Quality Matters: Affordances, Accessibility, and Equity Through Course Readings
Destin Beck
This section is an exploration of affordances, accessibility, and equity as presented and analyzed in course readings for Digital Media and Learning. This section is broken into four parts: Affordances, Access to Technology, Unequal Use, and Looking Ahead.
Affordances
Before looking at issues of access and equity in education in regards to digital learning tools, we must first take a step back and look at the tools we are using in education as objects that all have unique affordances. At the beginning of the course, James J. Gibson’s “The Theory of Affordances” set the groundwork for the understanding of what an affordance is. He writes, “The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment” (Gibson, 1979). This complementarity can be applied to human experiences with technological tools and what we do with them. According to Gibson, humans often change their environment in order to change its affordances to better suit them. For our purposes, we can replace ‘environment’ with ‘educational tools’ and see the momentous task and power that we hold when it comes to sculpting educational experiences that are meaningful and democractic.
Affordances are not always beneficial; in fact, they are often harmful. Gibson illustrates this concept with varying examples: “Substances have biochemical offerings and afford manufacture. Surfaces afford posture, locomotion, collision, manipulation, and in general behavior. Special forms of layout afford shelter and concealment. Fires afford warming and burning. Detached objects—tools, utensils, weapons—afford special types of behavior to primates and humans. The other animal and the other person provide mutual and reciprocal affordances at extremely high levels of behavioral complexity” (Gibson, 1979). These examples show just how general, yet powerful, the term “affordance” is. Clearly, some affordances are beneficial, while others are detrimental. An understanding of “affordance” through this lense is especially important as the conversation turns towards technology as we view and use it today. Technological tools, like everything else, supply various affordances that can be “good,” or “bad,” or both. Technology is not inherently the answer to our problems, but the ways in which we interact with it can be helpful or harmful.
When it comes to utilizing technology in your own classroom, ask yourself, “What does this technology afford? Is it being modified to best fit the needs of my students?”
Technology Access
We have established that educational tools can be leveraged for benefit or harm, intentionally or otherwise. Before continuing this discussion in regards to the ways these tools are actually used (see section “Unequal Use”), we need to focus on the critical concern of access to these tools in the first place.
Ivan Illich’s 1971 Deschooling Society put forth a revolutionary idea in regards to what an educational system should look like, an idea which more or less sought to turn society’s current educational model on its head and replace it with four specific Learning Networks. These networks were guided by Illich’s belief of what a good educational system should afford: “A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known” (Illich, 1971, pg. 54). The call for unobstructed access for all who want to learn is given as the first purpose of an educational system. This access must be the very foundation of a strong educational system, for without access, the resources themselves are trivial. Unfortunately, equal access is not the current reality in our education system.
Jack M. Balkin and Julia Sonnevend’s chapter “The Digital Transformation of Education” from Education and Social Media: Toward a Digital Future. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning explores the possibilities of hybrid models in education that would find a balance between traditional and digital educational spaces. They acknowledge the problem of access: “Limited Internet access affects both the number of people who can gain access to digital education and the media that can be used. Cell phone use may be widespread, even in rural areas, but in many places broadband access is both rare and comparatively expensive. To the extent that digital education relies on bandwidth-intensive video and multimedia programming, many students around the world may not have effective access; if they have only low-bandwidth access, they must rely primarily on text-based systems” (Balkin and Sonnevend, 2016). Evidently, there are degrees of access that contribute to the gap in education. It is not enough to merely have internet connectivity; the connectivity itself must support bandwidth-intensive programs to fully participate in many of the educational tools used today.
David Buckingham’s 2007 article “Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet” considers how educators can best navigate the challenges and opportunities of the internet. One of Buckingham’s main focuses is the digital divide that persists in education. He writes, “it is important to recognise the continuing existence of a ‘digital divide’ in young people’s access to technology. The gap between the technology rich and the technology poor is apparent at a global level, yet it also persists in many of the apparently ‘wired up’ regions of the world” (Buckingham, 2007, pg. 51). Without equal access to technology, there is no hope for democratizing education and leveraging the technological tools to take advantage of positive affordances. Buckingham continues with data to illustrate this digital divide: “In the United Kingdom, for example...88% of middle-class children had home Internet access, compared with 61% of working-class children. Socio-economic status is also significant in relation to the quality of access at home (defined in terms of factors including the number, age and specification of computers and connection to dial-up or broadband)” (Buckingham, 2007, pg. 52). Unsurprisingly, those defined as technology rich and technology poor correlate with socioeconomic status.
Unequal access is not only defined by socioeconomic status; race also comes into play, as explored in Mizuto Ito’s et al. work Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. She writes, “In this era of economic contraction, disparities in access to educational, economic, and political opportunity have become starker, and continue to be tied in troubling ways to racial and ethnic background” (Ito et al., 2013, pg. 22). Specifically, Latino and African American students suffer from the well-known achievement gap that has long-persisted in education, and one of the major contributing factors to this achievement gap is the access component. However, access is not the only barrier to democratized education. As many of our course readings point out, the way in which technology is used once it is accessed also presents some troubling revelations.
What have you noticed about access to technology within your own classroom? What are some ways you are already addressing this issue, if any?
Internet Use by Racial/Ethnic Group
As seen in the chart below, research by the Pew Research Center asserts that “Among different racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans have seen the greatest growth rate between 2000 and today, though they are still less likely than whites and English-speaking Asian-Americans to be internet users.”
Unequal Use
Beyond the dilemma of access to digital educational tools, the ways in which these tools are utilized is not equitable. Justin Reich and Mizuko Ito’s 2017 From Good Intentions to Real Outcomes: Equity by Design in Learning Technologies explores the question, “why do learning technologies lead to inequitable outcomes?” This report from Module 6 moves past the concern of access and brings about the question of usage, enriching the conversation of affordances, accessibility, and equity. They cite sociologist Paul Atewell to explain this new problem of usage:
“Sociologist Paul Atewell argues that these inequalities operate at two levels: the first and second digital divides. The first digital divide is of access: who can get devices, so ware, connectivity, and other technology resources. Even when these gaps are closed, however, a second digital divide often persists: Affluent students use the same technologies to support richer forms of learning with greater adult mentorship.”
(Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 6)
Reich and Ito expand upon Buckingham’s discourse of the digital divide, explaining that it has now transcended beyond access to technology. Essentially, access does not equal equality. This revelation is in stark contrast to the pervasive ideologies of the past. For many years, experts in the field of educational technology have looked with optimism at new technology as the single answer to democratizing education. For example, when the radio was first dispersed, it was believed that “with the radio the underprivileged school becomes the privileged” (Cuban, 1986, as cited in Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 6). The same sentiments were expressed with the introduction of the television. The transformative power of digital tools were looked at as the answer, when in reality, they are not inherently transformative. As will all objects, their affordances can be modified to suit our needs as a society, and so far, society’s needs have been troublingly singular.
To reiterate, educational technologies hold enormous promise when it comes to improving learning experiences and outcomes for all. Their transformative powers have been touted since the inception of these tools. “Despite this promise, however, evidence is mounting that these new technologies tend to be used and accessed in unequal ways, and they may even exacerbate inequality” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 3). Schools that serve more affluent students tend to use technology in more progressive ways; schools that serve lower-income students use that same technology in more technical, “basic” ways. A look at the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress scores found that schools that serve lower-income and minority students typically use technology for drill-type exercises, often in math class, while schools that serve more affluent, white students are more likely to use the technology in more creative and arguably meaningful ways.
In addition to the finding that technology is used in different ways in lower-income vs. higher-income schools, Reich and Ito also explain that free and open technologies, often believed to help democratize education, actually benefit the wealthy more so than the underprivileged. Wealthier students are more likely to find success in MOOCs (massive online open courses), wikis, and Scratch--a block-based programming language--for example. What is the cause of this unequal use? Once the problem of access is overcome, why does a new divide still persist?
Reich and Ito seek to address these questions with a closer look at what these tools afford, and to whom these affordances are catered. They explain, “Once technological and economic barriers are removed, broader social and cultural forces determine outcomes. Efforts to democratize education through technology have often faltered because technologists failed to anticipate broader social and cultural forces” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 8). According to Reich and Ito’s report, the first social and cultural force at play is bias. Bias is often built into the very fabric of the educational programs that are meant to democratize education, and when learners see these biases, they are likely to retract from the learning experience. The second social and cultural force at play is distance--specifically, social distance. Frequently, those who are developing new educational technologies have certain “blind-spots” in regards to needs of various subgroups, and those blind-spots manifest themselves in the very product being developed. Essentially, these blind-spots reflect the “lack of awareness of learners’ specific social and cultural contexts” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 10).
Thank about the educational tools you use within your own classroom. Have you noticed an ingrained culture or bias that may lead to negative outcomes for students?
This lack of awareness of learners’ experiences and cultures paired with singular, long withstanding belief that having these technological tools will inherently bring about significant change represents the dangerous mindset that Neil Selwyn discusses in “Editorial: In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology.” Selwyn advocates for an approach to educational technology that is grounded in reality, an approach which he explains as pessimistic. He asserts, “I am advancing an approach that simply accepts education, technology and society as it is—for better and (more often) for worse” (Selwyn, 2011). Adopting such an approach would help educational technologists and educators to understand that the ways in which technological tools are utilized need to reflect a conscious attempt to understand the social and cultural forces that are mentioned in Reich and Ito’s writing.
Although many of Selwyn’s critics dislike the use of the word pessimism to explain an effective approach to educational systems, Selwyn goes on to clarify what a so-called pessimistic mindset affords: “It is important to note here that I am not arguing for the adoption of a dogmatic blanket negativity towards education and technology. In its purest sense, pessimism… acknowledges the fact that life has long remained the same for most people in most circumstances, and that many social inequalities will continue to persist regardless of changes elsewhere. Thus at one level, the pessimistic educational technologist is simply one who adopts a mindset that is willing to recognise—and work within—the current and historical limitations of educational technology rather than its imagined limitless potential” (Selwyn, 2011). By embracing this sobering outlook towards the affordances of educational tools, educational technologists can attempt to diminish these aforementioned educational inequities that plague society and move towards concrete approaches and steps that may serve to truly democratize education.
How would you characterize your own outlook on the potential of educational technologies? Do you agree that we are in need of a more "pessimistic" viewpoint?
Looking Ahead
Though the readings of this course do take an unapologetic look at the challenges that face learners in regards to access and equity of educational tools, they do not do so without attempting to propose remedies for these pervasive concerns. Ito’s et al. work Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design outlines what an effective learning design that acknowledges and overcomes issues of inequity would look like. Essentially, there are four main goals of Connected Learning: “1) offer engaging formats for interactivity and self-expression, 2) lower barriers to access for knowledge and information, 3) provide social supports for learning through social media and online affinity groups, and 4) link a broader and more diverse range of culture, knowledge, and expertise to educational opportunity” (Ito et al., 2013, pg. 6). These goals illuminate Ito’s assertion that learning design is a monumental responsibility which must embrace all students where they are--a position which includes physical location, race, socioeconomic status, and personal interest. She contends that social change is not led by technology, but that “Instead, it is important to recognize that the media are themselves a product of society, and thus are shaped by fundamental processes of social change. The same technologies can be taken up for progressive or more traditional educational goals” (Ito et al., 2013, pg. 40). Technologies come from society and its inherent biases and customs; therefore, a responsible approach must be taken when sculpting these technologies to provide the affordances that will suitably meet the needs of all learners.
Reich and Ito’s From Good Intentions to Real Outcomes: Equity by Design in Learning Technologies follows its discourse of the inequitable use of technology with tangible steps and projects underway that have made measurable progress in response to these problems. The answer is not found within one approach; rather, “It is only by reflecting, synthesizing, sharing, and iterating across a range of approaches that we can hope to truly address the challenges of deploying new technology in equitable ways” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 12). According to their findings, there are four encouraging strategies that effectively address equity in learning technologies.
The first promising strategy presented is uniting around a shared purpose: “When initiatives are co-developed and co-facilitated with stakeholders, they are more likely to be better attuned to important elements of social and cultural contexts, and learners are more likely to take ownership of these initiatives” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 12). A sense of ownership is imperative to feelings of success and continued participation in the educational tools available. In addition to co-creations, equity-seeking strategies also seek to align the home, school, and community. Projects such as the Family Creative Learning project and TechGoesHome provide educational training for entire families, not just the learners. This blanketed learning serves to create and maintain support systems at home, which many underprivileged students often lack.
The third strategy discussed seeks to connect to the interests and identities of minority children and youth. Unsurprisingly, dominant culture also dominates the very fabric that makes up society’s educational tools. Per learning communities can be leveraged to create “safe affinity spaces for minority children and youth.”. Finally, developers of educational tools can consciously design targeted programs to target the needs of subgroups. These programs may include “addressing stereotype threat, addressing specific costs that matter more to low-income groups, and targeting high-risk moments in the learning trajectory” (Reich and Ito, 2017, pg. 13). By understanding the unique needs of the subgroups that are being harmed by our current models of education, these targeted programs can move us closer to closing the second digital divide, thereby moving society closer to a more equitable educational system at large.
What do you think about these strategies? Do the four strategies seem achievable? How can individual educators help to promote these strategies within the classroom?
Looking at Today
Affordances, Accessibility, and Equity in Regards to COVID 19 and the Home Schooling Revolution
Amy Albaugh
New Challenges
From the beginning of recorded history human beings have struggled to find the next best way of improving their lives. From fire, and agriculture, through the industrial revolution it was all about how best to produce the things we need the most. But once those needs were sorted we didn’t stop; we kept going, improving, refining, and delegating the big heavy work to machines, and eventually computers.
Computer technology has revolutionized every facet of our world, every industry has been touched by the computer age. It’s no surprise then when we talk about the impact this technology has had on the education system. Both at a granular level and overall. Technology, in particular computer technology is the hot button issue of the education system today and you could argue that since its inception technology has always been a hot button issue. Many scholars have looked at how to revolutionize our education system using technology solutions.
In 1992 Seymour Papert suggested that if you take a group of teachers from the turn of the century and put them in a classroom in the present, they'd recognize the set up. Any other profession or industry has seen massive upheaval Medicine, transportation, entertainment and professionals from a century ago would hardly recognize their contemporaries. But education is the same. In the broad strokes, you walk into the classroom you see a teacher up front lecturing to a class. Little has evolved since the inception of formal education to the current day. But Papert argues we now have the means to do things differently if we want to. He write about theoretical Knowledge machine and how a child who had yet to learn to read could use it to explore her interests:
“Such a system would enable a Jennifer of the future to explore a world significantly richer than … was offered by…printed books. Using speech, touch, or gestures, she would steer the machine to the topic of interest, quickly navigating through a knowledge space much broader than the contents of any printed encyclopedia.”
We’ve made great strides in online media, but it’s my contention we haven’t reached either of these situations. Where Illich wrote of a system of education decentralized and available to all, Papert wrote about a machine that would allow even our youngest children to pursue their interests and essentially teach themselves.
The technology has advanced far beyond our wildest imaginings but the essentials of the classroom remain intact.
But that was then…
Covid 19 has put nearly the entire country on lockdown; schools were shut down with months left of the school year. As of this writing 39 states have closed their physical buildings for the foreseeable future. Most will remain shut through the end of the current school year, and even some are anticipating the continuation of the closures through the fall term. (Chavez, 2020). Districts made the decision to move all instruction online.
Computers were literally invented at a college, and higher education has been at the forefront of online integration for decades, so moving lectures to the online world is less of a transition for them.
But for public K-12 schools who are still deeply entrenched in the ‘teacher lectures the class’ model it’s been a massive upheaval and a difficult transition not just for teachers learning the new technologies, but for parents and students suddenly forced to change how things have been done basically since inception.
But can we make this an opportunity for growth instead of a terrible inconvenience? Gibson’s Theory of affordances speaks to evaluating each object or situation for what advantages are afforded to us there.
What does this situation afford to us as educators?
For the last month and continuing into perhaps the next semester or school year all these schools have been rapidly and with varying amounts of success moving all instruction online.
Online education has been around for quite some time, but for the most part it’s been sitting in the background. Where colleges have embraced a certain amount of online courses, the vast majority of K-12 instruction still happens in a classroom with a teacher in the traditional fashion. So what has this country and indeed the world done to transition their curricular online?
For the most part the traditional model prevails online. Teachers are conducting their lectures via webinar or prerecorded video. Students use messaging and chat boxes to ask questions and complete their same assignment online. For some the transition has been quite smooth. For others unfamiliar with this technology or for districts who don’t have an existing online delivery method the transition has been difficult to say the least.
So while teachers and parents are learning to cope with this ad hoc method of instruction. What they’re essentially doing is the same thing they’ve always done. Have we squandered this opportunity to truly make innovations in our educational system? Or is that simply too much to ask during a global crisis.
But as the majority maintain the status quo we’re here to consider those that exist outside the status quo.
Low income families that don’t have a computer or even internet at home.
Users who are unfamiliar with the technology
Language learners who struggle understanding English directions
Students with mental and physical disabilities that would prevent them from completing the traditionally assigned work.
It’s a staple of our society that the poor and the marginalized get swept off to the corner. But it’s important to at least consider the situation of these groups and what is being done and what could be done to help them continue their education during this crisis.
Attaining Access
While much of the world’s communication and economy is run on computers online, it’s a surprising fact that nearly half the world does not currently have internet access. While for the most part those without access are in low income and rural countries, the surprising fact is that America is still lacking in providing broadband to the entire country.
In 2017 Time magazine ran an article stating that a quarter of the US has no broadband access. Some are in rural areas making do with dial-up, but most just can’t afford the cost of the connection.
“Less than half of households living on under $20,000 are connected. The collective deficit in opportunity, education and prospects–everything implied in “being connected”–further separates us into haves and have-nots.” – Time
The Pew Research Center looked at the digital divide in 2019. They found that:
“The disparity in online access is… apparent in what has been called the “homework gap” – the gap between school-age children who have access to high-speed internet at home and those who don’t. In 2015, 35% of lower-income households with school-age children did not have a broadband internet connection at home, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.”
They also highlight the percentage of low-income families who rely on smartphones for their internet access. They don’t have broadband or a computer at home so their children don’t have the ability to access materials required for schooling on a normal day let alone during a situation where everything is online.
The U.S Congress Joint Economic Committee issued a report on The Digital Divide in 2017 and concluded that having broadband available would provide great opportunities for low-income families to increase their income and lifestyle. While the report focuses on adding to infrastructure in rural areas where broadband isn’t an option even if you can afford it, the report does include the statistics on how many people don’t yet have broadband, which according to the report 1 in 5 who don’t have internet don’t have it because of the cost.
The solution to the cost of broadband? Make it free! At least for now. The main providers of broadband, Comcast and Frontier, Spectrum have pledged to provide free internet to affected areas for up to 2 months. But only for new customers, and only if you don’t have a balance on your account already.
Once the world reopens with the threat of related issues hovering we’d benefit from a push to make broadband an essential and regulated service.
Once the internet is connected there are additional issues to address. If you don’t have access regularly then you’re not likely to have a computer in your home. How are we getting devices into the hands of families who need them?
A Fast Company article outlines how technology companies have the money to provide a laptop to all the students in need. According to them there are 10million low-income students who need a computer and these companies can provide it. But they’re not. Whether that’s something they should be doing or not remains to be seen. There are resources that are not being used to aid these students whether it’s private or public sectors. The money is simply not being spent on them.
Even when technology is provided to low-income students it’s highly policed as shown by Roderic Crooks in his video about the iPads for Social Justice program Against Access. Where iPad were provided to a low income school, but students couldn’t take them home or even leave the room with them they were constantly locked up and when they were used they were counted back in to the point of locking down the school should the count be off.
Considerations
User Training
Once a student somehow has a device, we must now teach them how to use it before we can actually get them in their virtual classrooms. Low education families that haven’t ever used computers before and may not be able to read well, let alone able to use a computer to access online documents. Now the children themselves will have used the computer at school at least in part, so they can figure some things out but that’s older children. Younger children must be provided with stimulating activities outside of the monitor, and resources must be provided to train adults in accessing the materials. Some teachers have gone to the length of printing materials and delivering them to their parents while maintaining social distancing.
Language
Another area of difficulty is here in Florida where we have a large population who have English as a second language. Some students come from homes who don’t speak English at all. These families require additional instructions both in English and in their native tongue. For more common languages like Spanish it’s possible to obtain these bilingual resources, but for other less prevalent languages these resources should be provided in a centralized location.
The Disabled
There are students with physical and mental difficulties who may require accommodations in order to reach learning goals through online content. Parents and caregivers can only do so much. Teachers can only do so much. The technology we have is limited by our ability to shape traditional instructional materials into it. In the short-term worksheets and videos may coast many schools into the summer break, but it might not be enough once school resumes in the Fall.
These families were already in danger of falling through the cracks of the system. If we’re still on lock down when the new term begins, we need to be prepared to provide new and innovative strategies to close the gaps between the two groups of students. But we can only do so much. Teachers cannot call parents if their phones are disconnected. Bilingual instructors are at a premium and even if they speak the language that’s often only part of the problem. Instructors aren’t IT people who can explain what’s wrong with a computer that might be over a decade old trying to access material that wasn’t even conceived when the machine was created. The situation is unprecedented, and we need to bring new techniques and strategies to forefront, and by doing so solve this problem not just in the remote classroom but in the physical one as well.
References
Against Access: Infrastructural Politics and Justice. (2017). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/o_4SwaJdeJw
Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019, May 7). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/
Balkin, J., & Sonnevend, J. (2016-05-27). The Digital Transformation of Education. In Education and Social Media: Toward a Digital Future. : The MIT Press. Retrieved from https://www-universitypressscholarship-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/view/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034470.001.0001/upso-9780262034470-chapter-002.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f80/17157b29ef6131010854d994d66939940f21.pdf
Chavez, N., & Moshtaghian, A. (2020, April 22). At least 37 states and Washington, DC have ordered or recommended that schools don't reopen this academic year. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/18/us/schools-closed-coronavirus/index.html
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception (Classic edition.). Psychology Press. Retrieved from http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs137/readings/Gibson-AFF.pdf
Heinrich, M. The Digital Divide, The Digital Divide (2017). Retrieved from https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ff7b3d0b-bc00-4498-9f9d-3e56ef95088f/the-digital-divide-.pdf
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society (1st Harper Colophon ed.). Harper & Row. Retrieved from https://learn.media.mit.edu/lcl/resources/readings/deschooling-ch6.pdf
Ito, Mizuko, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, S. Craig Watkins (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from https://dmlhub.net/wp-content/uploads/files/Connected_Learning_report.pdf
Iwai, Y. (2020, March 13). Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/online-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Iwai, Yoshiko. “Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Scientific American Blog Network, Scientific American, 13 Mar. 2020, blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/online-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2019, December 31). Americans Internet Access: Percent of Adults 2000-2015. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/
Reich, Justin and Mizuko Ito. 2017. From Good Intentions to Real Outcomes: Equity by Design in Learning Technologies. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from https://clalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GIROreport_1031.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism- the need for negativity in educational technology. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01215.x
Vick, K. (2017, March 30). The Digital Divide: A Quarter of the Nation Is Without Broadband. Retrieved from https://time.com/4718032/the-digital-divide/
Wilson, M. (2020, March 30). Apple, Google, and Microsoft are failing U.S. students during the COVID-19 crisis. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90482278/apple-google-and-microsoft-are-failing-u-s-students-during-the-covid-19-crisis