Media Watch

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Digital Access and Inequality among Primary School Children in Rural Coimbatore


Affiliations
1 Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This paper examines the dynamics of access and exclusion in children's Internet use, in both private and public school spaces and interrogates the role of socioeconomic and demographic predictors as well as the schooling system in shaping Internet habits. More specifically, it explores the nature of Internet use by primary school children, mainly for education and information and attempts to understand the differences across and within two types of schools- a rural public school and an elite private school. Through in-depth interviews, this research investigates the level of computer and Internet literacy among the primary school children in the age group of 8-10 years and reports the differences observed among the various social dimensions. It attempts to stress the significance and need in today's context to provide the opportunities for physical and material access so that disadvantaged children are not excluded from the digital opportunities.

Keywords

Digital Inequality, Internet Use, Internet Access, Internet Literacy, Digital Natives, Digital Exclusion, Social Inequality
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Agarwal, R., Animesh, A., and Prasad, K. (2009). Research note: Social interactions and the “Digital Divide”: Explaining variations in Internet use. Information Systems Research, 20 (2), 277-294.

  • Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., and Brannen, J. (2008). Social research in changing social conditions. In Alasuutari et al. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods (pp 1-8). London:Sage.

  • Asthana, S. (2008). Teaching about media - Media education, learning and literacy: Sketching a dialogic process. In Carlsson, U. et al. (Eds). Empowerment through media education: An intercultural dialogue (pp 251 -258). Sweden: NORDICOM.

  • Bevort, E. and Verniers, P. (2008). The appropriation of new media and communication tools by young people aged 12-18 in Europe. In Carlsson, U. et al. (Eds). Empowerment through media education: An intercultural dialogue (pp 89- 100). Sweden: NORDICOM.

  • Bennett, S., Maton., and Kervin, L. ( 2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775–786.

  • Bolt, D.B., and Crawford, R.A.K. (2000). Digital divide: Computers and our children’s future. New York: TV Books LLC.

  • Buckingham, D. (2009). Talking about their generation: Constructions of the digital learner, in Das, R.& Beckett, C. (Eds). ‘Digital natives’: A myth?’- A report of the panel held at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 24th November 2009.

  • Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P.M. (2003). The unintended effects of advertising: A parent-child survey. Communication Research, 30, 483-503.

  • Calvert, S.L., Rideout, V.J., Woolard, J.L., Barr, R.F., and Strouse, G.A. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic patterns in early computer use: A national survey. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 590-607. Doi: 10.1177/0002764204271508

  • Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

  • Census 2011. http://www.censusindia.gov.in

  • Das, G. (2000). India Unbound: From Independence to the Global Information Age. New Delhi:Penguin Books.

  • DiMaggio, P., and Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’ to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases, Working Paper series 15, Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University.

  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., and Robinson. J.P. (2001). Social Implications of the Internet, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.

  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., and Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Neckerman, K. (Ed). Social Inequality (pp 355-400). New York: Sage.

  • Duff, A.S. (2012). A normative theory of the information society. New York: Routledge.

  • Facer, K. and Furlong,R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the ‘cyberkid’: Young people at the margins of the Information revolution, Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451-469.

  • Frohlich, D., Dray, S., and Silverman, A. (2003). Breaking up is hard to do: Family perspectives on the future home PC. In Turow & Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead (pp 291-324).

  • Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

  • Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.

  • Gunkel, D. J. ( 2003). Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5 (4), 499-522.

  • Haight, M., Quan-Haase, A., and Corbett, B.A. (2014). Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: The impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Information, Communication & Society, 2014. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.891633. Retrieved on 11 March 2014 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.891633.

  • Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital reproduction of Inequality. In Grusky, D.B., Ku, M.C., & Szelenyi, S. (Eds), Social stratification: class, race and gender in sociological perspective (pp 936-944).

  • Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Hargittai, E. and Hsieh, Y.P. (2013). Digital inequality. In Dutton, W.H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp 129-150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hendriyani, Hollander, E., d’Haenens, L. and Beentjes, J.W.J. (2012). Children’s media use in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Communication, 22 (3), 304-319.

  • Ilavarasan P.V. (2013). The digital divide in India: Inferences from the information and communication technology workforce. In Ragnedda, M., and Muschert,G.W. (Eds). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. (pp 134-146) London and New York: Routledge.

  • Internet in India (2006). IAMAI and IMRB Report, 6 December 2006. Mumbai: Internet and Mobile Association of India. http://www.iamai.in.

  • Internet in India (2011). IAMAI and IMRB Report on Mobile Internet in India, August 2011. Mumbai:Internet and Mobile Association of India. http://www.iamai.in.

  • Internet in India (2013). IAMAI and IMRB Report, November 2013. Mumbai: Internet and Mobile Association of India. http://www.iamai.in.

  • Internet World Stats. http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm

  • Jha, P. and Parvati, P. (2014). Assessing progress on universal elementary education in India: A note on some key constraints. Economic & Political Weekly, XLIX (16), 44-51.

  • Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the Internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5 (2), 47-166.

  • Livingstone, S. (2009). Enabling media literacy for ‘digital natives’-A contradiction in terms?, In Das, R. & Beckett, C. (Eds). ‘Digital natives’: A myth?’- A report of the panel held at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 24th November 2009.

  • Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9 (4), 671-696. Retrieved from http://nms.sagepub.com at TISS on June 17, 2014.

  • Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: the role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12 (2), 309-329. Retrieved from http://nms.sagepub.com at TISS on September 8, 2011.

  • Livingstone, S. and Staksrud, E. (2011). EU kids online. London: LSE

  • Mathur, R.R. (2004). India. In Karan, K. (Ed.) Cyber communities in rural Asia: A study of seven Asian countries. (pp 119-157), Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International.

  • Mazzerella, W. (2010). Beautiful Balloon: The digital divide and the charisma of new media in India. American Ethnologist, 37(4), 783-804.

  • Mehra, B., Merkel, C., and Bishop., A.P. (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781–802. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://nms.sagepub.com at TISS.

  • Miller, V. (2011). Digital inequality: Social, political and infrastructural contexts. Chapter 4. In Understanding digital culture. (pp 95-110). New Delhi: Sage Publications.

  • Mitra, S. and Rana, V. (2001). “Children and the internet: experiments with minimally invasive education in India”. The British Journal of Education Technology, 32 (2), 221-232. Retrieved from http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper02.pdf on 26th December 2011.NASSCOM. Securing India’s Cyber Frontiers. Retrieved from http://www.nasscom.in/securingindia%E2%80%99s-cyber-frontiers on 24th January 2014.

  • National Curriculum Framework (2000), IT Education in Schools, National Council of Educational Research and Training, (NCERT), New Delhi: NCERT.

  • National Curriculum Framework (2005). National Council of Educational Research and Training, (NCERT), New Delhi: NCERT.

  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • OECD. (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 49, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/236405667766. Retrieved Jun 2013 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf

  • Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

  • Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.

  • Pearce, K.E., and Rice, R.E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication, 63 (4), 721–744.

  • Prensky, M. ( 2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. 9 (5), 1-6.

  • Rai, V. and Kumar, N. (2010). Right to education: The way forward. New Delhi: Perfect Publications.

  • Ramachandran,V and Naorem, T. (2013). What it means to be a dalit or tribal child in our schools: A synthesis of a six-state qualitative study. Economic & Political Weekly, XLVIII (44), pp 43-52.

  • Rana, K ., Santra, S., Mukherjee, A., Banerjee, T., and Kundu, M. (2005). Public-private interface in primary education: A case study in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, April, 9, 2005, pp 1550-1555.

  • Rojas, V., Straubhaar, J., Roychowdhury, D. and Okur, O. (2004). Communities, cultural capital and the digital divide. In E. Bucy and J. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use. London: LEA, 107–130.

  • Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P.M. (2012). Think-aloud process superior to thoughtlisting in increasing children’s critical processing of advertising. Human Communication Research, 38, (2), 199-221.

  • Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. http://ssa.nic.in/

  • Selwyn, N. (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6 (3), 341-362.

  • Sen, A. (2010). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books.

  • Srivastava, P. and Noronha, C. (2014). Institutional framing of the Right to education act: Contestation, controversy and concessions. Economic & Political Weekly, XLIX (18), pp 51-58.

  • Stanley L.D. (2003). Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking, The Information Society: An International Journal, 19(5), 407-416. doi: 10.1080/715720560

  • Suoranta, J. (2003). The world divided in two: Digital divide, information and communication technologies, and the ‘youth question’. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 1 (2), 1-31.

  • Suoranta, J. and Lehtimaki, H. (2003). Children in the Information Society, New York: Peter Lang. Tamil Nadu Development Report (2005). New Delhi; Planning Commission, Government of India & Academic Foundation.

  • Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Tarozzi, M. and Bertolini, P. (2000). Children at the dawn of the Internet: Exploratory research on current and potential use at home and in school. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23 (2), 189-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713667274

  • Unwin, T. (2013). The Internet and development: A critical perspective. In Dutton, W.H. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp 531-554). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • van Dijk, J., and Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19 (4), 315–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487 van Dijk, J. (2006 a). The network society: Social aspects of new media. 2nd edition. London and New Delhi: Sage.

  • van Dijk, J. (2006 b). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics,34, 221–235. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/

  • van Dijk, J. (2013). A theory of the digital divide. In Ragnedda, M., and Muschert,G.W. (Eds). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. (pp 29-51) London and New York: Routledge.

  • Venkataswamy,S. (2012). Growing up in the digital landscape: The digital natives of Tamil Nadu. 21st AMIC Annual Conference. 11-14, July 2012.

  • Venkatesh, V., and Sykes, T.A. (2013). Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: A longitudinal field study in a village in India. Information Systems Research, 24 (2), 239-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0409

  • Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the tracks. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (4).

  • Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge:The MIT Press.

  • Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., and Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy,18 (4), 562-588. doi: 10.1177/0895904804266469. Retrieved on February 24, 2014 from http://epx.sagepub.com/.

  • Warschauer, M. (2011). A literacy approach to the digital divide. Cadernos de Letras , 28, 5-19.

  • Wessels, B. (2013). The reproduction and reconfiguration of inequality: Differentiation and class, status and power in the dynamics of digital divides. In Ragnedda, M., and Muschert,G.W. (Eds). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, (pp 17-28). London and New York: Routledge.


Abstract Views: 1069

PDF Views: 3




  • Digital Access and Inequality among Primary School Children in Rural Coimbatore

Abstract Views: 1069  |  PDF Views: 3

Authors

Sudha Venkataswamy
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India

Abstract


This paper examines the dynamics of access and exclusion in children's Internet use, in both private and public school spaces and interrogates the role of socioeconomic and demographic predictors as well as the schooling system in shaping Internet habits. More specifically, it explores the nature of Internet use by primary school children, mainly for education and information and attempts to understand the differences across and within two types of schools- a rural public school and an elite private school. Through in-depth interviews, this research investigates the level of computer and Internet literacy among the primary school children in the age group of 8-10 years and reports the differences observed among the various social dimensions. It attempts to stress the significance and need in today's context to provide the opportunities for physical and material access so that disadvantaged children are not excluded from the digital opportunities.

Keywords


Digital Inequality, Internet Use, Internet Access, Internet Literacy, Digital Natives, Digital Exclusion, Social Inequality

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.15655/mw%2F2015%2Fv6i1%2F55397