Theorizing the issue of access to ICT and/or digital facilities access

Several writers (GESCI, 2010; Gudmundsdottir, 2010; Keniston, 2004; Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003) have been attracted by the problematization of the digital divide worldwide. It has to be reiterated that the digital divide is understood as “the gap between those people with effective access to digital information and communication technology (ICT), and those without” (GESCI, 2010). Besides, whenever there is debate on digital divide, it is misunderstood that the latter only implies the gap between the wealthy and the poor or between the educated and uneducated in terms of access to digital opportunities. There is another angle that needs to be examined. Keniston (2004) on his part indicates that there is also the linguistic and cultural divide. This divide is linked to English use, its supremacy and the connection the language has with the Anglo-Saxon culture (Gudmundsdottir, 2010, p.148).

With regard to the theories of access to digital technologies and ICT related tools, it has to be stressed that access is conceptualized from different levels and from different research trends. Van Dijk and Hacker (2003) explain the digital divide and claim that access is based on four factors. These are material access, which refers to owning computers or having access to

29

network connections; mental access, which includes motivation, experience and computer anxiety; skills access, which refers to digital competence, support and user friendliness; and finally there is usage access, which identifies opportunities to use ICT.

The digital divide should be viewed as something more than just physical access and it should rather be determined or understood from a multi-faceted perspective (Drenoyianni, Stergioulas & Dagiene, 2008; Czerniewicz & Brown, 2005). Warschauer (2004) in Brock – Utne, Desai and Qorro (2005, p.149) on his side, suggests another model of access that is described below.

The four access components are: access to physical resources, access to digital resources, access to human resources and access to social resources. With this division, he takes into consideration the significance of not only having access to computers and Internet connection (physical resources), but also on related content in a familiar language (digital resources), and to be able of employing the resources by developing digital literacy and being well-trained (human resources). Finally, having social capital and satisfactory support from the community or the institution (social resources) is essential in order to be able to provide sustainable and relevant use of ICT (idem).

In the context of Rwanda which is the focal point for the study, the government has become conscious that simple access to ICT which is achieved in developing the necessary infrastructure does not mean that ICT usage is effective and productive (Chabbott, 2013). In view of the above, Mbatha and Manana (2012) raise the fact that even if some of the learners have relatively easy access to the technologies but the digital divide is of great concern. In fact, there

30

is still a gap between those ‘who have readily available access to the internet and computers and the peripherals needed to navigate it efficiently, as well as to students who do not have these resources’ (Galuszka 2007, p.21).

Access to technologies has also been contextualized in terms of getting in touch with social communication spaces and Facebook is the focal point here. In this instance, different kinds of access are identified, namely code access, technology access, participation access, among others (Harran &Olamijulo, 2014). As far as code access is concerned, the social media users put their postings on facebook. For instance, they are allowed to use their own codes and most use informal codes, including abbreviations. For the second kind of access which is technology access, they link this to the access that internet administrators allow users to access to (e.g. lack of access to Facebook during the day when students use the labs for their school work). The third kind has to do with participation access. This is, according to Harran & Olamijulo (2014), the fact that some of the social media give an opportunity to the users to actively participate in them. For example, Facebook pages provide access for active participation as participants who normally do not say anything, for example, in class or who are shy, often comment online and share experiences they would usually not ‘express face-to-face’. In the following section, attention is directed to the internet and digital generation.

2.2.4.4. Internet and digital generation

The rapid growth of technology into the world of young people has resulted in the development of a new generation different from previous generations. Different names have been attributed to this generation including Millennials, Nexters, Generation Y and Generation Why (Horovitz, 2012; Prensky, 2005). Regardless of the variety of names the generation has acquired, the

31

identification of this group of people as being different from other generations stems from their unique exposure to digital technologies (Zevenbergen, 2007, p.20).

The internet generation, as a concept, has considerably been popular in the 1980s with the sensitization of the Personal Computer or PC (Harwood & Asal, 2007). It is known from a given trend to refer to a group of people who have a peculiar way of interacting with digital media and are categorised within the age range of 13 to 14 years old (Nyirubugara, 2012). This generation is also known to belong to what is termed as ‘digital generation or digital natives’.

Prensky (2005) coined the term ‘digital natives’ to refer to the generation who has grown up with digital technologies so that they are a part of their world view. That is why the digital natives enjoy a plethora of digital media such as mobile phones, computer games, the Internet, instant messaging and chatlines, i.e. the media available to this generation and that was not accessible to other generations, both in form and quantity. On the contrary, the generations that have not grown up within technology-rich environment are ‘digital immigrants’: they are bound to learn the new technologies but a great deal more effort is required than for the digital natives (idem).

‘Internet Generation’ and ‘Digital Generation’ are sometimes alternatively being referred to. ‘Digital Generation’ is understood as relying on the hardware or devices that allow certain digital activities to take place such as gaming, computing, playing music, etc. (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). The ‘Internet Generation’ emerged to emphasise one kind of activity, i.e. networking or connecting to the Internet or the Web, which is facilitated by digital devices. Most of these devices today connect to the web, therefore, the concepts of digital generation and Internet

32

Generation end up serving purposes for both young and old generations (Nyarubugara, 2012). It is against this background that education should benefit more from the digital world to improve the way the youth acquire knowledge and hands on skills, thus developing the culture of knowledge.

2.2. 5. Digital literacies and education

Martin and Madigan (2006, p.62) talk about the ‘internet culture’ and elaborate on how the rapid increase in digital technology access (see section 2.2.4.3) has somehow changed the nature of the school and college experience. In some classroom contexts, several teachers still have recourse to dictations as a teaching method to classes of youngsters. They actually propose their ‘personal’ version of some course subjects such as geography, history, biology or literature contents and so on. In contrast, it has now been possible to imagine that such texts or data could be made available online, and that the teachers can devote their educational time teaching students how to think about these contents from a geographical, historical, biological or literary point of view (idem).

As one of the major issues confronting education stakeholders has been ‘how to reconcile the old literacies with the emerging literacies (Harushimana, 2008, p.38), it is crucial that digital technologies be seen as playing a role in the service of education and training (Inglis, Ling & Joosten, 1999). Education training in this context should not be seen as providing a stage on which the capabilities of digital technologies can be displayed. But the impressive changes in the ways education and training are delivered ‘can be best explained by the new possibilities that recent developments in digital technologies have brought’ (Inglis, Ling & Joosten, 1999, p.239).

33

Although, the world has had profit from the emerging digital literacies, it is necessary to look into the use of these technologies that sometimes seems irrational. There is a risk that in rushing to the benefits offered by digital technologies and advocates of the new learning technologies may overlook what is important: improving students’ learning (Inglis, Ling & Joosten, 1999). In other words, these technologies should be more of a support to learning than being a distractive tool that prevents learners from succeeding in their school subjects. One of the disadvantages of the growing technologies for the youth today is the distraction resulting out of ‘blind” use of these tools. Here a pressing issue is that of the learners impinging school discipline and regulations. This is due to the fact that students often divert their attention instead of focusing on school work. The normal rule for the use of the computer laboratory, for instance, is that learners are supposed to do only school-related tasks (Poynton, 2005). These activities are word processing, reading emails, searching for information on the website and those that are prohibited during school hours include using chat rooms or playing games.

Nowadays changing technologies allow new modes of literacy in shifting circumstances in the context of learners’ diversity and critical social engagement. For instance, sometimes school management or teachers should monitor how the youth conduct their school work when they use the computer laboratory. Bruce (1997) gives a scenario that is self-explanatory. In actual fact, the writer talks about learners’ digital practices at school and the circumstances in which they are busy with such activities. Some of these learners can be found alone, or in pairs or others talking or sleeping, or listening to music they had purchased or copied from their friends’ CDs, or in some cases, downloaded from the internet (Poynton, 2005; Martin and Madigan, 2006, p. 63). In brief, the youth are increasingly distracted and disinterested in school and they are gradually

34

developing a non-official, digitally literate competence that schools do not accommodate or recognize (Bulfin, 2008). Such practices that the youth is exposed to (such as watching pornography) are influenced by their teenager’s age and other factors as it was noticed in the findings of this study (see Chapter IV, section 4.4.2).

It is persuasive to believe that today’s society is being governed by digital technologies, and the assumption is backed up by the several technologically inspired names given, over the last 40 years, to the age in which we live (Martin & Madigan, 2006, p.4). But how should learners optimally utilize these technologies for their benefit? In view of the earlier stated youth digital practices and associated behaviours, it is crucial to examine in the next section the issue of identity construction that addresses ways in which learners’ engagement and exposure are manifested as they deal with digital tools and other social spaces they interact with such as the school and language to name but a few.