The main objectives of this study were to examine the "digital divide" in home computer ownership and to evaluate differences in academic and non-academic computer use between poor and non-poor youth. Data from a national sample of 1,029, 10- through 14-year-old young adolescents were analyzed. Results show that poor youth were .36 times as likely to own a home computer, but equally as likely to use their home computer for academic purposes as were non-poor youth. Poor youth did not differ from non-poor youth in how often they used any computer for academic purposes, but were less likely to use any computer for non-academic purposes. Government initiatives to close the digital divide and foster computer use among poor youth are suggested. Key words: digital divide; poverty; computer use; information technology ********** The phrase "digital divide'--the disparity between individuals who have and do not have access to information technology (IT)--became part of our country's vocabulary in the mid-1990s (Wilhelm, Carmen, & Reynolds, 2002). Well-documented inequalities in access to and use of IT such as the computer and Internet reflect existing patterns of social stratification in the United States (Steyaert, 2002). For example, high-income, Caucasian, married, and well-educated individuals have more access to IT compared to low-income, African American and Latino, unmarried, and less-educated individuals (National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], 2000, 2002). Although recent increases in access to IT in public schools have narrowed the IT gap between high- and low-income and white and minority students (NTIA, 2002), inequalities in IT access and use among children and adolescents continue, paralleling those of adults (Attewell & Battle, 1999). A recent survey (NTIA, 2002) indicates that less than 3% of adolescents living in the highest income families do not use computers, compared to approximately 15% of youth in the lowest income category. Although home computer use is almost universal among the wealthiest youth, only one-third of the lowest-income youth use a home computer. The survey found similar differences in Internet access and use between low- and high-income youth and in computer and Internet access and use between Latinos and African Americans and whites. For more than a decade, numerous private and government initiatives have assisted poor communities and low-resource schools (where poor and minority students are more likely to reside and to attend) to gain access to computers, educational software, and the Internet (Wilhelm et al., 2002). Despite the well-documented IT gap between high- and low-income youth, and the billions of dollars that have been spent to close this gap (Roberts, 2000), few studies have examined IT access and type of IT use between poor and non-poor youth using multivariate methods. The multivariate methods used in this study enable the assessment of the independent influences of poverty on home computer ownership and on type of IT use, while controlling for other socio-demographic factors. Implications of the Digital Divide Diverse groups of individuals from government, education, social work, private foundations, industry, the popular press, as well as parents and youths themselves, have expressed several reasons why the nation should be concerned about the gap between the IT "haves" and "have-nots" (Brown, 2000; Hick & McNutt, 2002; NTIA, 2000; Turow & Nir, 2000). These concerns fall into four main themes: educational advantages, future employment and earnings, opportunities for social and civic involvement, and equity and civil rights issues. Many educators, researchers, policy advocates, and government officials maintain that computers, educational software, and the Internet offer a number of educational advantages (Center for Media Education, 1996; Lepper & Gurtner, 1989; Ross, Smith, & Morrison, 1991). …
[1]
Catherine M. Hombo,et al.
NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance.
,
2000
.
[2]
A. Nation.
Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet
,
2002
.
[3]
Alice W. Ryan.
Meta-Analysis of Achievement Effects of Microcomputer Applications in Elementary Schools
,
1991
.
[4]
Harold H. Wenglinsky.
Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics.
,
1998
.
[5]
C. McGuire,et al.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
,
1999
.
[6]
Susan P. Choy,et al.
The Condition of Education, 1999.
,
1999
.
[7]
A. Krueger.
How Computers Have Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from Microdata, 1984-1989
,
1991
.
[8]
S. Ross,et al.
The longitudinal influences of computer-intensive learning experiences on at-risk elementary students
,
1991
.
[9]
Bruce Rocheleau.
Computer use by School-Age Children: Trends, Patterns, and Predictors
,
1995
.
[10]
L. G. Roberts.
Federal programs to increase children's access to educational technology.
,
2000,
The Future of children.
[11]
Logistic Regression Using the SAS® System
,
2000
.
[12]
Joseph B. Giacquinta,et al.
Fifty-one families with computers: A study of children's academic uses of microcomputers at home
,
1990
.
[13]
Internet Access and Content for Urban Schools and Communities. ERIC Digest Number 157.
,
2000
.
[14]
Kirk A. Johnson.
Do Computers in the Classroom Boost Academic Achievement? A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis.
,
2000
.
[15]
Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.
Interactive LISREL : user's guide
,
2001
.
[16]
M. Lepper,et al.
Children and computers. Approaching the twenty-first century.
,
1989,
The American psychologist.
[17]
Joseph Turow,et al.
The Internet and the Family, 2000: The View from Parents, the View from Kids. Report Series No. 33.
,
2000
.
[18]
H. Becker.
Who's wired and who's not: children's access to and use of computer technology.
,
2000,
The Future of children.
[19]
H. Glennerster.
United States Poverty Studies and Poverty Measurement: The Past Twenty‐Five Years
,
2002,
Social Service Review.
[20]
J. Schacter.
The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has To Say.
,
1999
.
[21]
Rosemary E. Sutton.
Equity and Computers in the Schools: A Decade of Research
,
1991
.
[22]
Claire M. Fletcher-Flinn,et al.
The Efficacy of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI): A Meta-Analysis
,
1995
.
[23]
G. Dunteman.
Principal Components Analysis
,
1989
.
[24]
Paul Attewell,et al.
Home Computers and School Performance
,
1999,
Inf. Soc..
[25]
Elisheva F. Gross,et al.
The impact of computer use on children's and adolescents' development
,
2001,
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
[26]
David H. Jonassen,et al.
Information Equals Knowledge, Searching Equals Learning, and Hyperlinking Is Good Instruction
,
2001
.
[27]
Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.
Elementary School Students' Computer and Internet Use at Home: Current Trends and Issues
,
1999
.
[28]
Stephen Provasnik,et al.
The Condition of Education, 2002.
,
2002
.
[29]
Mark R. Lepper,et al.
Correlates of Children's Usage of Videogames and Computers1
,
1987
.
[30]
Basmat Parsad,et al.
Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994?2003. ED TAB. NCES 2005-015.
,
2005
.
[31]
W. Blanton,et al.
Effects of Participation in the Fifth Dimension on Far Transfer
,
1997
.
[32]
S. Hick,et al.
Inequality and the digital divide : myths and realities
,
2002
.
[33]
Hitendra K. Pillay,et al.
Cognition and Recreational Computer Games: Implications for Educational Technology
,
1999
.