appropriate action which could involve a warning or disconnection from the IM service. If a child has experienced bullying in this way, it might also be worth re-registering for instant messaging with a new user ID.

Websites

Although less common, bullying via websites is now becoming an issue. Such bullying generally takes the form of websites that mock, torment, harass or are otherwise offensive, often aimed at an individual or group of people. If a child discovers a bullying website referring to them, they should immediate seek help from a teacher, parent or carer. Pages should be copied and printed from the website concerned for evidence, and the internet service provider (ISP) responsible for hosting the site should be contacted immediately. The ISP can take steps to find out who posted the site, and request that it is removed. Many ISPs will outline their procedures for dealing with reported abuse in an acceptable use policy (AUP) which can be found on their website. Additionally, many websites and forum services now provide facilities for visitors to create online votes and polls, which have been used by bullies to humiliate and embarrass their fellow pupils. Again, any misuse of such services should be reported to a teacher, parent or carer who should then take steps to contact the hosting website and request the removal of the poll.

Specific issues regarding online bullying should be dealt with by the school or academy under its existing anti-bullying policies.

Social Networking

Social networking software such as Facebook and Twitter are providing opportunities for personal expression, the creation of communities, collaboration and sharing. Other examples include blogs (personal web-based journals), moblogs (blogs sent from a mobile phone), wikis (modifiable collaborative web pages), and podcasting (subscription-based broadcast over the web) supported by technologies such as RSS (really simple syndication – an XML format designed for sharing news across the web). They enhance or gain value from social interactions and behaviour. They can also provide opportunities for collective intelligence and thus add value to data. Digital video, photography and music technologies have democratised the process of content creation and distribution. Recent studies of children and young people’s online behavior indicate that there are a wide range of activities undertaken, from using the internet for homework and research to a wide range of entertainment and edutainment activities. The benefits for children are well documented, but so too are a number of risks of which young people must be made aware.

Risks

Initial concern for children was largely centred on their use of social networking sites and the possibility that young people could be ‘groomed’ by those with a malicious intent. This is made possible by the amount of personal information that children can disclose online allowing predators to manipulate children by becoming their online friend, often hiding their true age and identity and developing close friendships by pretending to share common interests in music, personalities, sport or other activities for which children have expressed a specific liking. The huge publicity surrounding chat rooms and the decision by some leading commercial companies to close their chat rooms to children led to the focus switching to social networking applications. In some respects these are more of a problem than chat rooms, as young people share ‘friend lists’ and pass on contacts one to another. As instant messaging programmes allow private one-to-one correspondence with or without the use of webcams, they also can give even greater privacy to predators developing relationships with children online. It is important to understand that social networking sites are public spaces where adults can also interact with children, which obviously has an implication on child safety. Whilst encouraging young people to be creative users of the internet who publish content rather than being passive consumers, there is a balance to be weighed in terms of the personal element of what is being published. The concerns are shifting from what children are ‘downloading’ in terms of content to what they are ‘uploading’ to the net. In some cases very detailed accounts of their personal lives, contact information, daily routines, photographs and videos are acting as an online shopping catalogue for those who would seek children to exploit, either sexually or for identity fraud purposes. These sites are very popular with young people as not only can they express themselves with an online personality, but they can use all the applications the site has to offer to chat and share multimedia content with others – music, photos and video clips. Unfortunately, these sites can also be the ideal platform for facilitating bullying, slander and humiliation of others. The better sites are now taking this issue seriously and ensuring that they have safety guidelines and codes of practice in place. In drafting an AUP, students, where appropriate additional consideration should be given to boarding pupils. For example, additional privileges may be given after school with access to allow less restrictive filtering but keeping in line with the overall ethos of providing a safe environment. The management of mobile devices and laptop dongles that allow unrestricted access in dormitories should also be carefully managed with a view that such usage should be viewed on its merits and with due consideration to the in loco parentis nature of boarding supervision.

Implementation

Clearly banning activity of any sort merely heightens the desire of young people to explore and push the boundaries. We have a responsibility to understand what children are doing by talking to them about their online activity and educating them to the possible downsides – encouraging safe use and enjoying the benefits whilst minimising the risks. It is recommended that schools and academies use CEOP materials to educate children about risks and benefits, look at recommending social networking sites that safely enhance education experiences. Schools and academies should also look to provide timely and accurate information for parents and teachers, provide safety tips and good advice and stay up to date on developments.

Itslearning Webinar: Research into Student Use

I recently conducted a webinar for itslearning entitled “How to succeed with learning  platforms – new research into the student’s perspective”. The webinar raised some questions including:

What do students really think of learning platforms? And how can they be used  most effectively to improve the performance of teachers and students?

You can listen to and watch a recording of the webinar at http://info.itslearning.net/Wallacerecorded.html?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokvaXLZKXonjHpfsX%2F7ugkXrHr08Yy0EZ5VunJEUWy24ICSNQhcOuuEwcWGog8yRhLFuWUbo5J9PI%3D

Steampunk and the Art of Gonzo Programming

Slowly, quietly but surely and with subversion in its heart, programming is returning to  classroom. The currently dysfunctional ICT curriculum, the Royal Society Review and the gathering forces of spontaneous groups such as Computing At School are  taking us to a brighter ICT future. No longer satisfied with the dreary gym workouts of Microsoft Office and the slick, surface sheen of the Web, children and teachers are taking a peek underneath the hood of the machine. How does this thing work?
What can we make it do? Constructivism by a new, postmodern name.
Building apps, writing Scratch programmes, building Arduino inventions, even in the dusty apocalyptic corridors of the mathematics department, Logo is iterating itself back to life.

In a new world of educational conservatism, perhaps ICT will reinvent itself as a steampunk phenomena, education as knowledge manifesting itself in Victorian values brought to life by a new age of steampunk electronics. The delight of teaching a computing device to perform elegantly simple tasks. Drawing a hexagon, turning a light on and off, making simple electronic sounds. Instead of creating vast,
shiny, modernist artefacts in the classroom at the gesture of a finger, maybe we should  be returning to the how and the why instead of the what, when and who of computing.

Children have a gonzo approach to computers. Hacking is no longer a dirty word and writing Apps can be delicious and nutritious. It is time we stopped being so pathetically impressed by the technology and started questioning, deconstructing the robot and seeking out the ghost in the machine.

An analysis of national patterns of learning platform use in schools

The United Church Schools Trust and the United Learning Trust comprise a national group of 12 independent schools and 17 academies across a wide range of geographic and demographic areas of England. In 2008, the decision to implement a learning platform (also known as a Virtual Learning Environment or VLE) across the group was made. Although a fully supported technical solution was provided along with a sustained programme of continuous professional development, the decision as to how the learning platform was to be used was owned by each individual school and academy according to its own priorities.

The learning platform chosen was itslearning©, developed in Bergen University College in Norway and now adopted across a wide range of educational establishments. As a cloud-based product, itslearning offered a number of attractive potential benefits
including:

1. Ease of use

2. Speed of implementation

3. Enhanced collaboration

4. Continuity of curriculum anywhere and anytime

5. Minimal initial investment

6. Scalability

7. Reduction of operating costs

8. Reduction of hosting costs

Now that the learning platform is embedded in many of the schools and academies with consistent, sustained usage in areas of excellence, it was decided to undertake research into how the learning platform was being used and what strategic and implementation lessons could be learned so far. A survey was consequently undertaken of 1000 students into how they used the
learning platform and what their perceptions were about it as a vehicle for teaching and learning. The survey was based on the most commonly used features of the learning platform and was conducted online using the built-in survey
tools of itslearning.

The following descriptor preceded the survey:

To help us improve itslearning in UCST schools and ULT academies, we are asking you to fill in a survey.

We are looking at ways in which itslearning can help with students’ education and to see if there is anything we can learn from the way that you use it.

We would like you to do a short survey which will not take up too much of your time. You will not need to give your
name and no-one will be able to identify you from your answers.

We would like you to do this survey so we can look at what students themselves think and do. You do not have to do it, but we hope that you will help us in this way. However, we understand if you would prefer not to take part. It is totally your choice.

The following is a list of questions that were
asked using the survey:

1.         Which school or academy do you attend?

2.         Are you a boy or a girl?

3.         Which year are you in?

4.         How often do you use itslearning?

5.         Where do you use itslearning?

6.         When do you prefer to use itslearning?

7.         Which subjects do you use it in?

8.         What do you use itslearning for?

9.         What do your teachers use itslearning for?

10.       Have you ever used itslearning on your phone?

11.       Would you like to be able to change the colour and design of itslearning?

12.       How much does itslearning help with your learning?

13.       How much do you enjoy using itslearning?

14.       How easy is itslearning to use?

15.       Do the people who look after you at home have access to itslearning?

16.       What do you like best about itslearning?

17.       For which subjects do you find itslearning most useful?

18        What things in itslearning could be made better?

Tha data analysis will take place over the summer of 2011-2012 and will be available to inform our future direction at that time. A copy of the report will also be posted here.

Salmon, Napoleon and online safety

In 2002, The Salmon of Doubt, the sixth volume of Douglas Adams’ trilogy the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was published posthumously. In it Adams says;

Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Ask yourself these three questions about primary school-age children you work with.

1. Do the children have mobile phones?
2. Do they engage in online gaming?
3. Are they members of an online social network?

If the answer to any of these is ‘no’, revisit the questions in three years’ time. I’ll bet the answer will be ‘yes’.

100 years before Adams’ book, G.K. Chesterton wrote a novel entitled The Napoleon of Notting Hill. In it he describes a game where;

The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun.

Part of the problem is that the ICT curriculum for primary schools is largely becoming irrelevant (as is the secondary one). Children are turning away from it in droves. There is an apparent deepening divergence between what children do with digital technologies and what we teach them.

But does this mean that children know everything and we know nothing?

No. The biggest single issue related to online technologies in education over the next few years will be e-safety in all its incarnations. It will be the softer, human, ethical skills that we will need to focus on.

This relates to issues relating to:

• Online grooming by sexual predators
• Exposure to potentially harmful material
• Identity protection
• Online addiction
• Cyberbullying

Independent schools are not immune to these issues and they relate to out-of-school use as much as in-school use.

Some statistics

• Young gamers spend on average 8 hours weekly playing online.
• Young people sleep 2 to 3 hours less per night than 10 years ago.
• In January 2010, 18 million accounts were registered on Second Life.
• Facebook reports more than 500 million active users (3rd largest country)
• Users spend 700 billion minutes on Facebook each month.
• 20% of children who regularly log on to the Internet say they have received an unwanted sexual solicitation via the Web. Solicitations were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk, or to give personal sexual information.
• 25% of children have been exposed to unwanted pornographic material online.
• Only 30% of households with Internet access are actively protecting their children with filtering or blocking software.
• 75% of children are willing to share personal information online about themselves and their family in exchange for goods and services.
• Only approximately 25% of children who encountered a sexual approach or solicitation told a parent or adult.
  • 22% of the targets for sexual predators were users under 13.

What do we do?

1. In accordance with last year’s Ofsted guidelines we need to move away from a reliance on locked down systems to monitored systems with good educational provision for children, parents and teachers.
2. We need to work closely with form tutors, PSHE teachers and pastoral staff
3. We need to educate children about locking down privacy settings
4. We need to take control. Zip it. Block it.

Other issues

• Cyberbullying
• Online, social gaming by girls
• Increasing usage of mobile/gaming devices

Is it all doom and gloom?

No. There are massive opportunities for both information and communications technologies, but with this comes new forms of literacy. Our challenge is to bring children’s personal, social and ethical skills in line with their technical skills.

As Diana Laurillard says “This is not rocket science. It is far more complicated than that.”

There are many programmes to support this work.

• DigitalMe- SAFE (social networking for primary school children)
• CEOP
• Childnet
• Safer Internet day on February 8^th.

We must educate children to behave ethically, skilfully, intelligently and creatively.

Douglas Adams says “Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.” Education on the other hand is something that does work. In the case of e-safety, our challenge is to align it to the technology in a meaningful and effective way.

Badlapur and the Bombay Teen Challenge

Mr Devaraj is a man with a vision and a mission. Mumbai has a red light district that is like something from a horror movie. Except worse. Girls as young as 10 and 11 are kidnapped from villages in northern India or Nepal and brought to Mumbai as sex slaves. They are kept in cages for 3 years where they are systematically and repeatedly tortured and raped. At the end of this time they are conditioned into sex slavery and have nowhere else to go. Many of these girls have HIV/Aids and children of their own who often contract the disease from their mothers.

For many years Mr Devaraj has been rescuing children and women from their slavery and taken them to the communities that he has built in Badlapur where they are cared for, nursed back to health and educated and trained to live normal lives. Today, I had the privilege of visiting these communities.

Mr Devaraj graciously picked me up from hotel and we drove the 2 hours through the picturesque mountains to the east of Mumbai to the first of these communities. I was greeted with many smiles and hugs and presented with a bunch of flowers after which the children sang to me whilst I drank delicious Indian tea spiced with ginger. I spent several hours with the children answering questions, looking at their art work and talking with them. The light and the happiness in their eyes are extraordinary. Just being with them is inspirational. They like jokes, and we spent time telling each other riddles. Their houses are simple but beautiful communities, spotlessly clean and maintained by the children themselves. Children as young as 3 years of age have responsibility for helping with the cleaning, the cooking and looking after one another. The highlight of the children’s week is when they can go on the computer for one hour and the older girls maintain friendships through Facebook. Do you know what Indian and Facebook have in common? Along with China, they make up the three largest communities in the world. It really struck home how ubiquitous social networking is around the world. There is a great educational programme for the young people, with individualised instruction for each child which guarantees that each child will be at an age-appropriate educational level within a year. It is truly not just an educational triumph but a triumph of humanity.

I also visited the orphanages. Often, when a sex slave dies of HIV/Aids, her children are dumped on the street. Two such children were Rhaji and Shaneer. Shaneer was three years old when her mother died and she and her one year old brother were left in the gutter. Shaneer used to make up songs for Rhaji. “Little brother, don’t cry. I will beg for food for you and I will look after you that you grow up to be a strong man”. This is how Mr Devaraj found them on the streets. A dying one-year old child with his three- year old big sister looking after him. The photographs Mr Deveraj showed me pictured two children on the brink of death. That picture was taken nine years ago. Today I met them. Shaneer is a charming and graceful girl of 12 and Rhaji is an energetic young 10 year old. They are still inseparable and happy beyond belief. The joy and the energy of all the children in the orphanage is contagious and through a mist of tears I could not help smiling. Joy like that is very infectious. I have also never been hugged by so many children in my whole life.

After eating a delicious lunch with them (Indians really know about good food, even the little ones), I reluctantly left the orphanage. Our next stop was the community for the women themselves, those who had been rescued from sex slavery. Many had HIV/Aids and today was a sad day as after a long battle, Nimi succumbed to her illness and died peacefully of pneumonia, a common complication with HIV/Aids. Although I was an outsider I was not treated as such and shared in their grief as Mr.Devaraj told them the news. They sang prayers softly amidst the silent weeping and the harsh reality of the environment from which these women were rescued really came home in a forceful way. I also visited the vocational workshop where a top Mumbai fashion designer had left her prestigious job in the city and come to Badlapur to teach the women how to make beautiful clothes and jewellery. I was presented with lovely silk trousers, handbags and earrings for my wife.

Mr Devaraj also runs a community for men who are recovered drug addicts and the educational, health and social programme that is run out of this remote, rural town community would match any major city drug rehabilitation programme for excellence of outcomes. The programme has a 98% success rate and I spent time talking with Bhandri, himself a recovered drug addict who was brought into the community 16 years as a rescued child and now heads up the programme.

It is hard to do justice to the impact and importance of this wonderful and effective humanitarian project and I do not have the skill with words or pictures to do it justice. I urge anyone who is reading this to go to www.bombayteenchallenge.com to read the real story for yourself and please make a donation. This programme saves lives and is making a real difference to Mumbai sex slaves, their children and their orphans. I am pleased to wholeheartedly commend this project to everyone. Oh, and watch Slumdog Millionaire again. An insightful and beautiful film.

“Daddy, what’s a laptop?”

By accidental stealth, our house has become infiltrated by technology produced by that vegetative symbol for original sin.  Almost without us realising it, the i-listen, i-natter, i-browse and i-fiddle have grafted themselves onto our lives. This is not to imply that we owe an allgegiance to the fruity purveyors  of these devices. We do not walk around wearing wholesome black and white t-shirts tucked into Harry Highpants faux casual designer jeans and sporting goofy, white, Stepford smiles. We do also possess the more suburban, double-glazed metaphors of everyday computing.

Like most of you, I have possessed an i-listen for years. Ubiquitously, I am plugged in to avoid bordeom/thinking/talking/socialising/working. I am a bit like that. The i-natter I “need” for my employment (as if no other, cheaper device would suffice). The i-fiddle was a present for my wife so that she could more conveniently feed her addiction to FarmTown, and the i-browse was a freebie for a conference I have no intention of attending. Auntie also has an i-fiddle to replace  her recently deceased PDA that has given her faithful service since 1853.

On Boxing Day, our 4-year old twins discovered FaceWasteoftime and spent some hilarious moments using the devices as walkie talkies until they were standing so close, the bouncing echoes made them sound like early Radiohead. Something interesting happens when a little person picks up an i-thing. The kinaesthetic connection of the child to the device is arguably the most natural interface I have ever seen between a human and ICT.

Double-glazed technology is only tolerated by them because of the Cbabies website’s reliance on Phlash. Both Thing 1 and Thing 2 infinitely prefer the liquid elegance of the handheld devices lending themselves far more to independent and collaborative learning. It is the grown-ups and their modernist institutions who see the technology as being rooted in the architecture and fabric of buildings rather than being connected to the inquisitiveness and creativity of individuals.

I’m afraid that our educational ICT taxonomies need a radical makeover. Thing 1 and Thing 2 see the digital world through different lenses.

Is ICT a myth?

Whilst watching  a TED broadcast by Ken Robinson the other day, I noticed his remark that 15 year olds do not wear wristwatches because they do not see the point in using single-function technology. Several years ago, I asked a group of year 9 students if they used e-mail to which one replied, “no but my granny does”. To a large extent, ICT is a mythical construct perpetuated by people from my own demographic (middle-aged, male, overweight and geeky). This of course is to grossly over-generalise and I am being deliberately mischevious in doing so although some of the more interesting observations in recent years have come from a less stereotypical position. Turkle, Byron, Livingstone, Marsh, Davies, boyd et al have focussed more on the social, cognitive and constructivist aspects of the digital landscape and seem less obsessed with the artifacts of digital culture. Read Turkle’s “Evocative Objects” for a particularly beautiful depiction.

In a time when we are still obsessing over large, meta-technical “solutions” (heaven help us), young people are doing interesting things with that which is personal, portable, wireless, networked and social. Yesterday I talked with someone whose developmentally delayed son was doing astonishing things using adaptive communication apps on an i-thing. Talk to any child about ICT and they may look at you blankly. The modernistic labels of information, communications and technology suit the language of education systems very well (and remember, school itself has been described as a technology) but really. Do we honestly think that these structures truly reflect what (we may kid ourselves) is educationally and technologically cutting-edge. Becta has gone. Children are deserting ICT as a subject in droves. Despite the third paranthetical attribute with which I described myself in the first paragraph, I am reminded of Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man”; something is happening but you don’t know what it is…...

Barnsley Academy celebrates a watershed in GCSE results

Students and staff at Barnsley Academy are celebrating a breakthrough year in GCSE results. The number of students achieving five or more A*-C grades including English and maths has almost trebled; this year 51% achieved these results compared to 19% last year. These are the academy’s best ever results and are a dramatic increase from the 6% of students achieving these results in 2006 – the year before the academy opened. In achieving these results the academy has broken the National Challenge target.

In total, 93% of students achieved five or more GCSEs or equivalent at grade A*-C; a dramatic increase from 77% last year. To celebrate these results, the academy let off 93 helium balloons when the students came to collect their results this morning.

E-safety review 2009

On 9 June, on behalf of Naace I attended the E-Safety Review 2009 sponsored by Forensic Software. The first session was devoted to the topic of Cyber Mentors featuring the “Beat Bullying” charity. A number of students spoke eloquently about their experiences with the programme and made some important observations to the educationalists attending. They spoke about the power of the internet for communication and research and highlighted the need for children to be trusted and to be allowed privacy. They acknowledged the need for some internet filtering but stressed the need for freedom. They also recognised the prevalence of cyberbullying and identity theft.

Niel McLean, Executive Director for Institutional Development at Becta, spoke on current government guidance and the importance of safeguarding next generation learners. He made the point that schools should protect children whilst they are in their care and educate them for when they are not. He stressed the need for schools to have an Acceptable Use Policy rather than relying on locking down systems. Niel noted that the new Ofsted Framework for September 2009 will have a stronger focus on safeguarding. He concluded by making the point that engagement and interactivity that support effective learning and that safeguard children are fundamentally the same.

John Parmiter from Warwickshire Local Authority spoke about local strategies that are used to reach both the school and home, whilst David Roberts from sponsoring partners, Forensic Software Ltd outlined new technology that supports successful e-safety strategies. Journalist and TV presenter Anna Richardson spoke about the making of The Sex Education Show vs Pornography and revealed how during the making of the show it was discovered that ease of access to pornography influences the views of young people towards sex and relationships.

The highlight of the seminar, however was Professor Tanya Byron who spoke candidly about her commissioning by the Government to investigate issues relating to online safety of children. Professor Byron described how she found “protection” to be an uncomfortable term to use to describe online safety except in the case of vulnerable children. She spoke of how we are in danger of reducing childhood experience with “zero risk taking”. She suggested that we should not take a top-down approach to managing online safety and described how the system is dominated by Luddites who don’t understand the issues. This has led to society becoming riddled with risk aversion. She described how we should look at what children are doing and embrace it to help them become more resilient. We should use technology, standards and education to help children become cyber-literate and safe. Schools should involve children in the development of Acceptable Usage Policies and all parties should work together on to develop a social marketing campaign, professional development for schools and expert panels to advise policy makers, schools, parents, teachers and children.

This was a very entertaining, profound and thought-provoking session.

Children, the internet and inequality

Children, the internet and inequality: what are the causes and consequences of exclusion? 

Dr. Albin Wallace 

Abstract 

My positionality in this paper is largely determined by my role as the Group Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Director of the United Learning Trust (ULT), a not-for-profit charity established in 2002 to build and manage academies in areas of high social deprivation. The British government conceived the academies programme as a strategy to redevelop schools in socially and educationally disadvantaged areas in England in order to provide improved educational standards and life opportunities for children and young people. Presently, ULT has academies in Manchester, Lambeth, Northampton and Salford, with plans to open further sites in Paddington, Walthamstow, Sheffield, Stockport, Barnsley, Banbury and Swindon over the next three years. Part of the educational provision of these academies is the design, commissioning and implementation of ICT facilities to improve teaching and learning. Inevitably, these facilities focus largely on Internet Protocol (IP) based provisions including access to the World Wide Web, email, interactive software and hardware tools. I am committed to the use of ICT to improve learning and teaching as well as to issues relating to the Internet and educational disadvantage, especially with respect to access and exclusion concerns. In this paper I will examine some recent research into the issue of inequality and use of the Internet during which I will discuss the causes and consequences of exclusion in the context of social inequality, digital literacy and digital inequality, also touching on issues of global inequality. 

INTRODUCTION 

At a superficial level, the Internet can be seen as a global, ubiquitous phenomenon that potentially cuts across traditional socio-economic barriers. But there are philosophical, sociological and practical concerns that complicate this, especially in the context of education. The Internet is certainly an important element of education and has been embraced by English education authorities, schools and educationalists as a tool for learning. Part of the attraction of the Internet stems from its apparent ease of access to information. It is also a reflection and potential enabler of life-long learning, which can be seen as a feature of contemporary life. Usher and Edwards see that “The key to the pursuit of the new, middle-class and their post-modern sensibilities is the adoption of a learning mode towards life” (Usher and Edwards, 1994, p. 190). However, this statement contains some interesting provisos, not the least of which is the assumption that being middle-class is a precondition (or indeed a consequence) of learning. I will argue later how this is of particular relevance to Internet use in education. The fact that education is increasingly seen as a life-long process not restricted by the temporal or spatial constraints of the classroom is partially due to the online educational opportunities that are apparently offered by the Internet and the World Wide Web in particular. Certainly it should not be disputed that the Internet potentially provides access to unprecedented amounts of information. But information is not the same as learning. In fact, some writers have sounded notes of caution about the proliferation of information. 25 years ago Baudrillard warned that “We live in a world where there is more and more information and less and less meaning” (Baudrillard, 1981, p. 79). Since the popular advent of the Internet this is even more apparent. The increasing ability to access information raises several issues, not least the need to synthesize, analyse and critically evaluate content even before putting it to practical use. This means potentially increased power to the Internet user who possesses these skills. Lyotard can be seen as having predicted this in 1979 when he wrote that “The computerization of the most highly developed Page 3 of 14 Albin Wallace societies allows us to spotlight certain aspects of the transformation of knowledge and its effects on public power and civil institutions” (Lyotard, 1979, p. 7). Certainly, knowledge is increasingly seen as residing more in the public domain. But on the Internet it is less organised and more chaotic. To further illustrate its role in a post-modern society Butler describes how “The internet is at present a typically postmodernist phenomenon- it is (currently) a non-hierachized, indeed disorganised collage” (Butler, 2002, p. 117). Sellinger also sees that “The internet is a postmodern phenomenon…Unlike school, it has no history” (Sellinger, 2004, p. 149). Information itself is insufficient to create knowledge. This may be why educated use of the Internet through critical, analytical and creative skills assist to access, synthesize and effectively use much of the content of the Internet. To be included as an effective, learning user requires certain skills that are necessary to avoid exclusion in the world of the Internet and research. However, before discussing what exclusion is, it is worthwhile looking at what inclusion implies with respect to the Internet. Carver et al helpfully state that “a key criterion of inclusion is the ability to store information, experience and resources with key groups” (Carver et al, 1999, p. 2). The purpose for which this information, experience and resources can be used can also be put in a sociological context. Some writers see the Internet as presenting a challenge to values, in a similar way as television and other mass communications media may have been perceived previously. As Horrocks says, “The post-modern crisis is occurring not because technology threatens the values of humanism, but rather because technology has revealed the outcome to which these values must inevitably lead” (Horrocks, 1999, p. 30). There are also those who valorise the Internet as a tool of emancipation, sometimes too uncritically. “Technology reveals more specifically its strategic function in the context of educational practices ostensibly geared towards freedom, emancipation, liberation, as places where human beings can exercise freedom or, also, where they can develop into free and responsible adults and individuals” (Masschelein and Quaghebeur, 2005, p. 52). Somewhat utopian visions such as this run the risk of overlooking issues of ICT and inclusion, where I see it having potentially a darker side when viewed in the context of social inequality and exclusion. 

SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND EXCLUSION 

Having looked at Carver’s key criterion of inclusion, I will now turn to how exclusion can be defined and viewed. Oppenheim describes social exclusion in terms of isolation and alienation from economic, social, political and cultural life including increasing isolation from even informal networks of supports (Oppenheim, 1998). In terms of the Internet, there is a resonance especially with respect to online support networks. Walker and Park describe social exclusion in terms of the length of time that individuals and groups spend in poverty (Walker and Parks, 1998). The problem, however, with the phrase “social exclusion” is that it can applied to any situation if the word ‘social’ is omitted. My use of the term with respect to the use of the Internet is mindful of the multi-dimensional nature of deprivation (both physical and other, as discussed later). Hann also believes that there should be a close examination of the excluded groups themselves and their rights (Haan, 2001). At a fundamental level we can define exclusion as referring to a number of things: basic physical needs, employment, social contact, information, ability for selfimprovement, education and recreation. The latter of these can certainly be seen as being related to exclusion issues the Internet. However, to view the issue in perspective, exclusion in terms of the Internet is not as potentially disastrous in terms of social and economic impact as exclusion from other technological tools. Compaigne commented that “Having access to an automobile and to have a license to operate one was certainly more critical to one’s livelihood in the second half of the Page 4 of 14 Albin Wallace twentieth century as having access to email may be today” (Compaigne, 2001, p. 23). We need to contextualise the importance of the Internet and access to it whilst at the same time recognising that in the longer term there may be damaging effects as a result of exclusion from the forms of intellectual and social capital that access to the Internet facilitates, and the demands that education and the workplace place on individuals’ ability to access resources. Zetterman and Lindblad warn that “unemployment, immigration and the risk of social exclusion in a more marketoriented society may produce a new, educational underclass” (Zetterman and Lindblad, 2001, p. 3). Social alienation too can be seen as a possible social consequence of digital exclusion. Disability is also a potential source of inequality in this area. The social and personalised elements of Internet use are relevant here especially when “Current understanding of disability and special needs are constructed on the basis of a dualism between individual and social factors” (Terzi, 2005, p. 457). There has been some significant attempt by government to address issues of disadvantage in Internet use. There are website standards, and the English 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and Special Educational Needs Discrimination Act are laws that can influence web design. The Web Accessibility Initiative Standard (WAIS) and the accessibility function of Microsoft Windows © also can assist in reducing exclusion due to disability. The concerns here are not only the technical issues to be overcome but implied values in the provision of adaptive technology. Some authors use “normality” as the benchmark when discussing disability. MacKay, especially says that “Disability can disappear positively only when it is accepted completely as part of normality” (MacKay, 2002, p.162). It is implied, however, that “normality” is axiomatic. This could disempower those who are placed, or who place themselves outside the parameters of normality. It has been recently argued that “The contribution of [England’s] New Labour’s inclusive educational policy has been to forward a process of assimilation based upon an uncritical view of ‘normality’, itself structured by the values of performativity that legitimate state regulations and control” (Armstrong, 2005, p. 149). Especially with respect to Internet use in education there is a bias towards the middle-class as the embodiment of normality. As in the earlier discussion of lifelong learning and the Internet, education is placed in a middle-class context where there is a strengthening of traditional social power bases. In this way, use of the Internet in an educational context can be seen as not just middle-class but also subject to quite marked cultural bias, especially when one considers the global perspective. 

GLOBAL INEQUALITY 

There is still evidence of digital exclusion in the USA, despite the dominating influence of American culture and language evident in the Internet. As well as this American bias, it can be seen that technologically developed countries such as the USA have a technological advantage. The language of the Internet is largely English-based and the USA has the highest absolute number and percentage of people online (Booz-Allen and Hamilton, 2000, p. 8).Yet digital exclusion exists here, too. “Internet non-users were more likely to be female, older, have lower income, have less education, be slightly disproportionately African-American, have no children, work full-time, send no emails and belong to fewer community organisations” (Rice and Katz, 2003, p. 607). Non-English speakers miss out on much of the information that is available on the Internet (Runnel and Vengerfeldt, 2002). Where there has been a localisation of the Internet, this has not always been in a free and liberalised way, for example in the recent launch of the Chinese version of the search engine Google © in a heavily Page 5 of 14 Albin Wallace censored form reflecting political and ethical power structures of China that could be seen as contrary to Western liberalism. Steyaert compares the tension between access to ICT and development support of the third world. He believes “[the] tension between policy on physical access or information literacy can be compared to development support for the third world” (Steyaert, 2002, p. 211). Dasgupta et al see no global inequality in terms of provision but make no comments on skills. They state that “we have investigated the determinants of the ‘digital divide’ between high and low-income countries. Surprisingly, we find there is no gap in Internet intensity” (Dasgupta, S. et al, 2000). Both these statements are so broad and value-laden that I am cautious about reading too much into either one. On a pragmatic level, Tyler argues that “the Internet potentially gives people in remote areas access to otherwise unobtainable resources and to easier communication with others in their community, thus reducing inequality” (Tyler, 2002, p.201). This may be so, but the existences of infrastructure and skill development are not prerequisites that can be so easily assumed. Some authors have, in my opinion quite rightly, made much of the westernised bias of the Internet, not just in terms of content, but in terms of language and ideas. In a somewhat idealised way, certain authors have made claims such as “the discourse of liberation theology aims to replace Eurocentric conceptions of both modernity and postmodernism with an indigenous, historical and cultural consciousness” (Appignanesi and Garnett, 1999, p. 163). But with the Internet, there is a sense, as discussed above, of the inevitability of its continued Americanisation. In this way the Internet culturally may not superficially differ from television, although the regionalisation of television stations is in contrast with the numinous, global presence of the Internet whose websites simultaneously exist everywhere and nowhere. Blake and Standish disagree with Dasgupta et al and argue in the context of the Internet that “in Africa and the rest of the developing world, patterns of inclusion and exclusion, empowerment and disempowerment have differed from those of Europe and North America” (Blake and Standish, 2000, p. 47). The arguments from both sides seem to be largely conjectural. With respect to the Internet on the global stage, there is also conflicting opinion as to racial inequality within countries. Early American research indicated racial inequalities in Internet use (Hoffman and Novak, 1998). They said that income explains computer ownership, education does not explain racial differences and income does not explain race differences. “White students are significantly more likely than African-American students to have used the web at home. Students with no home computer, regardless of race, have never used the web at home” (Hoffmann and Novak, 1998, p. 6). More recent British research shows this is not currently the case in Britain (Livingstone and Bober, 2005b). 

DIGITAL LITERACY 

The ability to use digital technologies as well as conventional literacies is of increasing importance and relevance with respect to educational and social issues. “An argument could be made that the national curriculum holds little relevance for the complexities of life in the twenty-first century regardless of which class you belong to” (Reay, 2001, p. 343). Increasingly digital literacy is becoming more important as are the attendant innovations in terms of content and the mode of delivery as well as the accompanying skill development. Just as with other skill areas such as conventional literacy and numeracy there are different levels of use Page 6 of 14 Albin Wallace by different individuals and groups based partially on their skill and capability. Steyaert notes that “not everybody has the same efficiency and effectiveness in operating technology” (Steyaert, 2002, p. 208). In the use of the Internet there is not just the technical or operational skill to be considered but critical analysis and problem-solving skills necessary to make sense out of the content of the Internet and the search engines that are the primary tools for interrogation. Steyaert also notes that “not all citizens have the same level of information literacy: the ability and attitude to search for relevant information, translate that to one’s own situation and implement the necessary actions” (Steyaert, 2002, p. 208). Those with greater levels of skill in problem solving and metacognition will be further advantaged in terms of information retrieval. However, the Internet is also about communication as well as information. Literacy has a role here too “Websites create social networks that are related to and quite different from those produced through the circulation of bodies and texts in schools” (Leander and McKim, 2003, p.237) and this is increasingly evident in the “Web 2” which is largely characterised by weblogs, personalised web pages and other mechanisms for collaboration and sharing. With respect to the Internet and education, those who achieve may be enabled to achieve higher. The disaffected and disenfranchised are at risk of achieving less. As Weiner says, “web-based technologies and the pressure to engage with them, can be seen as part of a wider set of social and cultural practices, goals and power relations” (Weiner, 2004, p. 11). This raises the issue of further potential digital literacies that I have proposed later in this essay. The pressures that are brought about in the way Weiner describes come from a view of the Internet as being an enricher not just of education but of social power. Engagement can certainly be seen at different levels. Livingstone and Bober in their recent far-reaching Britishbased research conclude that “for some the Internet is an increasingly rich, diverse, engaging and stimulating resource of growing importance in their lives; for others it remains at present a narrow, unengaging if occasionally useful resource of rather less significance” (Livingstone and Bober, 2004a, p.414.) The role of the school is seen as crucial in addressing issues of equality or equity of access raised in this way. This of course is true in other areas. The same point could be made (and probably has been) about the use of television in the latter half of the twentieth century. The issue as to where the Internet is accessed is also important. Livingstone and Bober go on to make the point that “while access at home and elsewhere is rapidly increasing, there remains one quarter of the youth population that has access at school but not at home. This figure has not reduced significantly in recent years, making provision through school an important opportunity for redressing inequalities” (Livingstone and Bober, 2004b, p. 9). I will return to this point later. Concepts of digital literacy always relate back to educational issues. To assist in addressing access issues in ULT academies I have presumptuously extended my definition of literacy to include a number of concepts. With respect to the Internet this could include the following: • Basic operating literacy at the hardware level (how to connect to broadband and log in) and the operating systems level (how to use Windows © or Mac OS ©) • Communications literacy (ability to read and write for both synchronous and asynchronous communication) • Cultural literacy (understanding that there is a different cultural context for America, British, Australian etc. websites). • Critical literacy (ability to evaluate information, challenge opinion, treat appropriately websites where information is apocryphal, spurious or just plain wrong). Page 7 of 14 Albin Wallace • Analytical and synthetic literacy (ability to take ideas and extrapolate or incorporate into one’s own thinking). • Research literacy (understand search engines, key words, metadata, complex search strings, narrowing of search criteria). • Moral or ethical literacy (make value judgements on websites; deal with accidentally accessed inappropriate material). The above takes for granted certain characteristics of Internet users that include the social and educational factors that may facilitate the above (Foley, 2000). 

DIGITAL INEQUALITY 

To return to the nature of inequality it is worth noting that which is helpful and that which is less helpful. The commonly used phrase “digital divide” is misleading. When speaking of digital inequality I would argue that it does not exist in this form. Rather than there being a digital divide, there is more accurately a continuum of equality of access (in all senses). The ‘digital divide’ is an artificial binary, implying there are two groups. The assumption is that having access is better than not, and that the internet is such an essential part of life that no-one should be excluded. This could also imply that everyone has a right to access. Ironically, it has been suggested that “This can lead to a situation where, for example, the state of homelessness remains unquestioned as long as the individual has guaranteed access to public Internet stations” (Langer, 2004, p. 4). In an extreme form this can lead to the assumption that the right to information gets higher priority than the right not to starve. Although, as discussed earlier, the long-term ramification of lack of access could be serious, it can clearly be seen that access to the Internet is not of the same immediate importance as access to food and shelter. The term ‘digital divide’ implies an obvious poverty that is misleading. Access is not just about provision of tangible equipment; it is about access to intellectual as well as technical skills and capabilities. As Hargittai says, “there is great discrepancy between what is physically available on the Web and what information is realistically accessible to others” (Hargittai, 2003, p. 17). This discrepancy is influenced by cultural, social and educational as well as economic factors. Helpfully, Hargittai says that the conversation should continue, as “a more comprehensive understanding of digital inequality is necessary if we are to avoid increasing inequalities among different segments of the population due to disparities in effective access to all that the Internet has to offer” (Hargittai, 2003, p. 20). I agree and believe that digital equality is about more than just providing equipment. It is also about the development of autonomy, skills, support and scope of use amongst people already online as well as those currently excluded from physical access. Use of the Internet does not automatically imply powerful educational use. Hargittai wryly observes that “The Internet prophets who foresaw that the web would empower citizens, increase social capital and enhance equality of opportunity probably did not have gambling or pornography sites in mind when they made these predictions” (Dimaggio and Hargittai, 2001, p. 11). Ironically, in this way increased Internet usage can financially and morally disadvantage as well as facilitate. Also, far from levelling the playing field, the Internet can create hierarchies where “electronic systems simultaneously reflect and transform existing topographies of class, gender and ethnicity, creating and recreating hierarchies of places mirrored in the partial architecture of computer networks” (Warf, 2001, p.16). The flow of power may also be differently enabled by the Internet where new power structures emerge. Heng argues that “while the Internet serves as an interesting example of unintended consequences of social action, it also supports the postmodernist position that Page 8 of 14 Albin Wallace power does not flow from a single power centre to all peripheral points; rather it flows from the peripheries in capillary forms” (Heng, 1998, p. 6). This may not necessarily be a democratising force. There are also factors outside the Internet that may affect exclusion. As with other forms of exclusion, exclusion from the Internet can be the result of financial impoverishment. Livingstone and Bober see that “the clear association between socio-economic status and indication of access and use suggests that the social and economic sources of exclusion require concerted attention if the benefits of the Internet are to be fairly spread” (Livingstone and Bober, 2005, p. 13). 

CAUSES OF EXCLUSION 

I will now turn to discussions on the causes of exclusion. Jahnukainen has seen that “living in a world of computers and Internet, one might be accused of being socially excluded for not having an email address.” (Jahnukainen, p.1) The symbolic nature of this observation is important, when an email address is considered as a status symbol, or emblem of belonging. From being the earlier exclusive domain of the professional, email is now an embedded part of many people’s social identity and the email address itself sends signals about who one is. Livingstone and Bober (2005b) have many interesting things to say about exclusion. Their recent research shows that in the UK most children and young people have access to the Internet but the oldest and the youngest have lowest levels of access. They show that non-daily users take up fewer online opportunities and that there are few gender differences but given access, boys are more likely to use Internet and to use it for longer. Boys also take more online risks. Daily users of the Internet use it more for social networking and middle-class children are more likely to use the Internet due to greater skill levels and more self-efficacy. Although access and use is different in different geographical areas there is no noticeable difference in ethnic use. Disability is associated with lower levels of access, but not use where ICT is available. Certain groups in the UK, who although once were users are now excluded from the Internet, are voluntary middle-class drop-outs (self-exclusion) and involuntary dropouts who are excluded due to lack of access. Livingstone and Bober see that age, gender and socio-economic status all influence quality of access and use. They also agree that the “digital divide” label is an unhelpful binary as there is a continuum from narrow, unskilled use to diverse, skilled use. Specifically with respect to children, parents with high Internet self-efficacy are more likely to have children who are good users. This is not to imply that the digitally excluded are a static group. There are changing conditions of digital exclusion although inequalities are likely to grow along with a variation in quality of use. Access issues are complex and it is worthy noting that the Internet is easier for the middle-class to use as there is more choice for location with greater incentive to use it confidentially and in a private rather than public place. Again Livingstone and Bober see that technical and intellectual skills and subtle complexities sit at the heart of the matter many of which lie outside of the control of the user. An example of this is where “a significant minority of young people lack access to the Internet altogether because their families are unable or unwilling to provide it “ (Livingstone, 2003, p. 155). But it is not simply a case of addressing this by the provision of public funds. Livingstone elsewhere argues that “providing domestic access to ICT may actually increase rather than decrease inequalities in class, gender and ethnicity precisely because of inequalities in the nature of ICT Page 9 of 14 Albin Wallace use” (Livingstone, 2003, p. 154). Those already empowered may be even further empowered by increased domestic access and the continuum of inequality of use could be further stretched. The previously discussed potential enslavement by online gambling, pornography etc. must also be borne in mind. This is not to denigrate the different motivations for using the Internet, although “some of the digital divide (sic) may be due to differences in interests and priorities among individuals in the same ethnic and socioeconomic group” (Rice and Katz, 2003, p. 600). Education and the pursuit of knowledge and competencies may be only of interest to those already motivated and for whom education is a high priority. Internet use may reflect existing practices and interests rather than automatically becoming a tool for transforming practice. 

CONSEQUENCES OF DIGITAL EXCLUSION 

Experience with the Internet, if negative can lead to a choice to effectively selfexclude from digital use. In this way, Internet use can be seen as being related to social inclusion. Dutton argues that the social implications are to reconfigure access by providing diversified models in public and private spaces (Dutton, 2004). There are certain suggested strategies for minimising exclusion that include the creation of conditions that improve equipment, education and resources, skills and support as well as changing the ‘not for me’ attitude (Doherty et al, 2003). “The provision of physical access by itself, however cheap it may be, is only the first step in overcoming digital exclusion. To take part in the Information Society it is necessary to have the skills and the confidence to go online and a reason and motivation to make the effort” (Ferlander and Timms, 2004, p.9). This reemphasises the important role that education plays in refining Internet use amongst children and at face value would seem to imply that the provision of Internet access in school is important. Although it is highly desirable to provide access from school, some authors argue that for real inclusion “access means access from home” (Tambini, 2000, p. 21). Of course, financial differences limit the quality of internet access for children, but inequality in cultural capital (i.e. internet literacy, or the ability to use Internet constructively) may also be an inhibiting factor. Inequality in social capital (social support in using the Internet) can be a factor too although this could be more subtle than is first apparent. For instance, in ULT academies there is often a high desire of ethnic minorities and some single-parent families to provide access to the Internet as part of an ambition to succeed and busy middle-class children often use the Internet at a superficial level (i.e. for entertainment). However it is widely agreed that amongst the inhibiting factors are finances, education, parental ICT skills, community support, parents’ attitudes and the nature of the informal learning environment at home. On the issue of physical access, Livingstone and Bovill see that “the more Internet access at home comes to be taken for granted by society, the more inadequate levels of access will serve to exclude some children and their families (Livingstone and Bovill, 2001, p. 22). As well as social and cultural capital, financial capital still is a major factor. As Tyler bluntly puts it, “if people must buy computers and pay for Internet access, then those who are initially advantaged are able to gain further advantage” (Tyler, 2002, p. 201). This is consistent with Livingstone and Bober’s view that “providing domestic access to ICT may increase rather than decrease inequalities” (Livingstone and Bober, 2003, p. 28) although it appears at odds with Page 10 of 14 Albin Wallace Tambini’s view. There is apparently still considerable scope for research in this matter. 

CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS 

Access to the Internet can be seen as a way of transferring power to the learner but it can also be used as means of achieving apparent productivity gains in education. Young sees further warning signals when he states that “the software and the communications companies behind the Internet…see the access model as generating a lucrative, new market for their products, and governments, for whom the access model appears as a way of cutting the costs of public education and of weakening what some see as the sectional power of professional or personal interests” (Young, 1998, p. 148). In terms of access and exclusion, some writer’s have seen the power lying firmly with the developers. Sassower states that “with the stroke of a pen someone like Microsoft’s Gates can turn a thriving technological component of a research programme into obsolescence” (Sassower, 1995, p. 120). To extend this argument it can be seen that in order to access the richness of the Internet, the user needs the software; multi-media enabled with sound, video and graphics. The software drives the content that is delivered on the Internet to a certain extent and many websites assume an increasing level of sophistication in the client system (browser, operating system and hardware specification). This is a practical consideration where the user must constantly ensure they have the appropriate systems to access the online material. This comes at a considerable recurrent financial cost. But it is not enough to provide the ICT and even just the technical skills. It is also important to consider how it is introduced in the educational context, including how to promote the use of technology that relates to a social context and peer group culture, including email and other collaborative online activities. Valentine says that “the fact that technologies, identities and peer-group relations transform and are transformed by each other might be regarded by children as offering a range of positive possibilities, rather than presenting a threat to their identities” (Valantine, 2002, p. 312). The issues discussed and illustrated in this paper have profound implications for the United Learning Trust academies programme. We must address the issue of physical access, perhaps looking at extended school hours, whilst acknowledging that patterns of usage may be different in public (school) and private (home) spaces. Our curriculum must include the tools for accessing information, including skills for identifying problems, finding resources, critically examining and analysing, synthesising ideas and making sound value judgements. There needs to be further development of the discussed literacies including metacognitive skills, technical skills and the evaluation of ideas and opinions. Again, on a practical level, advantage must be taken of converging technologies including television, telephony, cable and satellite communications and entertainment, the Internet. This may mean that physical access becomes less important than intellectual, social and academic skills and access. Many of the issues regarding children, the Internet and exclusion are centred on economic, educational, cultural and social factors. As well as providing physical access and tools as well as technical skills, we must be increasingly focussed on the higher level skills and literacies that will allow the children in our academies to use the Internet as a rich media resource, a tool with which to think and a gateway that they can use intelligently, discerningly and critically. By putting the child at the heart Page 11 of 14 Albin Wallace of the Internet experience rather than the equipment or the software, perhaps we can address in some the inequalities discussed in this essay. 

REFERENCE LIST 

Appignanesi, R. and Garnett, C., 1999. Introducing Postmodernism. Cambridge: Icon. Armstrong, D., 2005. Re-inventing ‘inclusion’: New Labour and the Cultural Politics of Special Education. In: Oxford Review of Education, 31 (1). Baudrillard, J., 1981. Simulcra and Simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan. Blake, N. and Standish, P., 2000. Enquiries at the Interface: Philosophical Problems of Online Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Booz-Allen and Hamilton, 2000. Achieving Universal Access. London: Booz-Allen and Hamilton. Butler, C., 2002. Postmodernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carver, S., Wyatt, S. and Burrows, R., 1999. Technology and Social Exclusion. London: TSE Symposium, 23rd February. Compaigne, B.M., 2001. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Boston: MIT Press. Dasgupta, S., Lall, S. and Wheeler, D., 2000. Policy Reform, Economic Growth and the Digital Divide: an Econometric Analysis. Washington, DC: Development Research Group, World Bank. Dimaggio, P. and Hargittai, E., 2001. From the ‘Digital Divide’ to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases. Princeton University: Sociology Department. Doherty, J., Keeling, K., Newholme, T., Fowler, D., McGoldrick, P. and McCauley, L., 2003. Stories, Myths and Metaphors: Explaining Self-Exclusion and Internet Use in the Home. Manchester: UMIST. Dutton, W., 2004. Social Transformation in the Information Society. Oxford Internet Institute: University of Oxford. Ferlander, S. and Timms, D., 2004. Different Solutions to Digital Exclusions: Local Nets versus Internet Cafés. Barcelona: E-Learning and Social Inclusion Conference, April 15-16. Foley, P., 2000. Whose Net? Characteristics of Internet Usage in U.K. Leicester: De Montford University. Haan, A., 2001. Social Exclusion: Towards a Holistic Understanding of Deprivation. University of Sussex: World Development Report. Hargittai, E., 2003. The digital divide and what to do about in. In: New Economy Handbook, Jones, D.C., (ed.). Sandiego: Academic Press. Page 12 of 14 Albin Wallace Heng, M.J.H., 1998. Postmodernist Study of the Internet. Amsterdam: Vrije University. Hoffmann, D.L., and Novak, T.P., 1998. Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet. In: SCIENCE, 280. Horrocks, C., 1999. Baudrillard and the Millenium. Cambridge: Icon. Jahnukainen, M., 2001. Social Exclusion and dropping out of Education. In: Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream Schools, 1. Langer, J., 2004. About the Cultural Texture of the Digital Divide. University of Klagenfurt: Department of Sociology. Leander, K.M. and McKim, K.K., 2003. Tracing the everyday ‘sitings’ of adolescents on the Internet: a strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. In: Education, Communication and Information, 3(2). New York: Routledge. Livingstone, S., 2003. Children’s Use of the Internet: Reflections on the Emerging Research Agenda. In: New Media and Society 5(2). London. Livingstone, S. and Bober, M., 2003. UK Children Go Online: Listening to young people’s experience. London: Department of Media and Communications. Livingstone, S and Bober, M., 2004a. Taking up online opportunities? Children’s use of the Internet for education, communication and participation. In: E-Learning, 1(3). Livingstone, S and Bober, M., 2004b. UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experience of young people and their parents. London: Department of Media and Communications. Livingstone, S. and Bober, M., 2005a. UK Children Go Online: Final report of key project findings. London: Department of Media and Communications. Livingstone, S. and Bober, M., 2005b. Inequalities and the Digital Divide in Children and Young Persons’ Internet Use. London: Department of Media and Communications. Livingstone, S., and Bovill, M., 2001. Families, Schools and the Internet. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Lyotard, J-F., 1979. The Post-Modern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. MacKay, G., 2002. The Disappearance of Disability? Thoughts on a Changing Culture. In: British Journal of Special Education, 29 (4). Masschelein, J. and Quaghebeur, K., 2005. Participation for Better or Worse? In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (1). Oppenheim. C., 1998. An Overview of Poverty and Social Inclusion. In: An Inclusive Society. London: IPPR. Page 13 of 14 Albin Wallace Reay, D., 2001. Finding or Losing Yourself?: Working Class Relationships to Education. In: Journal of Educational Policy, 16 (4). Rice, R.E. and Katz, J.E., 2003. Comparing Internet and Mobile Phone Usage: Digital Divides of Usage, Adoption and Drop-Outs. In: Telecommunications Policy 27. New Jersey: Rutgers University. Runnel, P. and Vengerfeldt, P., 2002. Belonging and Exclusion in the Internet Era: Estonian case. Barcelona: IAMKR Conference. Sassower, R., 1998. Cultural Collisions: Post-Modern Technoscience. London: Routledge. Sellinger, M., 2004. Connected Schools. London: Premium Publishing. Steyaert, J., 2002. Inequality and the digital divide: myths and realities. In: Advocacy, Activism and the Internet, Hick, S. and McNutt, J. (eds). Chicago: Lyceum Press. Tambini, D., 2000. Universal Internet Access: A Realistic View. IPPR (1). London, Novembert. Terzi, L., 2005. Beyond the Dilemma of Difference. In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (3). Tyler, T.R., 2002. Is the Internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. In: Journal of Social Issues, 58(1). Usher, R. and Edwards, R., 1994. Postmodernism and Education. London: Routledge. Valentine, G., Holloway, S., Bingham, N., 2002. The Digital Generation? Children, ICT and the Everyday Nature of Exclusion. London: Blackwell. Walker, R. and Park, J., 1998. Unpicking Poverty in an Inclusive Society. In: An Inclusive Society, Oppenheim, C. (ed.). London: IPPR. Warf, B., 2001. Segueways into cyberspace: multiple geographies of the digital divide. In: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design , 28. Weiner, G., 2004. Information Technologies and Education Practices: Challenging Anti-Democratic Values in the Classroom. Crete: EERA Conference, 22-25 September. Young, M.F.D., 1998. The Curriculum of the Future. London: Routledge. Zetterman, M.L. and Lindblad, S., 2001. Learning about E-Learning: A Starter about Internet Discourses and Borderless Education. Stockholm: NFPF Conference, march 15-17. Page 14 of 14 Albin Wallace 

Professor Stephen Heppell

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

more about “Professor Stephen Heppell“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

Professor Tanya Byron

Professor Tanya Byron

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

more about “Professor Tanya Byron“, posted with vodpod