Closing the New Digital Divide

This is my 13.25 page final paper for a class back when I was studying at LSU. It's all about how the access to the internet may be closing, but do people know how to use the internet effectively?

Closing the New Digital Divide

INTRODUCTION

At first glance the digital divide looks to be closing with the implementation of projects to bring connectivity and computers to underserved populations, and while this work is not yet complete across all nations, much of the first world’s people have access to an internet terminal of some kind. Here in the USA the PEW research institute indicates that as of 2015, 84% of US citizens have access to the internet in one form or another (Rainie, 2015). The reality is, with time and money, access to the internet will be nearly universal in the US, especially as wireless technology and cellular technology expand. But what does access tell us? Only that users can get to technology, not that they know how to best use it. This is an exploration of why underserved populations may not know how to use internet communications technologies (ICT) and of programs and methods of how to help these users, who now have access to ICT, use that technology in the most effective way.

CONTEXT & BACKGROUND

Before diving into the problems of the new digital divide, it is necessary to define what skill sets are used when accessing information through a computer. When using a computer to find information, two skill sets are actually coming into play. The primary skill set is that of information literacy; Cordell (2013) describes information literacy as  “the skills to distinguish satire from fact, fiction from history, and scams from honest offers” (p. 180). It is an easy assumption that elementary school and high school teach information literacy skills at this basic level. However, Varlejs, Stec and Kwon (2014) note a “lack of information skills” for students in their first year of college (p. 2). This is an important fact because the public library may be serving college students at varying points in their programs as well as patrons who did not make it through middle school; if seniors graduating from high school with good enough grades and standardized test scores to make it into college do not possess excellent information literacy, then special attention must be paid to all patrons to evaluate their level of information literacy as well as digital literacy. 

Cordell (2013) describes digital literacy in a list of tasks: “how to navigate the library web site, how to get to a search page or find the advanced search page, how to find the help files, how to save or export the citations and full text, how to set up an account in a social media site, how to upload files to that site, how to comment on others’ postings, etc.” (p. 178). While these are noteworthy operations needed to be digitally literate, other more basic skills are also needed; handling a mouse, knowing the difference between right click and left click, being able to type on a basic level, and knowing key board commands are also required to find information via a computer. Again, it is the librarian’s job to assess where the patron is in their digital literacy skills in order to provide the best help. One patron may have excellent information literacy skills and no digital literacy skills, or vice versa. Because these two skill sets are used together when finding needed information using a computer, they are often conflated and many authors use the terms interchangeably. The difference is noted here to remind readers that, in fact, they are different skill sets that are not necessarily learned at the same pace or in equal quantities.

Why do people need information or digital literacy in the first place? In her book Technology and Social Inclusion : Rethinking the Digital Divide, Warschauer (2003) explains that “because the Internet provides expanded opportunities for communication and association with broad numbers of people” it helps increase a user’s social capital (The Internet and Social Capital). Warschauer (2003) defines the notion of social capital as “the capacity of individuals to accrue benefits by dint of their personal relationships and memberships in particular social networks and structures” (Social Capital). While “bonding social capital refers to the strong ties that are shared amongst dense, inward-looking social networks,” it is “bridging social capital [that] refers to the ties that are formed with those from other social circles” (Warschauer, 2003, Social Capital). Warschauer (2003) claims that “those in our own immediate circle” provide strong ties, but at the same time a limited amount of information, whereas “a broad network of weak ties is actually more important” (Social Capital). These weak social ties can be found on the internet which is “a natural medium” for them (Warschauer, 2003, The Internet and Social Capital). 

To illustrate this, Warschauer (2003) uses a study done by Keith Hampton to show how the internet increases social capital (The Internet and Social Capital). Hampton studied a neighborhood in Canada where residents “were offered free broadband Internet access, but in the end this access was provided to only 60% of the residents” (Warschauer, 2003, The Internet and Social Capital). The residents with broadband access were able to receive increased support most often from other people living fifty to five hundred kilometers away, whereas the residents without broadband access experienced “decreased contact or support” at all distances (Warschauer, 2003, The Internet and Social Capital). The broadband access residents were more involved with the non-broadband residents than the non-broadband residents were with each other (Warschauer, 2003, The Internet and Social Capital). According to Warschauer (2003), all of this shows that “the Internet is especially helpful at building social capital with those people who are ‘just out of reach’ (more so than with those whom one never sees, or sees often)” (The Internet and Social Capital).

Social capital is important not only in that the unconnected will lose out on social situations but also economic situations. Warschauer (2003) points out that “if a friend provides information about a possible job, that represents social capital” (Social Capital). If a person has many weak ties through the internet, their capacity for finding a job significantly increases. Therefor digital literacy increases a person’s chances of finding a job, and, more importantly, “62% [of employed Americans] could be considered ‘Networked Workers’ who use the internet or email at their workplace” (Madden and Jones, 2008, Most Working Americans). Raish and Rimland (2016) acknowledge that “recent changes in the workplace environment emphasize the use of digital resources, the ability to create and share artifacts using digital resources, and the expectation that employees can collaboratively work in teams” (p. 87). Raish and Rimland (2016) described the workplace as “an increasingly digital environment” where “sharing and creating products in online environments” takes place (p. 88). It is clear then to Raish and Rimland (2016) “that information literacy skills are important to employers” (p. 99). If a person is to be an acceptable candidate for at least sixty-two percent of jobs in the US, digital literacy must be at the forefront of their abilities.

Digital literacy skills are not only required for meeting the necessary requirements for a job, they are also required for finding jobs. According to Smith (2015) between 2013 and 2015 “80% of recent job seekers made use of professional contacts, close friends or family, and/or more distant personal connections in their most recent search for employment--nearly identical to the 79% who utilized resources and information they found online” (p. 2). However, Smith’s (2015) PEW article indicates that a minority of people in the US, especially those “who have not attended college and those who are not currently employed for pay,” do not feel they can use the internet to search for jobs (p. 13). The tasks this minority feels uncomfortable with include being able “to contact a potential employer via email, find programs online that help job seekers, fill out an online job application, or find lists online of available jobs in their local area . . . [and] create a professional resume or use social media to highlight their job skills” (Smith, 2016, p. 15). These minorities, the unemployed and the under-educated, along with the wider minorities of all those who are elderly or non-white, make up those at most risk of being disenfranchised from ICT; yet they are often the people who can most benefit from ICT’s trans-formative effects when ICT is used appropriately. While most people have access to ICT in the US now, the concern should turn toward helping them use that technology in the most effective way.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Those in most need of employment are obviously the unemployed or the under-employed; these people are also particularly vulnerable to digital illiteracy due to a lack of funds to purchase personal technology and a home internet connection. Public libraries can be a beacon for people experiencing these tough times. But what do these people need in order to successfully become digitally literate? Simple access to free ICT is not enough argues author Laura D. Stanley in a research study published in 2003. Her “ethnographic research with 100 low-income adults” shows that “several social and psychological obstacles interfere with individual motivation to engage with and thus potentially benefit from this new technology” (Stanley, 2003, p. 407). She interviewed one hundred people at free computing centers in San Diego; 56% indicated that they wanted computer skills to “increase their earning potential and to better prepare themselves to compete for most jobs in today’s economy” (Stanley, 2003, p. 409). 

The first psychosocial blockade to subjects becoming computer literate was that many did not see computers as relevant to their lives (p. 411). However, Stanley (2003) notes that “perceiving computer technology as irrelevant to one’s life reflects a lack of knowledge about what computers have to offer rather than an informed and measured rejection of them” (p. 411). She records several examples of people’s attitudes pre and post computer use, finding that a change in circumstances like job loss or exposure to the relevant use of computers through social contacts are often the contributing factors as to why the study subjects chose to become computer literate (Stanley, 2003, p. 411). The second obstacle is leaving one’s comfort zone, which is difficult if the person already feels that computers are irrelevant in their lives as the first blockade describes. People feel that they are incapable of operating a computer, with respondents echoing the sentiment that they might “‘blow [it] up’” and, that they are truly afraid to even touch a computer (Stanley, 2003, p. 412). These feelings are compounded by the digital literacy of others, especially children, and the pervasiveness of computers in society, often leaving the respondents feeling “a sense of individual helplessness” (Stanley, 2003, p. 412). The third barrier described is self-concept; does the person perceive themselves as the type of person to use a computer? Because of varying stereotypes, such as only yuppies, nerds, children, and high-powered professionals use computers, many respondents could not imagine themselves as users because they do not want to or cannot fit those stereotypes (Stanley, 2003, p. 413). A person’s self-concept as influenced by their cultural surroundings can prevent computer literacy even when a computer is available. Throughout the study Stanley (2003) describes some subjects as having access to a computer at home with an internet connection (Caucasians most frequently, then African Americans, with Hispanics coming in as least likely), but these three hurdles caused such anxiety or apathy toward “‘the machine’” that they prevented subjects from accessing ICT at home (p. 412).

Finding jobs or making oneself a better candidate for employment are not goals shared by the elderly, another group susceptible to the digital divide. “The undeniable potential offered by the Internet to other younger groups appears to be limited in the case of the elderly,” as Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) state, yet the older generation are a group “who are at risk of exclusion –or of isolation–” due to the impact of the digital divide (p. 30). In the European Union, this article’s focus location, many programs have been instituted to help “achieve independent living for the elderly” by reducing “their need for assistance” through ICT (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 31).

Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) found four main categories in which the internet has helped the elderly population. The first, “Information Opportunities,” is classified into three types of information: current affairs, health issues, and general interest topics (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32). The elderly are particularly interested in news that affects where they live, like their own town, province, or country; “some of them confess a preference for digital press rather than the traditional one” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32). The second category of information is health issues which the elderly consider important, and the most “widespread among the participants in all the discussion groups” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32). When speaking about researching illnesses and healthy diets on the internet, many participants noted that they only “want to find out more or better understand the information offered by the physician” and one wise participant noted “‘internet can never take the place of a doctor’” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32).  Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) interview subjects also researched the reputations of doctors and hospitals, noting “‘the awards they have received’” (p. 32). Finally, culture and general interests are the last area of information. The women used the internet to look up recipes and many used wikis to find out more about a foreign word or concept (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32). They also used the internet to help with a technical problem and find out more about local events happening in their area (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 32).

Besides seeking information, the elderly also used the internet for communication. The most popular form of communication was email, but some also used enhanced communications like video chat, internet based text messaging, and social media, though some felt social media was “‘rubbish’” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 33). “In general, the communication opportunities offered by the web facilitate social interaction which involves the elderly in relationships that strengthen their social abilities and keep isolation away; these are effects that improve their motivation, self-esteem and satisfaction” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 33). The older generation is also involved in using the internet for “transactional and administrative opportunities” including online banking, tax returns, and bill paying; online shopping, however, was not popular amongst the groups (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 33). These internet based tasks help keep them in charge of their administrative duties despite having mobility issues (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 33). Interestingly, the least used category for internet use amongst the elderly was for leisure and entertainment. A few participants mentioned playing games online or listening to music, but entertainment “possibilities are the least exploited by this group” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 33).

The last group of people most affected by the digital divide are those younger people lacking education; unlike the elderly, the youth are known to access the internet for many different entertainment websites, but the question is does this help their situation or prove their digital literacy? The divide of the young and educated versus the young and less educated is one of skills and use; those with a higher level of education use the internet differently than those with lower levels (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008, p. 602). Hargittai and Hinnant (2008) examined the online activities of 270 young adults, aged eighteen to twenty-six, across the United States via a computer assisted telephone interview system (p. 609). They were specifically looking at how young adult users enhance their capital; that is “activities that may lead to more informed political participation (seeking political or government information online), help with one’s career advancement (exploring career or job opportunities on the Web), or consulting information about financial and health services” were called capital-enhancing (Hagittai & Hinnant, 2008, p. 605-606). Education levels were not found to effect the survey participant’s self reported online skills, but it was found “that educational background influences people’s likelihood to visit capital-enhancing sites” (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008, p. 617). Hagittai and Hinnant (2008) mention that in an earlier study by Jung, Qui and Kim, Jung et al. found that using the internet “as a toy rather than as a tool” caused a lack of enhancement of the user’s career (p. 606). This means that those who are already able to achieve higher education levels continue their capital-enhancing via the inernet, whereas those without higher education are left behind.

If these three classifications of people, those from lower incomes, those of older ages, and those with less education, are particularly vulnerable to lower levels of digital literacy, how can their digital literacy be improved? Stanley (2003) suggests specific ways to increase her low income participants’ digital literacy. Stanley (2003) found that many people experience resistance to computers due to socioeconomic factors, so she suggests “that non-computer users would be more willing to engage with this new technology if their assumptions, fears, and preconceived ideas about computers were preemptively addressed” (p. 313). Another concern is that not only are people being stopped by their fears or reluctance but also simply because they do not know about the services being offered such as community CTCs (computer training centers) (Stanley, 2003, p. 314). To combat both problems, she suggests “a series of culturally sensitive, community-based and -implemented outreach efforts . . . [to] simultaneously address them [fears] in programs that include but go beyond the needs of children and youth” (Stanley, 2003, p. 414).  Participants felt “intimidated by community college computer courses that were highly structured, test centered, largely populated by young people, and often taught at levels that assumed basic computer familiarity or required English proficiency” (Stanley, 2003, p. 414). The programs currently offered in San Diego combat these feelings and are excellent for these types of learners as they are unstructured, are focused on a self-paced format, and are not test centered (Stanley, 2003, p. 414). This type of environment exudes less pressure on the students should they miss a class due to life circumstances (Stanley, 2003, p. 414). The main hurdle Stanley (2003) identifies then is the lack of knowing about such offerings in the community and proper outreach for these services (p. 414).

In the EU, as Llorente-Barroso, Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) report, many efforts to spread digital literacy to the elderly are already underway, hence the reason why these authors were able to find elderly internet users (p. 30). As far back as 1980, the EU began a campaign to “develop a new policy on ageing, which meant moving from a passive attitude to a more proactive one among the elderly” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 30). The EU even went so far as to declare 2012 the “European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations” (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2015, p. 30). Llorente-Barroso, Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) place emphasis on the i2010 European Union campaign, a main feature of which is to bring social inclusiveness via the internet (p. 30). The i2010 initiative strives to “launch three flagship ICT initiatives to improve quality of life” the first of which is “caring for people in an ageing society” (EUR-lex, 2009). Through these high level, multi country initiatives, the EU has seen an increase of users over the age of fifty-five from 2005 to 2011 (European Commission, 2012, p. 4).

Rather than waiting until users are older and experience more anxiety, why not begin when they are children with digital literacy? The best way to combat adult digital illiteracy is to ensure that it is instilled during elementary school; 82% of Americans currently complete high school, so starting somewhat earlier than that would be necessary for all Americans to become exposed to digital literacy (Kamenetz, 2015). Hunsinger (2015) sees the school library as the path for such success with children (p. E10). Hunsinger (2015) notes that the school librarian has an advantage over teachers because they “can monitor student progress over many years” (p. E11). Public libraries and computer training centers may be accessible to adults, but Hunsinger (2015) quotes Leanne Ellis as explaining that children “are uncertain where it [the public library] is, they may not have someone to take them, or they may not feel comfortable going there since it could be an uncertain environment” (p. E 12). The way toward digital literacy for younger students is clearly the school library, where Hunsinger (2015) pushes “it’s important that students have access to computers and that trained school librarians teach essential digital-literacy skills” (p. E13). She notes that a major computer upgrade recently took place in her library, and that students are now able to “create multimedia projects that will prepare them for 21st-century demands” (Hunsinger, 2015, p. E13). As explored earlier, job hunting and job duties will deal more and more with computers and the internet, so it is absolutely necessary that digital literacy be taught at young ages to students.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Stanley (2003) proved there are many psychological reasons why underprivileged people do not use computers, and how those same people came to know the power computers could give them. Stanley’s (2003) study focused on unemployed or under-employed people looking to make their lives better by gaining skills with computers. Many of Stanley’s (2003) subjects could not envision themselves as the type of person to use a computer because they did not know others that used them in their immediate circle and perceived those that did as not being their type of person. These psychosocial barriers are real, but they can be overcome as Stanley (2003) clearly states. Stanley (2003) simply suggests that these fears be addressed directly at the beginning of a computer course. More than that, Stanley (2003) recognizes that highly structured and graded classes not only increase these fears, but these types of classes are often not flexible enough for people working multiple jobs with families. Finally, Stanley (2003) notes the lack of use in free computing centers and calls for heightened visibility of them through “a series of culturally sensitive, community-based and -implemented outreach efforts” (p. 414).

Much as Stanley’s (2003) participants did not have much exposure to ICT, the elderly have not as well, having been born at a time before it existed. Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) studied elderly people in the European Union to find out how they felt about using ICT. These seniors accessed health information the most Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) found, with information about their country and locality coming in at second. Llorente-Barroso et al. (2015) also saw seniors using the internet to look up cultural information, to communicate with distant friends and relatives, and to take care of administrative duties; however, leisure, entertainment, and shopping were not something the elderly sought online. Why could Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) find these connected seniors? Because, as Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) explain, the EU has been championing the integration of senior citizens into the everyday pace of life through what they term as Active Ageing since the 1980s. Llorente-Barroso,Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle (2015) know that ICT can help seniors become more independent even though their mobility has decreased, and through several top-level government initiatives, many of the EU's senior citizens have been able to do just that. 

Does that mean all young people are proficient users of ICT? No, argues Hargittai and Hinnant (2008) because a young person’s education level effects the kind of online activity young people choose. Basically, Hargittai and Hinnant (2008) found that young people self-report high levels of online skills, but those with higher education levels used ICT much more frequently to increase their capital; capital here means using the internet for political participation, career building, financial wellbeing, and health concerns. Hagittai and Hinnant (2008) quote Jung, Qui and Kim, Jung et al. as saying that those with lower education levels treat the internet “as a toy rather than as a tool” (p. 606). Not all young people graduate or make it to high school, so their exposure to and integration with ICT must begin before that point. Hunsiger (2015) believes the school library can be that place. Young children are unable to access computer centers or public libraries, but Hunsinger (2015) sees the school library as a critical place for ICT training because it is accessible and the school librarian can track the learning styles of children over many years. 

The overarching theme here seems to be that people not from affluent situations have trouble with not only acquiring ICT but making the best use of it as well. The barriers are many for these people, from a lack of money to fund ICT, to a real fear or apathy toward ICT brought on by age or cultural factors, as well as treating ICT as an entertaining toy rather than an economic tool. By simply continuing to provide access to ICT, we cannot combat the second but very real psychological factors of ICT use. The financially unstable, the elderly, and the under-educated all deserve access and a guiding hand to help them know how to use that access to best benefit them especially because they can most prosper from its use given their difficulties in life. Changes must take place on the nationwide scale, as seen in the Llorente-Barroso, Viñarás-Abad and Sánchez-Valle article, as well as across cities, as Stanley’s article covers, right down to individual school librarians like Hunsinger pushes. No one level of effort will provide success in conquering the new digital divide. To enact this kind of change, information professionals must fight for change through federal and state political measures, as well as paying attention in our own local realm when working directly with our own library systems. Patrons come from all walks of life in a public library, and we must be willing to meet them where they are by providing ICT training that helps them to succeed.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cordell, R. M. (2013). Information literacy and digital literacy. Communications In Information

Literacy, 7(2), 177-183. Retrieved from http://libezp.lib.lsu.edu/login?url=http://search.

ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=93298993&site=ehost-live&scope=

site

This article’s importance stems from its attempt at defining the subtle difference between the terms digital literacy and information literacy. As the article acknowledges, “when a librarian helps a patron search for articles in a database, there is an interplay between information literacy (which database to search, which terms to use, which limiters to employ, how to evaluate the articles in the results, how to use the information found effectively and ethically, etc.) and digital literacy (how to navigate the library web site, how to get to a search page or find the advanced search page, how to find the help files, how to save or export the citations and full text, how to set up an account in a social media site, how to upload files to that site, how to comment on others’ postings, etc.).” It is important for librarians to see the interplay between these two terms in order to best help the patrons that might need instruction in one or the other or both.

EUR-Lex: Access to European Law (2009). i2010: Information Society and the media working 

towards growth and jobs. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/

TXT/?uri=URISERV:c11328

This piece more closely explores what the i2010 effort was all about to support the article by Llorente-Barroso, Viñarás-Abad, and Sánchez-Valle.

European Commission, Digital Agenda. (2013). Life online Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/

digital-single-market/sites/digital-agenda/files/scoreboard_life_online.pdf

This .pdf helps to fill in the gap of hard numbers for the Llorenta-Barroso et al. article in proving that the EU international efforts indeed worked to include elderly people in ICT use.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the 

Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621. Retrieved from http://crx.sagepub.

com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/content/35/5/602.full.pdf+html

Although use of the internet is high amongst the youth of America, this article asks how education levels affect that use. It states that those with higher levels of education tend to use the internet for “‘capital-enhancing’ activities” whereas not well educated young adults do not. This is another type of digital literacy divide.

Hunsinger, V. v. (2015). School librarians as equity warriors. Knowledge Quest, 44(1),

E10-E14. Retrieved from http://libezp.lib.lsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost

.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=109276614&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Recognizing that early education is crucial to adult success, this article pushes school libraries as essential in a child’s early years to help them succeed. Unable to navigate public transport at such young ages, the school library provides fundamentals in digital literacy at a pivotal time period. The article cites Levere that up to eighty percent of jobs will require digital skills in the near future.

Kamenetz, Anya. (2015). U. S. high school graduation rates hits record high. NPR. Retrieved 

from: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/12/15/459821708/u-s-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-new-record-high

This raw data about the most recent dropout rates for high school students stands to prove that high school cannot be the time for teaching digital literacy in school. It must occur earlier than that.

Llorente-Barroso, C., Viñarás-Abad, M., & Sánchez-Valle, M. (2015). Internet and the elderly:

Enhancing active ageing. Comunicar, 23(45), 29-36. doi:10.3916/C45-2015-03

This article explores the digital divide of the elderly and how e-inclusion programs can help seniors gain the necessary skills to close the gap of the digital divide for them. The study revealed four categorical ways the internet can enhance their lives; these categories are information, communication, transactions and administration, and leisure and entertainment. The elderly are an often under-noticed part of the digital divide, but this study proves their inclusion in ICT can enhance their lives.

Madden, M. & Jones, S.  (2008). Networked Workers. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet

.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Networked_Workers_FINAL.pdf.pdf

While this document’s purpose is to explore all facets of ICT on an employed person’s life, including the interaction of work like and home life use of ICT, it provides basic data about how many employed people use ICT while at work. This is an important fact to the context of the discussion because having digital literacy makes a person more employable.

Rainie, L. (2015). Digital divides 2015. Internet, Science, & Tech. The Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/22/digital-divides-2015/

This slideshow shows the most current data from Pew about the digital divide. It is

important in that not only does it show who has what kind of access, but also why some are still unable to connect beyond access.

Raish, V., & Rimland, E. (2016). Employer perceptions of critical information literacy skills

and digital badges. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 87-113. Retrieved from http://libezp.lib.lsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=112169176&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Digital literacy is key to getting jobs now and will become ever more important as jobs demand more and more information workers. This article points out the employers’ perspective of job seekers, and the result is that “information literacy and metaliteracy skills are valued in the workplace.” If employers feel this way, public libraries are ever more important to help older patrons learn digital literacy now, and school libraries are tasked with making sure their students are proficient before leaving school.

Smith, A. (2016). Searching for work in the digital era. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.

org/files/2015/11/PI_2015-11-19-Internet-and-Job-Seeking_FINAL.pdf

This report describes in great detail who can and cannot use the internet for job searches and why. This is helpful to establish why digital literacy is important, and how minorities are often left behind.

Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy. Information

Society, 19(5), 407. Retrieved from http://libezp.lib.lsu.edu/login?url=http://search.

ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=11123349&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Stanley’s study goes far beyond the question of access and hits at the very real feelings people experience which prevent them from becoming digitally literate. She identifies three main blockades: “‘relevance,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘self-concept.’” After identifying and exploring these concepts, she offers suggestions of how to overcome these obstacles in early digital literacy classes.

Varlejs, J., Stec, E., & Kwon, H. (2014). Factors Affecting Students' Information Literacy as 

They Transition from High School to College. School Library Research, 171-23. Retrieved from: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=10

&sid=1c1223c3-3f3c-474e-b149-e5ac05459847%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=lalu.2095509&db=cat00252a

Albeit a short reference to this article, it’s importance is key to context. Many readers may assume that because most people have been through school they automatically must have both information and digital literacy skills, but this article clearly proves that even the students most prepared to enter college often leave high school ill equipped for retrieving information via computers.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion : Rethinking the Digital Divide. 

Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Retrieved from: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libezp.lib

.lsu.edu/ehost/detail/detail/bmxlYmtfXzgxMTI2X19BTg2?sid=5b0eba60-59c5-4c32-b64

5-35e0c280287f@sessionmgr4003&vid=0&detailAuthError=true#AN=81126&db=nlebk

In order to impress the importance of digital literacy, readers must first know why use of computers is important. This short book, especially chapter six, illustrates well how computers have become integrated into society so that not being part of the society of the internet can exclude people from social and economic opportunities.