Conversation Theory for Postsecondary E-Learning

Introduction

            Computer-mediated communication has swiftly advanced over several decades, finding landscapes of usability in business, healthcare, economics, politics, and education. In education, the fastest growing field for the use of computer-mediated communication is in the area of postsecondary E-learning (Electronic Learning). E-learning is also referred to as computer-mediated, technology-mediated, or online learning, all of which are forms of adult distance education (Johnson, 2008). Within this sphere of education, communiqué via synchronous or asynchronous techniques and technologies affords learners and learning facilitators, opportunities, alternatives, and resources, with the intention of exchanging beliefs, ideas, perspectives, and knowledge collaboratively (Mayes & de Freitas, 2011; Strang, 2011).

            Within asynchronous learning environments, conversations occur by way of discussion threads, e-mails, wikis, and blogs (text-based), as well as, podcasts, YouTube, and Facebook, without consideration of time or place (delayed time) (Huang & E-Ling, 2012). On the other hand, in synchronous learning environments, conversations attempt to mirror face-to-face interactions, via videoconferencing technologies and assemblage formats for collective collaboration, such as Skype, GoToMeeting, or WebEx, which allow learners and facilitators to congregate in real-time from differing locations (Qidong, Griffin & Xue, 2009). Of late, a great deal of research attention has been given to the emerging technologies utilized for conversations in postsecondary e-learning situations (Burns, 2013; Helland, 2013; Wei, Kuo-Cheng, Don-Lin & Ming-Chuan, 2013; Kiraikenks, 2011; Lunt & Curran, 2010; Haggis, 2009). However, for the purpose of this article, technologies will be viewed as tools and means for knowledge creation through conversations, rather than the focus subject.

            This article will discuss (a) what conversation is, (b) how it is used to construct meaningful learning experiences, and (c) its use in knowledge creation, particular to e-learning. Moreover, this article will discuss theoretical frameworks of seminal and current research, which indicate the value of conversational learning within the e-learning atmosphere. Conversation in education is the most significant component within the learning process, because society's ability to advance fluidly and successfully in a digital information age, is dependent on its ability to appreciate and glean information from one another through conversation, regardless of the technology used (Saadatmand & Kumpulainen, 2013; Pangaro & Blumenschein, 2012; Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, 2009; Pask, 1976).

Effectual Conversation for E-Learning

            Human society is the only creature on the planet that communicates via conversation. Other creatures communicate by varying means and methods; however, none has the capacity for conversation. An understanding of the significance of conversation in human society is beneficial to the comprehension and importance of conversation within a learning setting (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002). Luppicini (2008) argues, "Conversation allows us to share information, express opinions, create and support social relationships, and persuade others" (p. 1).

            Holland & Childress (2008) report that e-learning is undergoing a paradigm shift in relation to an emerging field in research and practice surrounding conversation in e-learning. Holland and Childress argue that in times past, conversation has been limited in the sense of autonomous expression inside e-learning settings. Asynchronous discussion threads have a tendency to limit conversations, in terms of exchanging values, ideas, and opinions that are contrary to the instructor's views or those articulated in the course reading materials. Elmendorf & Ottenhoff (2009) propose, thus, conversation is less autonomous, and more dependent on the views of those outside the adult learner's respective intellectual processes. Benson (2011) asserts that within this type of e-learning environment, learning becomes irrelevant, mundane, and meaningless, particularly for adult learners, who value personal autonomy. "The independence necessary to chart one's own course through life and to develop one's own understanding of what is valuable and worth doing" (p. 12), is hindered when options for personal autonomy are non-existent (Benson, 2011).

            In an effort to elicit comprehensive appreciation of the need for and effectiveness of conversations in e-learning, an explanation of conversation, in relation to learning is appropriate. Dubberly & Pangaro (2009) describe, "...an 'effective conversation' as an interaction in which the changes brought about by conversation have lasting value to the participants" (p. 3). 

Conversations to Learn

Image 1.1: Conversations to Learn. (Dubberly & Pangaro, 2009, p. 4)).

             
Furthermore, the researchers articulate specific components that should be present, in order for learning to occur in conversation: Context, language, exchange, agreement, and (trans)action.

Components of Effective Conversations

Image 1.2: What is Conversation? (Pangaro & Blumenschein, 2012, p. 14).

            Pangaro & Blumenschein (2012) emphasize that although many conversations pursue the components sequentially (as the image above reflects), there are effective learning conversations that contain each of the components, without utilizing the sequential pattern. First, this may be due to time limits prompting a return to the conversation at a later time/date. Second, this may be due to difficulties during execution of one component or another. In this case, the components may be rearranged, in order to reach the end of the conversation, where one or more participants have gleaned satisfactory information and learned from the conversation (Dubberly & Pangaro, 2009).

            Third, the learning environment may necessitate alignment to address the conversational needs and preferences of the learners. Finally, learners may need to pause and evaluate the mismatch in the conversation that is hindering the exchange for satisfactory learning to ensue. This may constitute a need for arbitration with others learners or the learning facilitator (Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, 2009).

Conversation Theory: Theoretical Framework

          Andrew Gordon Pask (1928-1996), (Roca, 1996) known to his friends and colleagues as Speedie, because of his energetic lifestyle and love for discovery learning, was a cybernetics expert, who held higher education degrees. "...his life-long research spanned biological computing, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, logic, linguistics, psychology, and artificial life" (Pangaro, 1996, para 2). His interest in how humans learn from their respective environments and how this learning "...relates to others through language" (Roca, 1996, para 3). Pask's interest in linguistic and cognitive connections in conversation led him to develop the Conversation Theory (CT) in the 1970's (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002).

             During this same period, educationalists were evaluating and utilizing Learning Styles Theories to enhance learning opportunities for adult learners. Pask did not align his thinking with the traditional adult learning theories of the day, but consequently, formulated a simplified model to address his theoretical framework of conversation. Pask's CT argues that conversation occurs at three differing levels: 1) Natural language (general discussion), 2) Object languages (for discussing the subject matter), and 3) Metalanguages (for talking about learning/language). These levels are divided between theorized learning strategies that would be utilized for conversation levels. The first type of learning strategy is the Serialist. The Serialist prefers to progress through learning structures sequentially. The second type of learning strategy is the Holist. The Holist prefers to progress through learning structures through relationships of higher order thinking. Moreover, Pask declared that learning should be formulated in arrangements that provide conversational opportunities, whereby teachback could develop. Teachback provided evidence of learned subject matter, because when true learning had transpired, a learner would have the capacity to teach the learned subject matter to another, which generates knowledge creation (University of New York-Cortland, 2013). "Learning from one another to create new knowledge--the medium is conversation" (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002, p. 3). 

       Conversation Theory (CT) has been tested and implemented in previous and current asynchronous and synchronous adult learning environments with effectual findings and results. For example, from 2007-2008, Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, tested CT with adult learners in differing disciplines to determine if the theory was viable and valuable in all e-learning coursework situations. The researchers utilized CT in first-year biology, as well as, third-year Shakespearian literature. Interesting, Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, found that CT's effectiveness for adult e-learners crossed disciplines successfully, leading to improved conversation skills, deeper learning, and formulated knowledge creation among diverse learners (Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, 2009.

Summary

            The purpose of this article was to discuss (a) what conversation is, (b) how it is used to construct meaningful learning experiences, and (c) its use in knowledge creation, particular to e-learning. Moreover, the article discussed theoretical frameworks of seminal and current research, which indicate the value of conversational learning within the e-learning atmosphere of asynchronous and synchronous environments. Conversation in education is the most significant component within the learning process, because society's ability to advance fluidly and successfully in a digital information age, is dependent on its ability to appreciate and glean information from one another through conversation, regardless of the technology used (Saadatmand & Kumpulainen, 2013; Pangaro & Blumenschein, 2012; Elmendorf & Ottenhoff, 2009; Pask, 1976). It is also worth noting that Conversation Theory has not been exhaustively written about or tested in contemporary postsecondary e-learning. It warrants an extensive treatment in literature, as well as, future studies to determine its effectiveness and usability, in terms of constructing knowledge creation among a larger population of postsecondary e-learners.

References

 

Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J. & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An experimental approach to knowledge creation. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benson, P. (2011). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/chiofluan/nguyenngocan

Burns, M. (2013). Success, failure or no significant difference: Charting a course for successful educational technology integration. International Journal of Emerging Technology for Learning, 8(1), 38-45. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v8i1.2376

Dubberly, H. & Pangaro, P. (2009). What is conversation? How can we design for effective conversation? ACM Interactions, July/August, 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.dubberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ddo_article_whatisconversation.pdf

Qidong, C., Griffin, T. E., & Xue, B. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for student satisfaction with course Web sites. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 331-338. Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of student learning research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 377-390. doi: 10.1080/03075070902771903

Helland, P. (2013). Condos and clouds. Communications of the ACM, 56(1), 50-59. doi:10.1145/2398356.2398374

Holland, J. & Childress, M. (2008). Conversation theory conceptualized in e-learning environments, (pp. 80-89). In R. Luppicini (Ed.) Handbook for Conversation Design for Instructional Applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Huang, X. & E-Ling, H. (2012). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 15-30. Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Johnson, G. (2008). The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text-based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 166-169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00739.x

Kiraikenks, K. (2011). Barriers to learning and development. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/kiraikenks/barriers-to-learning-8711695

Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). 'Are you listening please?' The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-769. doi: 10.1080/02602930902977772

Luppicini, R. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook for conversation design for instructional applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S. (2011). JISC e-learning models desk study: Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks, and models. JISC, 2(1), 1-43 (Special Issue). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20%28Version%201%29.pdf

New York University-Cortland. (2013). Background of Gordon Pask: Conversation Theory. Retrieved from http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Pask.htm

Pangaro, P. (1996). Biography of Andrew Gordon Pask (1928-1996). Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~asc/biographies/Pask/bio.html

Pangaro, P. & Blumenschein, A.  (2012). School & society, conversations & learning networks: International perspectives and meta-trends. Proceedings from Cisco-Plus & Reddrummer Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved from http://pangaro.com/cisco2012/index.html

Pask, G. (1976). Conversation techniques in the study and practice of education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 12-25. Retrieved from http://www.pangaro.co/pask/pask%20conversational%20techniques%20in%20edu%20-r.pdf

Roca, L. (1996). Gordon Pask's obituary. International Journal of General Systems, 26(3), 219-222. Retrieved from http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/pask.html

Saadatmand, M. & Kumpulainen, K. (2013). Content aggregation and knowledge sharing in a personal learning environment: Serendipity in open online networks. International Journal of Emerging Technologies for Learning, 8(1), 70-78 (Special Issue). doi: 10.3991/ijet.v8iS1.2362

Strang, K. (2011). Asynchronous knowledge sharing and conversation interaction impact on grade in an online business course. Journal of Education for Business, 86(4), 223-233. doi:10.1080/08832323.2010.51015

Wei, C., Kuo-Cheng, Y., Don-Lin Yang1, D., & Ming-Chuan, H. (2013). Data migration from grid to cloud computing. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 7(1), 399-406. Retrieved from OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson).

Additional Resources

Pangaro, P. (2013). Conversation model. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/43677920
Pangaro, P. (2013). Conversations=transactions. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/44042397 

Pangaro, P. (2013). Conversations for innovation. Retrieved http://vimeo.com/44040146

Pangaro, P. (2013). Models of connection. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/43677920

Pangaro, P. (2013). Economy of Insight. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/43608943

The Digital Divide, Theory and E-Learning

The Digital Divide: Theory and E-Learning

Introduction

Characteristically, the digital divide is studied, defined, and depicted within the theoretical realm of social science research and its respective agendas, therefore, it is extremely difficult to identify an explicit approach for screening the who, how, and why of the digital divide dilemma. Thus, this discussion focuses attention on contemporary issues involving knowledge, the Internet, and information and communications technology (ICT), as well as, the sociology of education in the United Stated, particular to e-learning. In addition, the discussion's underpinning reflects the perspectives surrounding social capital and culture capital, theorized by the late sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002).

The Digital Divide

A worldwide digital divide predicament is plaguing, not only developing countries, but also, progressively, developed countries, such as the United States. It is a well-documented topic in U.S. education (U.S. Department of Education, 2012; Epsteina, Nisbetb & Gillespiea; 2011; Yu, 2011; Trekles, 2010; Chapman, Masters & Pedulla, 2009; Gilbert, 2008; Graff & Lebens, 2008), with a myriad of assumptions and data floating about with a small quantity of solid solutions being articulated. However, before a problem may be addressed appropriately, it should be thoroughly understood in all of its perspectives. Therefore, a definition of the contemporary digital divide is in order. In simplest terms, the digital divide is considered a partition between learners, who have appropriate access to high quality education via technology, and those who do not (Trekles, 2010).

Background

The premises prohibiting appropriate Internet and ICT access, began in the latter years of the 20th Century, by investigating the differences between learners from two primary observations: Socioeconomic conditions and ethnicity of learners. This partition places learners into two distinctive, yet intertwined focuses of deficiency. The first digital divide assumption, is a social-economic deficit. This type of deficit refers to the inability of learners and their families, to increase social and economic opportunities through gainful means of employment, typically stemming from a less-than successful exposure to or acquisition of knowledge and ICT skills. The second partition of digital divide assumptions is related to one's ethnicity and background. 

The idea is that immigrant and non-native learners are disadvantaged in terms of educational achievement, due in part to an under-provided access to the Internet and ICT, which may be readily intertwined with his or her social and economic condition. In other words, learners from low-income, culturally diverse families are less likely to own and operate a personal computer (PC), and therefore, access to the Internet and ICT is lacking. Moreover, school districts in low-income regions, are additionally, less likely to have adequate funding for computers and labs within the classroom, which gives the low-income, ethnic learner, additional under-supported access in his or her learning environment. "Although the situation of students with immigrant background has improved in recent years, immigrant students still do not perform on the same level as natives" (Graff & Lebens, 2008, p. 1657).

It was not until information and its acquisition was considered an essential resource, that the digital divide problem was understood as a reality. The concept of the digital divide was born during the previous century, via awareness that the world had become an information society. From that moment until now, inequalities have manifested regarding access and usability of knowledge information and communications technology for everyone. The first research projects viewed information inequalities through the socio-economic lens. The research findings provided data regarding the gap between the rich and the poor, and their capacity to acquire information. Findings determined that those in higher socio-economic categories were more likely to have adequate access to information, than those in lower socio-economic categories. This new form segregation lead to a form of inequality not present within the American social structure previously. Further studies concluded that the information inequality issues also carried with it, cultural implications, because the majority of those studied in socio-economic low categories, were predominately culturally diverse groups of urban Americans (Yu, 2011). 

What Research Indicates

Recent studies formulated by other disciplines, such as psychology, health and safety, finance, communications, and education, discovered supplementary factions of the American public explicitly affected by the modern knowledge gap. These factions comprise the female gender within all cultures, rural and urban populations, the aging and disabled public, as well as, public school systems (K-12, colleges, and universities). What began as a socio-economic (rich and poor), issue has become a social structure wreckage, consisting of inequalities across gender, age, cultural, social, economic, communication, and educational factions (Yu, 2012). In other words, there is an explosion of information disparity among hefty groups of culturally diverse Americans, in the midst of the information age inside an information society."...the concern is that digital inequalities have profound implications for economic, political, and social stratification in the United States (Gilbert, 2010, p. 1001).

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Education defined the digital divide as follows:

"Digital Divide - represents the gap between those students exposed to information technology and those students who have not had the benefit of 'growing up digital'" (Luigart, slide 7).

In the identical governmental presentation, it was acknowledged that the answers to digital divide issues across America, studied by, Senators Kerry and Isakson, could be found in access and educational use of the Internet. Their concluding study insisted that the end of the digital divide would come within the next decade, via innovations and access to the Internet. Yet, initiatives for technology access, such as providing broadband, DISH networks, and Digital Individual Subscriber (DSL) connections to every school district and local library on the American landscape (Luigart, 2001) , have either failed due to political logistics or economic funding. Consequently, twelve years later, very few of the initiatives proposed to end the digital inequalities that continue to infect the U.S., have come to fruition.

Complexities of the Digital Divide

The impasse stated above is much greater in significance than the simple notion that some individuals and groups have ICT, while others do not. It involves the consequences of having access to ICT or not having access. The consequences of being devoid of knowledge and ICT access affects valuable aspects of social frameworks and behaviors, that perpetuates inequalities. For example, in an era of digital information, livelihood services and knowledge, related to healthcare prerequisites, federal, state, and local governmental departments, educational institutions, and even employment opportunities, are highly dependent on a citizen's ability to access its provisions digitally. Lack of access is another consequence of inequality related to indispensable provisions and services in the U.S. (Gilbert, 2010).

In a comprehensive study of e-learning in the United States, Schulmeister (2012) analyzes the confounding aspects of e-learning reports from educational agencies of the U.S. government. Several inconsistencies are detailed yearly, surrounding the number of enrollments, completions, and attrition, concerning e-learning. Schulmeister concludes that, while it was the intention of the U.S. education system to improve knowledge acquisition and ICT access via e-learning provisions, it has failed miserably. He affirms that statistical information over the past decade, provides evidence that e-learning has actually expanded the digital divide dilemma throughout the country. Furthermore, he asserts that it is the ceaseless wreckage of the American social structure, which is responsible for the growth of information inequity.

Theories Affecting the Digital Divide

In reference to Pierre Bourdieu's (1930-2002) theoretical assumptions surrounding social and cultural capital, Yu (2011), echoes the assumption that spatial distances in social and cultural capital, set up prospects for symbolic distances to thrive within a society, specific to its educational system. The ideal social framework productively functions, when its members behave cooperatively, and are networked to one another, causing a community of interaction and support. This type of social climate builds and develops social and cultural capital.

Further, Bourdieu's concept of spatial distance asserts that driving forces, who dominate a service, commodity, etc., also dominate the circumstances by which, individuals or groups, who are spatially distanced, come to possess the service or commodity. Furthermore, accepting spatial distances provides circumstances for symbolic distances to flourish in a society. Symbolic distances are the elusive perceptions that social structures assign to class distinction among groups of human members. In some instances, symbolic distances are assumed; in others, it is forged by those wielding social power in the spatial distance (Yu, 2011). Accepting these symbolic distances without question, manifests gaps within a particular social structure and affects social capital functionality; in this case, knowledge and ICT access gaps to higher education, particular to e-learning (Gilbert, 2010).

For example, in relation to higher education e-learning, two, college-age students from the same city, possess similar spatial distance geographically, and yet, have significantly distinct symbolic distance, usually due to cultural diversity and capital, as well as, social capital. The symbolic distance, in this study, is in relation to access to computers and ICT, which enables him or her to prepare, pursue, and participate in an undergraduate online learning environment. One student may possess economic, social, and cultural capital, which unlocks opportunities for e-learning. While the other student may not possess economic, social, or cultural capital, necessary to navigate and pursue online educational in a higher learning institution. Therein, rest the inequality issues of the digital divide, in proximity to successful e-learning opportunities (Epsteina, Nisbetb, & Gillespiea, 2011).

 

Social Capital

The best interpretation of social capital has yet to be identified, because over the past thirty years, the group-size depicting the term, social capital, evolves continually. In the mid-1980's, Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman, independent contemporary sociologists, refined their interpretation of social capital to an individual's or small groups' conduct in relation to the setting in which he or she subsists. Two decades later, Robert Putnam, describes social capital, as communities or nations, terminology that is accepted in current literature. One component regarding social capital, which these sociologists have in common, is the significance each assigns to social capital as a valued characteristic of a vigorous society.

Bourdieu (1985) characterized social capital as,

"...the sum total of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual 
(or a group) by virtue of being enmeshed in a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (p. 248).

Three years later, Coleman (1988) revises his theory to say, "...social capital facilitates certain actions of individuals within the social structure" and "...is defined by its function" (p. S98).

As social capital theory evolves once again, Ferragina (2010) describes social capital in this way,

"...social capital is created through the belonging to some group,where      

 people are endowed with common properties and also with permanent 

 and stable links (p.78).

Assumptions and theories surrounding social capital, will nevertheless, continue to evolve as other disciples glean from the past, and purpose newly developed, supplementary theories specific to psychology, sociology, political science, information communications, and economics, are applied to upcoming studies of individuals and groups. Moreover, for centuries, theorists have contemplated how individualism may deteriorate social capital. Recently, however, theorists are investigating the benefits of individual actions in terms of its ability to provide further cohesion in society, and affect social capital in a positive manner.

In the latter months of 2012, findings of a study conducted by Beilmann & Realo were released. The study focused on previous assumptions that individualism possessed attributed and attitudes that were detrimental to social capital. The focal point of the study, depicted three interconnected subtypes of individualism at the individual level: "...the combination of autonomy, mature self-responsibility, and uniqueness" (p. 208). The researchers concluded that one of the subtypes, mature self-responsibility, fostered improved social capital. Interestingly, Trekles (2010) in his presentation at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, also attributed mature self-responsibility, as a highly motivating factor for self-directed learners in the online environment. It is mentioned here, in order to persuade educational leaders to take note of the benefits in promoting mature self-responsibility, with prospective online learners, as he or she is already contributing to and influencing social capital.

Cultural Capital

Referring to Bourdieu's cultural capital theory, Gaddis (2013) connects the dots between learning ability and preferences, and the habitus of cultural capital. Habitus embodies the lifestyles, principles, and characteristics of particular cultural groups, which are gained via the experiences and behaviors of everyday life. It is an emotionally, mentally, understood training of the respective culture's lifeways. In other words, habitus displays the habits of the cultural capital, such as collective taste in fashion, music, and appearance, in addition to language, speech, writing, occupational skills, and disposition toward learning and education. These are examples of habitus that transfer collectively, as well as, individually, to groups or members within the culture, perpetually and unconsciously, as a product of the culture's capital. From this perspective, habitus has a foremost position in the cultural capital of educational achievement.

For instance, a college-age male within the culture, has successfully graduated from high school, has adequate access to Internet and ICT, in order to become an online undergraduate student. It appears as though this culturally diverse male is not experiencing a digital divide situation. Yet, there are two forces at work here: (a) the presence of social and cultural capital, and (b) inadequate computer, Internet, and ICT competencies.  In this scenario, the social and cultural capital does not include higher education or ICT skills. Consequently, the young adult, in response to the cultural capital training and collective sense of belonging to the social capital, does not pursue a higher education, but instead follows the occupational skills of the cultural capital into the low-paying retail or manufacturing industries. Further, unknown to the casual observer, the young man's high school had inadequate funding to acquire computers and technical training for the majority of the classrooms. His current computer skills are limited to viewing YouTube videos and composing short emails, which he learned during study hall in the school library. For this reason, it is important that culturally diverse communities have committed advocates to demonstrate and teach the benefits and competencies necessary for Internet and ICT use, in relation to education, and cultural capital (Graff & Lebens, 2008). When computer and ICT skills become a significant habitus of the cultural capital, social capital profits, as well, and habitus evolves (Gaddis, 2013).

The Influences of the Digital Divide on E-Learning

This type of scenario provides a supplementary analysis of the digital divide issue. This analysis illustrates that access is not the only question to contend with regarding digital divide. Internet and ICT skills and competencies are the other side of the proverbial coin. It is customarily presumed that the bridge to resolving the digital gap is manifested through access to the Internet and ICT alone (Luigart, 2001). Nevertheless, for those who did not grow up as digital natives, the lack of appropriate skills and competencies hinder practiced use of the Internet and ICT, that might otherwise, lead to an undergraduate or graduate degree via e-learning (Epsteina, Nisbetb, & Gillespiea, 2011).

The challenge, for some diverse learners, is the perceptions that the learner and their families possess surrounding the value of education, particularly, when attached to technology. This is principally accurate for learners, who are first-generation college students. In this case, the learner's comprehension of the need for technical competencies may not be up-to-date (Graff & Lebens, 2008). Therefore, the learner may decide to attend a local two-year, community college to gain competency, only to learn, that the college application and financial aid processes is solely an online affair. These samples of the affects of the digital divide suggest, that there are digital divide challenges that can be met through Internet and ICT connectivity and improved competence for effective usage (Scott, Clark, Sheridan, Hayes & Mruczek, 2010) .

These issues are currently being examined by international and federal organizations and advocacy agencies that attempt to analyze predominate situations and determine viable resolutions. For example, at a conference to examine integrity and quality issues in higher education, Tom Dawson of the Gates Foundation (2011) stated,

"...we are focused currently on dramatically improving the rates of college readiness among students in high schools around the country" (p. 35).

Further, Dawson proposes significant, timely modifications be implemented, regarding the ways in which, U.S. universities/colleges are funded and sustained, thereby providing every student in America with the opportunity to prepare for and successfully attend institutions of  higher education. The Gates Foundation is committed in its efforts to play a significant role in the restructuring of the U.S. educational system and its higher educational institutions (Dawson, 2011).

Scott, Clark, Sheridan, Hayes & Mruczek (2010) reported that within their examination of literature and research, the digital difficulties encountered among culturally diverse children, and their families, is due to a lack of culturally responsive curriculum and teaching methods, which leave diverse learners less likely to understand technology and ICT workings and benefits from their particular cultural perspectives. Consequently, the relevant value of learning ICT and emerging technologies becomes lost in lieu of culturally acceptable learning, such as basis reading, writing, and math skills. This study emphasizes the link between Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) and Culturally Responsive Computing (CRC). From this point of view, CRP consists of pedagogy that "... recognizes the importance of including students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning" (p. 4097). Once CRP is in place for each culturally diverse student, the significance of CRP, can be recognized by diverse students and their families, lending necessary support to teachers, administrators and entire school districts to improve, not only access, but also skill and competency in relation to the Internet and ICT. The exchange of support between school districts and educators in relation to diverse learners, and their respective families encourages equitable learning experiences for students, where technology becomes a natural part of the learning process.

Review

At this time, attention and serious examination is taking place regarding the perspectives of the digital divide issue, which provides evidence that these perspectives, do, indeed subsist in 21st Century education. Some of the evidence reported, is being gathered by the U.S Department of Education, in an effort to determine barriers and resolutions to barriers for all higher education learners. Government and civilian organizations, such as the Commission on Higher Education and the Gates Foundation, investigate the scales between enrollments and degree completion, in terms of cultural backgrounds, age, and gender (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2013), thanks in part to innovative theorist, Pierre Bourdieu, who walk around the serious challenges plaguing the U.S. educational system. This study joins with Lamont's enthusiasm in claiming, "... American sociology has been altered, ...in part because Bourdieu’s work has spearheaded the remarkable growth of cultural sociology" (2010, p. 2). What is more, this study revealed some of the underlying issues of the digital divide, as well as, theoretical ideas and suggestions, to direct the path of reform in education, particular to e-learning. The ideas and suggestions included, are also intended to inform and encourage, those in a position to support and improve America's social capital and online education in the present digital age, and beyond. 

References
  

Beilmann, M. & Realo, A. (2012). Individualism-collectivism and social capital at the individual level. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 16(3), 205-217. doi: 10.3176/tr.2012.3.01

Bourdieu, P. (1985) "The forms of capital". In J. G. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, 241-258. New York: Greenwood Press.

Chapman, L., Masters, J. & Pedulla, J. (2009). Do digital divisions still persist in our schools? Access to technology and technical skills of teachers in high-needs schools. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, (pp. 2276-2285). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/32804

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. Retrieved from

http://onemvweb.com/sources/sources/social_capital.pdf

Dawson, T. (2011). Outside the box. National advisory committee on institutional quality and integrity conference, 35-36. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/2-11-a.pdf

Epsteina, D., Nisbetb, E. & Gillespiea, T. (2011). Who's responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. Information Society, 27(2), 92-104.

doi: 10.1080/01972243.2011.548695

Ferragina, E. (2010). Rethinking social capital in relation with income equalities. Tocqueville Review, 31(1). 74-98. Retrieved from http://www.emanueleferragina.com/attachments/002_Ferragina%20Tocqueville%20review.pdf

Gilbert, M. (2010). Theorizing Digital and Urban Inequalities. Information, Communication & Society, 13(7), 1000–1018. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2010.499954

Gaddis, S. M. (2013). The influence of habitus in the relationship between cultural capital and academic achievement. Social Science Research, 42(1), 1-13. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X/42

Graff, M. & Lebens, M. (2008). Cultural differences in ICT attitudes in secondary school students. In Luca & Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (pp. 1656-1667). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28599

Lamont, M. (2010). How has Bourdieu been good to think with? The case of the United States. Retrieved from http://wjh2.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/lamont/How_is_Bourdieu%20final.pdf

Liukkonen, P. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002). Retrieved from http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bourd.htm

Luigart, C. B. (2001). Overcome the digital divide. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OCIO/downloads/divide.ppt

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). Table 201: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and age of student: 2007, 2009, and 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_201.asp

Schulmeister, R. (2011). eLearning in the USA: The standard? The benchmark?--Digital divide: The division between rich and poor. Eleed, 3(1). Retrieved from http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/3/688/metadata

Scott, K.A., Clark, K., Sheridan, K., Hayes, E. & Mruczek, C. (2010). Engaging more students from underrepresented groups in technology: What happens if we don't?. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 4097-4104). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/34023

Trekles, A. (2010). Navigating Today’s Digital Divide: Motivating All Learners Toward Success. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1286-1292). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33534.

U.S. Department of Education (DoE). (2010). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from http://curriculumreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/US-Secretary-of-Education-Charting-the-Future-of-U.S.-Higher-Education.pdf

Yu, L. (2011). The divided views of the information and digital divides: A call for integrative theories of information inequality. Journal of Information Science, 37(6), 660–679. doi:10.1177/0165551511426246