Colloquium

Using self-directed learning communities to bridge the digital divide

Kevin Clark

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA USA. Email: kclark6@gmu.edu

The “digital divide” is the gap between those who have access to new information tech-nologies, the information “haves”, and those who do not have access, the information“have-nots.” The digital divide and digital equity are sometimes used interchangeably,but a clear definition of digital equity describes its relationship to education. “Digitalequity in education means ensuring that every student has equitable access toadvanced technologies, communication and information resources, and the learningexperiences they provide. Digital equity also means that all learners have opportunitiesto develop the means and capacity to be full participants in the digital age, includingbeing designers and producers of current and future technologies and communicationand information resources (Solomon et al, 2003).”

Research on the digital divide or digital equity is diffuse and typically appears in threeforms: policy studies, theoretical considerations and societal impacts, and examinationof patterns of use, online content, and the expressed needs. Policy studies focus on howissues of access to information technologies are impacted by governmental, educa-tional, and social policies. The theoretical considerations and societal impacts point ofview examines the digital divide by examining economic, urban planning, and socio-logical analyses factors. The patterns of use and access research areas focus on exam-ining ways in which information technologies can be used to address community andindividual needs.

Most initiatives aimed at closing the digital divide have focused on providing low-income communities with greater access to computers, Internet connections, and othertechnologies. The real focus should be on applying technology to achieve meaningfuloutcomes in economic opportunities, education, and employment of underservedpopulations (Morino, 2001). A more cohesive analysis of the pedagogy of the digitaldivide and its impact on underserved communities can be used to inform policy regard-ing technology and learning as well as build the capacity for communities to begin tohelp themselves. Given the lack of digital divide research solely dedicated to pedagogy,researchers should begin to examine the application of the lifelong learning frameworkin informal learning environments.

© British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 34 No 5 2003 663–665

The European Lifelong Learning Initiative (ELLI) defines lifelong learning as the development of human potential through a continuously supportive process whichstimulates and empowers individuals to acquire all the knowledge, skills, values, andunderstanding they will need throughout their lifetimes, and to apply them with confidence, creativity, and enjoyment in all roles, circumstances and environments(Longworth, 1999). Lifelong learning includes formal and informal learning activitiesthat exhibit the following attributes: it must span a lifetime, it must be learning thatfocuses on the needs and demands of the learner, and it must have a seamless infra-structure which makes available all the resources of the community for the develop-ment of the full human potential of all human beings (Ralph, 2000). The focus shouldbe on the needs of people as learners—finding out why, when, what and how peopleprefer to learn, discovering new learning methods, identifying the basic skills whichpeople need in order to learn better—learning to learn, developing our potential, han-dling information, developing thinking skills individually, in groups and in families—and using modern education delivery technologies and tools to provide new learningfor people wherever they want to receive it (Longworth, 1999).

In an effort to address concerns about inequities in access to new technology in under-served communities, some groups have worked to acquire these technologies in infor-mal learning environments. Community-access or community technology centers areinformal learning communities who recognize that schools are not the only place forlearning to occur (Resnick, Rusk, and Cooke, 1999). Community technology centers(CTCs) are becoming neighborhood focal points that provide computer access and train-ing for young people and adults. CTCs help provide the means by which people in innercities can begin to help themselves out of the social safety net (Bolt and Crawford,2000). Community technology centers are helping to address the problem of access totechnology as well as access to intellectual development. The access to technology thatcommunity technology center provide combined with the learner-centered approachof the lifelong learning framework, yield what is known as a “self-directed learningcommunity (SDLC).” Self-Directed Learning Communities exist when members of acommunity or group identify their own problems and needs, seek their own solutions,mobilize necessary resources, and execute a plan of action or learning. The concept ofa Self-Directed Learning Community is based on Longworth’s (1999) concept of alearning community. A learning community is a city, town, or region that mobilizes allits resources in every sector to develop and enrich all its human potential for the fos-tering of personal growth, the maintenance of social cohesion, and the creation ofprosperity. Further examination of Self-Directed Learning Communities may providemuch needed empirical evidence to support the work being done by digital equityresearchers and practitioners.

ReferencesBolt D B and Crawford A K (2000) Digital divide: computers and our children’s future TV Books,

New York, NY.Longworth N (1999) Making lifelong learning work: learning cities for a learning century Kogan Page,

London.

664 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 34 No 5 2003

© British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003.

Morino M (2001) From access to outcomes: raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income communities The Morino Institute.

Ralph D (2000) Galvanizing commitment to lifelong learning through strategic partnerships Center forthe Economics of Education and Training National Conference.

Resnick M, Rusk N and Cooke S (1999) The computer clubhouse: technological fluency in theinner city. in D A Schon, B Sanyal and W J Mitchell (eds) High technology and low-income com-munities: prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, 263-286.

Solomon G, Allen N and Resta P (2003) Toward digital equity: bridging the divide in education Allynand Bacon Publishers. Boston, MA.

Colloquium 665

© British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003.