The Digital Divide in Canadian Schools E. Dianne Looker Sociology, Acadia University Victor Thiessen Sociology & Social Anthropology Dalhousie University

ISSUES Increasing emphasis on information & communication technology (ICT) Importance of equity The “digital divide” - between users and non-users - among users Focus on youth in Canadian schools

Data sets General Social Survey – Cycle 14 (15-24 year olds ) Youth in Transition Survey/ Programme for International Student Assessment (15-16 year olds – 2000) Second International Technology in Education Survey (Senior high schools – 2000 )

Measures of equity Gender, rurality, class (Independent variables) Use/non-use Access to hardware, software & tech. support at home & school Amount of use Type of use

Measures, cont’d Reasons for use - School/study - Personal interest Attitudes to ICT - Importance of working with ICT - Computers are fun - Use computers out of interest Self reported levels of competence

Results GENDER Little difference in use Little difference in computers at home Males more programming, spreadsheets, graphics, data entry & games Females learn more for study;males for personal interest Males more likely to use ICT for fun, to say computers are interesting, important More males say they have excellent computer skills

Rural- urban No differences in use Few differences in types of use (more urban use Internet) Fewer rural have computer in home Rural use computers less at home Rural use computers more at school & library No differences in attitudes No differences in skill level

Rural-urban from SITES Urban more coordinators & more formal coordinators Rural coordinators have other duties Urban more computers/student Urban more ICT for specific subjects Urban more opportunities for teacher training & knowledge transfer Rural less access to high speed Internet

Parental ed. (SES) Low SES less use Low SES fewer computers in home & use less at home Little difference in school use Low SES less of several types of use Low SES use for study rather than interest Low SES less likely to say “important to work with computers” Low SES lower rating of ICT skills

Conclusions Little difference in levels of use Some differences in access in home Public investment in ICT affects access Small but important differences in attitudes, use and levels of expertise Differences in attitudes affect use Differences in Internet access can exacerbate structural inequities  Cautious optimism