The implications of the Digital Divide in 2019 vary slightly from the onset of Internet use. Max Weber’s (1922, 1978) theory of stratification provides a foundation for understanding why the growth is slow. Defining the Digital Divide is difficult. In reality, it has moved from a situation of access to acquiring sufficient skills to use it effectively. We examines the issue from the perspective of the need for technology literate leaders in schools. Technology literate leaders not only embrace technology: they model it. The leaders provide teachers with access and training to implement the best pedagogically sound teaching strategies so that students have optimum opportunities to learn with technology

Becking, Suzanne K.

Grady, Marilyn

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnContemporary Issues in Educational Leadership Educational Administration, Department of2019Implications of the Digital Divide for TechnologyIntegration in Schools: A White PaperSuzanne K. BeckingFort Hays State University, skbecking@fhsu.eduMarilyn GradyUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, mgrady1@unl.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cielPart of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the EducationalLeadership CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Administration, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska- Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Becking, Suzanne K. and Grady, Marilyn, "Implications of the Digital Divide for Technology Integration in Schools: A White Paper"(2019). Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership. 9.https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ciel/91Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership, 1:5 (2019)ISSN 2472-9744 ; http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ciel/Copyright © 2019 Suzanne K. Becking & Marilyn L. Gradydoi 10.32873/unl.dc.ciel.1011Implications of the Digital Divide  for Technology Integration in Schools:  A White PaperSuzanne K. Becking1Marilyn L. Grady21 Fort Hays State University2 University of Nebraska–LincolnAbstractThe implications of the Digital Divide in 2019 vary slightly from the onset of Internet use. Max Weber’s (1922, 1978) theory of stratification provides a foundation for understanding why the growth is slow. Defining the Digital Divide is difficult. In reality, it has moved from a situation of access to ac-quiring sufficient skills to use it effectively. We examines the issue from the perspective of the need for technology literate leaders in schools. Technol-ogy literate leaders not only embrace technology: they model it. The leaders provide teachers with access and training to implement the best pedagog-ically sound teaching strategies so that students have optimum opportuni-ties to learn with technology. Keywords: Digital Divide, pedagogy, technology integrationMax Weber’s (1922, 1978) theory of stratification provides a foundation for examination of the Digital Divide and how it appears in today’s society. We-ber believed the stratification of society included three types; class, status, and party. His theory drew attention to levels of socioeconomic culture. His belief was that humans living in community almost always reflected one of Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)2these three types which he characterized as “manifestations of power.” He spoke of each as having its own level of power. Status held power through the social order. Class held power through the economic order. Party held power through the political order (Hurst, 2007). Almost as soon as the Internet came into existence, it was widely known that it was unevenly developed globally (Guillen, M. F. & Suarez, S. L, 2005). In 1996, The New York Times reported, “only 9% of American classrooms have access to the internet” (www.nytimes.com).  Before 2001, the Digital Divide was defined as a divide of access. That definition was soon modified to include use; which is considered the second-level of divide (Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2015). Access can be further broken based on reasons for use of the internet. According to Van Deursen and van Dijk (2015), four types of internet ac-cess exist: motivational, material, internet skills, and internet usage. Mo-tivational access includes the reasons for internet use. Material access is viewed through the devices used to access the internet, implying that one must possess both the means and the opportunity to use the internet. In-ternet skills represent the second level of the Digital Divide. According to Hargittai (2002), “In recent years, the digital divide debate has centered on the acquisition of the necessary skills to use the Internet efficiently and ef-fectively, also referred to as the second-level digital divide” (as cited in Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2015, p. 380). This explains why even those with ma-terial access still struggle with use--they have not developed the necessary skills to effectively meet their needs through use of the internet. The fourth access, also related to second-level access, is internet usage and involves the frequency, type of activity, and length of time online (Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2005). Toward the beginning of the debates about internet access and the pos-sibility of a digital divide, Rogers (2003) observed the social problem with the use of the internet--that it is not accessible to everyone.  Since his writ-ing, many changes have taken place. However, even as late as 2012, the Pew Foundation reported “only 62% of people in households making less than $30,000 a year used the internet, while in those making $50,00-75,999 that percentage jumped to 90%.” Other findings involved vast differences be-tween rural and urban and between low and high income areas. Anecdotal evidence also reveals, in comments by teachers, that low income students reported more obstacles to internet use than those in more affluent areas (Pew Report, 2012). A Pew Research Center Report found that “a person’s household income is an independent predictor of the likelihood that she or Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 3he will be an internet and email user and be associated with the online ac-tivities we cite in this report” (Jansen, 2010, para 17). In 2019, the divide is between classrooms and schools where technol-ogy is well integrated into the curriculum, and those classrooms where it is not well integrated into the curriculum.  Although providing physi-cal access to computers is the first step toward a solution, greater effort must be provided to resolve the disparity. Effective integration of tech-nology into the classroom and adequate teacher training are two major issues that still need attention. In the 2019 classroom, students are of-ten more technologically proficient than their teachers are. However, that technological proficiency is not necessarily synonymous with technolog-ical literacy. Proficiency with social networking tools or instant messag-ing does not imply critical technological literacy skills.  This illustrates that the problem does not come down to an issue of access, but rather to the effective use of technology in school curriculums (Vie, 2008, as cited in McLean, 2014, para. 6)How can Internet Access at School Make a Difference?In a recent meeting with U.S. Congressmen and members of the FCC, a col-league related that one member felt strongly that schools do not need more bandwidth for internet access; they need to be teaching students how to read. Others however, stepped in with explanations of why students need to use the internet and the benefits those skills will bring to our country’s future workforce. This encounter shows one side of the argument that plagues the educa-tion system. Powell (2000) stated,We hear much today about the ‘digital divide’… When I address this issue, I use an even stronger term: digital apartheid … This is true in America and in the rest of the world. If digital apart-heid persists, we all lose. The digital have-nots will be poorer, more resentful of progress than ever, and will not be able to be-come the skilled workers or potential customers that are needed to sustain the growth of the Internet economy. So, the private sector is eager to tear down the wall between the digital haves and have-nots (as cited in Ragnedda, 2017, p. 13).Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)4Based on studies conducted in Holland in 2007 and 2008, Van Deursen and van Dijk (2010) stated that the digital divide is much more complex than simply providing physical access. They reported that structural skills “strongly relate to education and intellectual capacities and should therefore gain a more central position in future research” (p. 909). Usage and con-tent-related skills must be explored, therefore making education a key in-gredient to overcoming barriers to access and skills related to internet use. How will these skills be acquired? Van Deursen and van Dijk, (2015) stated, “Giving people high-skilled jobs and difficult school assignments might enrich their command of Internet skills and diversity of Internet ap-plications more than leaving them to develop their own experience inde-pendently” (p. 388).  How can we, as educational leadership programs,  help our candidates think differently about their role  as leaders in technology integration? The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE.org) is lead-ing the way in providing standards for administrators, teachers and stu-dents related to technology integration. In 2016 the student standards were reworked; and in June 2017, new teacher standards were unveiled. These standards were developed with the help of those in schools from all levels who have defined best practices for technology integration. The student standards (Fig. 1), were created to “empower student voice and ensure that learning is a student-driven process of exploration, creativity and discov-ery, no matter where they or their teachers are in the thoughtful integration of ed tech” (iste.org, nd). The teacher standards include empowerment—teach and learn in the digital age, equity--closing digital gaps, and empa-thy—challenging our biases. The focus is on the educator as learner, leader, citizen, collaborator, designer, facilitator, and analyst.Teacher preparation programs are vital to the assurance that these skills are developed in students. One graduate student in an online course stated, I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in the higher education field to move away from that passive learning style. Otherwise, there needs to be a frank conversation about what we, as educa-tors, should do to prepare our students for college (Davis, 2017).Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 5I (Becking) am a Google Certified Trainer. I have worked with Profes-sional Development in a third of the K-12 school districts in our state. In dis-cussions with teachers, and in classes I teach for K-12 teachers, I hear com-ments about administrators and the barriers teachers face to technology integration in their classrooms. because administrators/ principals, super-intendents, and technology coordinators, make it hard for teachers to not just embrace engagement, collaboration, and creativity; but to give them permission to think, and therefore, teach differently.  In his online blog, Dangerously Irrelevant, McLeod (2016) stated,I couldn’t help but feel sad for this teacher. He took a small risk and it didn’t go well so he retreated back to his age-old practices, frustrated and resentful of others who preached something different… As school leaders, we must provide much greater support to our teachers as we ask them to initiate new instructional practices and ’transform school.’ I hear repeatedly from principals and superintendents that they supposedly have given their educators permission to be risk-takers. But it is not enough for school leaders to Figure 1Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)6just give encouragement or permission. Our teachers de-serve specific, concrete instructional (re)design strategies and techniques; short-cycle feedback loops; ongoing con-versation with teaching peers about successes and failures; and long-term, follow-up activities that ensure implemen-tation success (para. 4).Grady (2011) sought to help principals with a plan for effective tech-nology leadership for their schools. She stated, “Don’t just ride the tech-nology train, drive it” (cover).When that does not happen, it is a barrier for teachers. Administrators who do not understand the issues of tech-nology, when money becomes available, purchase laptops, iPads, or Smart Boards that just sit in classrooms. Or, they may become another way to do what has always been done. This occurs when time is not provided for the teachers to think through how they can integrate these technology tools into their pedagogy. Which Came First: Pedagogy or Technology?An online student, a teacher in a K-12 classroom, stated, Integrating technology into my teaching has provided more of a well-balanced pedagogical approach.  I feel I am able to better meet the needs of all my students by providing multiple learning opportunities through different formats.  Technological tools give me options to reach the different types of students...I see more “ah-ha” moments from students when I teach the same concept through different media (Palm, 2016).In his work on School Change, Fullan (2013) stated, “Pedagogy is the driver, technology is the accelerator” (as cited in The ICT Evangelist blog, 2016, para. 1). Fullen (2013) contended that the right driver for change in the public school, is not what we usually focus on, technology, but rather on the pedagogy behind it. Fullen (2013) advocates for maximizing pedagogy and allowing technology to support it. When asked, “How does shifting to digital resources change teaching and learning” (Ascione, 2017), Marcenik, CIO at Worcester Academy in Massachusetts, replied, Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 7It changes it dramatically… I think the entire shift in pedagogy is something we’re looking at here, in ways in which we incor-porate project-based learning, competency-based models and blended models. Once these models and philosophies are estab-lished, the next step is to shift to the digital resources that sup-port those models (as cited in Ascione, 2017 para. 3). His statements are another indication of what should really drive technol-ogy integration—not the technology itself, but the pedagogy behind it. ReferencesAscione, L. (2017, January). 5 questions to answer about OER use. In Digital Learning and Tools, eClassroom News. Retrieved May 2017 from  http://www.eschoolnews.com/2017/01/06/5-questions-answer-oer-use/?print Couros, G. (2013, October 30). The Principal of Change. Retrieved January, 2018 from https://georgecouros.ca/blog/presentations Davis, M. Personal communication (January 2017). Fullen, M. (2013). Change: Making it happen in your school and system. Online presentation from Motion Leadership.ca. Retrieved May, 2017 from https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/00_13_Short-Handout.compressed.pdf Grady, M. (2011). Leading the technology powered school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Guillen, M. F. & Suarez, S. L. (2005, December). Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use.  Social Forces, 84/ 2. Hurst, C. E. (2007). Social Inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.International Society for Technology in Education (iste.org), 2017. Retrieved May 24, 2019 from https://www.iste.org  Jansen, J. (2010, December). Pew Report: Income Level A Precise Predictor of Internet Use. Retrieved on 6/10/2017 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/11/24/use-of-the-internet-in-higher-income-households/ McLean, M. (2014, Nov.) The new “digital divide”” integrating tech into teaching. [Web log comment]. Dangerously Irrelevant. Retrieved January, 2017 from https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teaching-talk/new-digital-divide-integrating-tech-teaching Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)8McLeod, S. (2016, December). I tried giving my students some agency two year ago and it didn’t work. [Web log comment]. Dangerously Irrelevant. Retrieved January, 2017 from http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2016/12/i-tried-giving-my-students-some-agency-two-years-ago-and-it-didnt-work.htmlPalm D. (2016). Personal communication from online course.Pew Report. (2012, April). Digital Differences. Retrieved on 6/10/2017 from  http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/04/13/digital-differences/ Ragnedda, M. (2017). The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian approach. New York: Routledge.Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Ed. New York: Free Press.Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6) 893-911.Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J (2015). Toward a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The Information Society, 3, 379-391. Weber, M. (1922) 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Implications of the Digital Divide for Technology Integration in Schools: A White Paper

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership Educational Administration, Department of
2019
Implications of the Digital Divide for Technology
Integration in Schools: A White Paper
Suzanne K. Becking
Fort Hays State University, skbecking@fhsu.edu
Marilyn Grady
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, mgrady1@unl.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ciel
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Educational
Leadership Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Administration, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska
- Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Becking, Suzanne K. and Grady, Marilyn, "Implications of the Digital Divide for Technology Integration in Schools: A White Paper"
(2019). Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership. 9.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ciel/9
1Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership, 1:5 (2019)
ISSN 2472-9744 ; http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ciel/
Copyright © 2019 Suzanne K. Becking & Marilyn L. Grady
doi 10.32873/unl.dc.ciel.1011
Implications of the Digital Divide  
for Technology Integration in Schools:  
A White Paper
Suzanne K. Becking1
Marilyn L. Grady2
1 Fort Hays State University
2 University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Abstract
The implications of the Digital Divide in 2019 vary slightly from the onset 
of Internet use. Max Weber’s (1922, 1978) theory of stratification provides 
a foundation for understanding why the growth is slow. Defining the Digital 
Divide is difficult. In reality, it has moved from a situation of access to ac-
quiring sufficient skills to use it effectively. We examines the issue from the 
perspective of the need for technology literate leaders in schools. Technol-
ogy literate leaders not only embrace technology: they model it. The leaders 
provide teachers with access and training to implement the best pedagog-
ically sound teaching strategies so that students have optimum opportuni-
ties to learn with technology. 
Keywords: Digital Divide, pedagogy, technology integration
Max Weber’s (1922, 1978) theory of stratification provides a foundation for 
examination of the Digital Divide and how it appears in today’s society. We-
ber believed the stratification of society included three types; class, status, 
and party. His theory drew attention to levels of socioeconomic culture. His 
belief was that humans living in community almost always reflected one of 
Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)2
these three types which he characterized as “manifestations of power.” He 
spoke of each as having its own level of power. Status held power through 
the social order. Class held power through the economic order. Party held 
power through the political order (Hurst, 2007). 
Almost as soon as the Internet came into existence, it was widely known 
that it was unevenly developed globally (Guillen, M. F. & Suarez, S. L, 2005). 
In 1996, The New York Times reported, “only 9% of American classrooms 
have access to the internet” (www.nytimes.com).  Before 2001, the Digital 
Divide was defined as a divide of access. That definition was soon modified 
to include use; which is considered the second-level of divide (Van Deursen 
& van Dijk, 2015). 
Access can be further broken based on reasons for use of the internet. 
According to Van Deursen and van Dijk (2015), four types of internet ac-
cess exist: motivational, material, internet skills, and internet usage. Mo-
tivational access includes the reasons for internet use. Material access is 
viewed through the devices used to access the internet, implying that one 
must possess both the means and the opportunity to use the internet. In-
ternet skills represent the second level of the Digital Divide. According to 
Hargittai (2002), “In recent years, the digital divide debate has centered on 
the acquisition of the necessary skills to use the Internet efficiently and ef-
fectively, also referred to as the second-level digital divide” (as cited in Van 
Deursen & van Dijk, 2015, p. 380). This explains why even those with ma-
terial access still struggle with use--they have not developed the necessary 
skills to effectively meet their needs through use of the internet. 
The fourth access, also related to second-level access, is internet usage 
and involves the frequency, type of activity, and length of time online (Van 
Deursen & van Dijk, 2005). 
Toward the beginning of the debates about internet access and the pos-
sibility of a digital divide, Rogers (2003) observed the social problem with 
the use of the internet--that it is not accessible to everyone.  Since his writ-
ing, many changes have taken place. However, even as late as 2012, the Pew 
Foundation reported “only 62% of people in households making less than 
$30,000 a year used the internet, while in those making $50,00-75,999 that 
percentage jumped to 90%.” Other findings involved vast differences be-
tween rural and urban and between low and high income areas. Anecdotal 
evidence also reveals, in comments by teachers, that low income students 
reported more obstacles to internet use than those in more affluent areas 
(Pew Report, 2012). A Pew Research Center Report found that “a person’s 
household income is an independent predictor of the likelihood that she or 
Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 3
he will be an internet and email user and be associated with the online ac-
tivities we cite in this report” (Jansen, 2010, para 17). 
In 2019, the divide is between classrooms and schools where technol-
ogy is well integrated into the curriculum, and those classrooms where 
it is not well integrated into the curriculum.  Although providing physi-
cal access to computers is the first step toward a solution, greater effort 
must be provided to resolve the disparity. Effective integration of tech-
nology into the classroom and adequate teacher training are two major 
issues that still need attention. In the 2019 classroom, students are of-
ten more technologically proficient than their teachers are. However, that 
technological proficiency is not necessarily synonymous with technolog-
ical literacy. Proficiency with social networking tools or instant messag-
ing does not imply critical technological literacy skills.  This illustrates 
that the problem does not come down to an issue of access, but rather to 
the effective use of technology in school curriculums (Vie, 2008, as cited 
in McLean, 2014, para. 6)
How can Internet Access at School Make a Difference?
In a recent meeting with U.S. Congressmen and members of the FCC, a col-
league related that one member felt strongly that schools do not need more 
bandwidth for internet access; they need to be teaching students how to 
read. Others however, stepped in with explanations of why students need 
to use the internet and the benefits those skills will bring to our country’s 
future workforce. 
This encounter shows one side of the argument that plagues the educa-
tion system. Powell (2000) stated,
We hear much today about the ‘digital divide’… When I address 
this issue, I use an even stronger term: digital apartheid … This 
is true in America and in the rest of the world. If digital apart-
heid persists, we all lose. The digital have-nots will be poorer, 
more resentful of progress than ever, and will not be able to be-
come the skilled workers or potential customers that are needed 
to sustain the growth of the Internet economy. So, the private 
sector is eager to tear down the wall between the digital haves 
and have-nots (as cited in Ragnedda, 2017, p. 13).
Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)4
Based on studies conducted in Holland in 2007 and 2008, Van Deursen 
and van Dijk (2010) stated that the digital divide is much more complex 
than simply providing physical access. They reported that structural skills 
“strongly relate to education and intellectual capacities and should therefore 
gain a more central position in future research” (p. 909). Usage and con-
tent-related skills must be explored, therefore making education a key in-
gredient to overcoming barriers to access and skills related to internet use. 
How will these skills be acquired? Van Deursen and van Dijk, (2015) 
stated, “Giving people high-skilled jobs and difficult school assignments 
might enrich their command of Internet skills and diversity of Internet ap-
plications more than leaving them to develop their own experience inde-
pendently” (p. 388).  
How can we, as educational leadership programs,  
help our candidates think differently about their role  
as leaders in technology integration?
 
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE.org) is lead-
ing the way in providing standards for administrators, teachers and stu-
dents related to technology integration. In 2016 the student standards were 
reworked; and in June 2017, new teacher standards were unveiled. These 
standards were developed with the help of those in schools from all levels 
who have defined best practices for technology integration. The student 
standards (Fig. 1), were created to “empower student voice and ensure that 
learning is a student-driven process of exploration, creativity and discov-
ery, no matter where they or their teachers are in the thoughtful integration 
of ed tech” (iste.org, nd). The teacher standards include empowerment—
teach and learn in the digital age, equity--closing digital gaps, and empa-
thy—challenging our biases. The focus is on the educator as learner, leader, 
citizen, collaborator, designer, facilitator, and analyst.
Teacher preparation programs are vital to the assurance that these skills 
are developed in students. One graduate student in an online course stated, 
I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in the higher education 
field to move away from that passive learning style. Otherwise, 
there needs to be a frank conversation about what we, as educa-
tors, should do to prepare our students for college (Davis, 2017).
Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 5
I (Becking) am a Google Certified Trainer. I have worked with Profes-
sional Development in a third of the K-12 school districts in our state. In dis-
cussions with teachers, and in classes I teach for K-12 teachers, I hear com-
ments about administrators and the barriers teachers face to technology 
integration in their classrooms. because administrators/ principals, super-
intendents, and technology coordinators, make it hard for teachers to not 
just embrace engagement, collaboration, and creativity; but to give them 
permission to think, and therefore, teach differently.  
In his online blog, Dangerously Irrelevant, McLeod (2016) stated,
I couldn’t help but feel sad for this teacher. He took a small 
risk and it didn’t go well so he retreated back to his age-old 
practices, frustrated and resentful of others who preached 
something different… As school leaders, we must provide 
much greater support to our teachers as we ask them to 
initiate new instructional practices and ’transform school.’ 
I hear repeatedly from principals and superintendents that 
they supposedly have given their educators permission to 
be risk-takers. But it is not enough for school leaders to 
Figure 1
Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)6
just give encouragement or permission. Our teachers de-
serve specific, concrete instructional (re)design strategies 
and techniques; short-cycle feedback loops; ongoing con-
versation with teaching peers about successes and failures; 
and long-term, follow-up activities that ensure implemen-
tation success (para. 4).
Grady (2011) sought to help principals with a plan for effective tech-
nology leadership for their schools. She stated, “Don’t just ride the tech-
nology train, drive it” (cover).When that does not happen, it is a barrier 
for teachers. Administrators who do not understand the issues of tech-
nology, when money becomes available, purchase laptops, iPads, or Smart 
Boards that just sit in classrooms. Or, they may become another way to 
do what has always been done. This occurs when time is not provided for 
the teachers to think through how they can integrate these technology 
tools into their pedagogy. 
Which Came First: Pedagogy or Technology?
An online student, a teacher in a K-12 classroom, stated, 
Integrating technology into my teaching has provided more of a 
well-balanced pedagogical approach.  I feel I am able to better 
meet the needs of all my students by providing multiple learning 
opportunities through different formats.  Technological tools give 
me options to reach the different types of students...I see more 
“ah-ha” moments from students when I teach the same concept 
through different media (Palm, 2016).
In his work on School Change, Fullan (2013) stated, “Pedagogy is the 
driver, technology is the accelerator” (as cited in The ICT Evangelist blog, 
2016, para. 1). Fullen (2013) contended that the right driver for change in 
the public school, is not what we usually focus on, technology, but rather on 
the pedagogy behind it. Fullen (2013) advocates for maximizing pedagogy 
and allowing technology to support it. When asked, “How does shifting to 
digital resources change teaching and learning” (Ascione, 2017), Marcenik, 
CIO at Worcester Academy in Massachusetts, replied, 
Becking & Grady: Implications of the Digital Divide 7
It changes it dramatically… I think the entire shift in pedagogy 
is something we’re looking at here, in ways in which we incor-
porate project-based learning, competency-based models and 
blended models. Once these models and philosophies are estab-
lished, the next step is to shift to the digital resources that sup-
port those models (as cited in Ascione, 2017 para. 3). 
His statements are another indication of what should really drive technol-
ogy integration—not the technology itself, but the pedagogy behind it.
 
References
Ascione, L. (2017, January). 5 questions to answer about OER use. In Digital 
Learning and Tools, eClassroom News. Retrieved May 2017 from  http://www.
eschoolnews.com/2017/01/06/5-questions-answer-oer-use/?print 
Couros, G. (2013, October 30). The Principal of Change. Retrieved January, 2018 
from https://georgecouros.ca/blog/presentations 
Davis, M. Personal communication (January 2017). 
Fullen, M. (2013). Change: Making it happen in your school and system. Online 
presentation from Motion Leadership.ca. Retrieved May, 2017 from https://
michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/00_13_Short-Handout.
compressed.pdf 
Grady, M. (2011). Leading the technology powered school. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Corwin.
Guillen, M. F. & Suarez, S. L. (2005, December). Explaining the Global Digital 
Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet 
Use.  Social Forces, 84/ 2. 
Hurst, C. E. (2007). Social Inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences. New York, 
NY: Taylor & Francis.
International Society for Technology in Education (iste.org), 2017. Retrieved May 
24, 2019 from https://www.iste.org  
Jansen, J. (2010, December). Pew Report: Income Level A Precise Predictor 
of Internet Use. Retrieved on 6/10/2017 from http://www.pewinternet.
org/2010/11/24/use-of-the-internet-in-higher-income-households/ 
McLean, M. (2014, Nov.) The new “digital divide”” integrating tech into 
teaching. [Web log comment]. Dangerously Irrelevant. Retrieved January, 
2017 from https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teaching-talk/
new-digital-divide-integrating-tech-teaching 
Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership 1:5 (2019)8
McLeod, S. (2016, December). I tried giving my students some agency two year 
ago and it didn’t work. [Web log comment]. Dangerously Irrelevant. Retrieved 
January, 2017 from http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2016/12/i-tried-giving-
my-students-some-agency-two-years-ago-and-it-didnt-work.html
Palm D. (2016). Personal communication from online course.
Pew Report. (2012, April). Digital Differences. Retrieved on 6/10/2017 from  
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/04/13/digital-differences/ 
Ragnedda, M. (2017). The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian approach. New York: 
Routledge.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Ed. New York: Free Press.
Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New 
Media & Society, 13(6) 893-911.
Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J (2015). Toward a multifaceted model of internet 
access for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The 
Information Society, 3, 379-391. 
Weber, M. (1922) 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. 
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ciel

Implications of the Digital Divide for Technology Integration in Schools: A White Paper

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries