Feedback

Hi gang,

First off, let me say that I see a lot of marked improvements in the wiki. I can tell you guys have put some effort into it, and it's paid off. Here's, then, some tips for refining and revising the wiki in the next few days for the final turn in.

The Introduction looks great over all, although the last few sentences are a little choppy and might need to clarified. Reading through the whole thing to get a sense of what exactly you want to sum up here/introduce would be helpful for editing for the final draft. Saying a bit more here about what you want to cover and why, in slightly more detail, might also strengthen the intro as such.

I know the first section has also been reworked. You might want to clarify what is meant when you say that the Divide is "more like a gap" in the Cause section.

The Definitions section is greatly improved by the more meta-conceptualization in the discussion, particularly in the intro to the section and flow. You may want to rethink what you want to say toward the end of the Race section, as it sounds a little more casual/speculative than you really want to be at this point. Are their indications that certain groups are less interested in the technology and what are these, if so? What would critics say of such suggestions/findings? Likewise, with socioeconomic status: although the logic is compelling for this factor, as the author notes, are their any critiques of this perspective? What would someone who is not interested in class analyses say in rebuttal? These are some examples, then, of point where you want to rethink your claims critically asking, What reasons go against/limit my arguments/suggestions? The more deeply and critically you can go into your arguments the stronger they will be.

Looking at the nature of these divides - the age divide, the gender divide, and the others - in more depth would also be helpful...how do these divides then break down within? Do older wealthier people looks at blogs more than older poorer people? Which divides seem salient to you? Thinking through these will help you to close this section more conclusively and compellingly. Perhaps those of you who did the research for this section can think through these in order to made some broad, helpful statements in concluding it.

The rest of the divide reconceptualization material is good stuff but you might want to think through the organization once more. I felt like the language/global sections at the end were out of place, that the reconcept. section might either introduce these concepts as smaller subsections, or that these things connected to others things addressed earlier. In any case it seems strange to me that these small sections end this main section, so maybe think through how these aspects relate to each other, and what you want to focus on as center and discuss more peripherally.

The Perpetuation section: Please split up the long final paragraph so that is main points are clearly articulated, it's just too long to read through clearly at this point. Also in this section, I feel like the obvious is sort of overlooked or not clearly articulated: Technology is that which divides - can technology be used to solve its own problems? Highlighting the logistical point regarding the relationship between technology and the digital divide - this very fundamental conceptual relationship - seems important here, and thinking through its implications might perhaps help with framing this discussion in this section a bit more.

The solutions section could also be treated a bit more critically - what do critics say about these options and possibilities? Discussing arguments for/against solutions within this section would be helpful.

The Ed Opportunities/Challenges sections could also use a reorganization. Each of the things listed numerically could be better discussed in essay form (without list numbers), with a bit more discussion of examples and pros/cons. This includes the Factors/Obstacles/and Lessons Learned. For each of these you can also refer back to what was stated in previous sections to bring the discussion together a bit more and rely more on your hard work elsewhere; what do we know, from the prior discussion, that helps us in thinking through the factors, obstacles, and lessons learned. I also think you might be able to very fruitfully integrate the Closing the Gap discussion into the earlier discussions in this section. In the end this section could be able to say a few very clear things about what you guys think might work and under what conditions, and vise versa (what won't work and why/if why). Finally, a more summarizing conclusion to match your Intro would be helpful.

I am fully aware I am giving you way more to do than you possibly could in such a short amount of time, and do not expect you to be perfect, given the time pressures you have worked under. However, I think you guys have worked very effectively in responding to our past inquiries/feedback and we have high expectations only because you guys have matched them so well so far in your thoughtfulness and thoroughness. Let me know if you want me to read through a section again in the next few days, and good luck. We are very pleased to see this wiki come together as it is, and we hope you also recognize what excellent work you are collectively producing.

Best,
Liz

Hey- my email didn't go through to all of you for some reason. My Internet went out last night during class, so I missed the discussion w/the group-sorry. If I need to do anything specific, please let me know. I am willing to do whatever. I am reading some articles today on education, and I'll let you know if I find anything more to add. Please let me know, too, if anythign major was decided or deadlines, etc. Thanks!

Britni

why my own delay

for some reason, I had my note to you returned to me. I am currently at a family reunion and was unable to log in last night and will be 30 mintues late tomorrow night. This was planned long before the course began and I am away from normal IT channels, but will continue to work. Let me know if there is something I need to do otherwise. thanks bo white

(this is my note to Tim earlier, given the feedback we received, I am willing to pull an all nighter this Sunday if necessary....could someone email me a summary of what you discussed last night as I am delayed, but am willing to pull my weight)

thanks again
bo

Instructor Feedback

Hey gang, sorry for the delay.

The point of turning in a rough draft this week was so that we could give you feedback while you're progressing. So, we have a good deal of feedback. You have a critical week and a half left; don't hesitate to let me know if you'd like me to look over a section again or clarify anything I write here.

So, we can give feedback on global and detailed levels. I'll start with the global. The point of the project, you recall, is to answer these questions:

1. What are the wider social and cultural changes that are entailed by this trend? In other words, these trends don’t emerge in a vacuum, and they often reflect other social and cultural changes as well. What are some of the major contextual factors giving rise to this trend?

2. How are new digital technologies, and their uses, affecting and affected by this trend?

3. What are the educational opportunities and challenges arising from these developments?

I think these questions are subjected to thoughtful analyses in the wiki, but that the organization you have at this point is not particularly helpful for the reader. In particular some key connections need to be more explicitly made. Why is it important to consider different types of divides and various challenges to various conceptions of the divide? Overlapping conceptualizations is a good section, but it suggests wider confusions, contradictions, and/or conflicts in popular discussions about this issue. What does the lack of consensus about what the DD is, or what it means, do to these discussions? Also there are logical relationships between different definitions discussed that could be drawn out in considering how you think it should be conceived. (1) and (3) in your outline also seem to be doing similar things; it would help to ask yourselves what the point of these different sections are in order to make the connnections and distinctions more clear to outside readers. I am thinking offhand that (3) should be part of (1) (as one of the authors suggests), but it's also possible that you all may know something I don't.

The point is that the types and conceptions should be reworked as they respond to the questions above, of the context of the issue, of identifying the issue, and of its historical trajectory. It might also aid criticality and thoughtfulness to consider the logical flow between challenges and solutions that have worked and not worked. Why haven't some things worked and why have others? Overall the particular arguments and perspectives you should be developing right now as the researchers are not coming through. This might also require thinking through editorial issues - you might try organizing an "editorial board" that considers how clear, compelling, and coherent the wiki reads as a whole, when the voice/flow/perspective/approach changes and how to aid readers in gaining from your relatively impressive research done thus far.

You might try rethinking the structure as a whole in terms of the outline, as well; right now the outline does not suggest you will be discussing education specifically, when this is a big part of your work (which you have done).

Finally, your discussion of the types of divides and different conceptions do not play clearly into later sections on educational and other challenges/opportunities. You might consider charting out the challenges/opportunities for each type/conception and then reorganizing based on what you find; for instance, what types of divides/conceptions of divides can education help with, or aid/hinder education, or otherwise directly relate to education, and which do not, and how? Being able to answer this multi-faceted question (more like 10 questions!) through the wiki would be a great sign of its overall success in terms of thoroughness and thoughtfulness.

Now a few more minor/detailed questions:

Successes and failures, and why: More please. WHY have some of the these been so intractable? CAN they be addressed, or are they inevitable?

Factors that are obstacles: I think you could do more here to make clear that education is also part of the problem as well as part of the (potential) solution. This is a big issue, it seems to us.

Do you plan to keep individual authors’ names on the sections? It’s up to you, of course...

Our goal in giving feedback is, of course, to challenge you to do the best work you can with the time you have. We don't expect perfection but we do want you to learn a lot and have a final product you're proud of. That's my hope with this. Please let me know if you need more feedback with anything in particular and we wish you the best of luck in this next week!

Inserting pictures

To insert pictures you need to do the following: First, go to the toolbox menu on the left hand side of the wiki menu. Upload the picture file from your computer to the wiki. You need to remember the name of your picture. Then click on the "embedded image" icon on the wiki menu (on the top) once you do that a special link with two brackets will me displayed [[Image:Example.jpg]], type the name of your image (or copy and paste).... your new link will look something like this. [[Image:mypic.jpg]]. I hope this is helpful.

Will

Wiki formatting

I know that formatting the wiki has become a challenge. I been figuring things out as I go. Anyway, to insert links from other websites all you need to do is put brackets before and after the link for example [http://www.hello.com].

Editing

Hello. Just a couple things in regards to editing:

-Internet is capitalized
-We need dates after the names when citing sources, unless it is a website with no actual written date, like digitaldivide.org.