Flow
Flow
Flow
TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

.::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

Which major party will you be voting for in G.E. 2015?

Poll ended at April 9th, 2014, 7:52 pm

People's National Movement
100
26%
People's Partnership
205
53%
Independent Liberal Party
7
2%
Neither/Abstain
76
20%
 
Total votes: 388

EmilioA
Riding on 16's
Posts: 1158
Joined: August 25th, 2013, 8:54 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby EmilioA » August 12th, 2015, 1:52 pm

UML wrote:
EmilioA wrote:
De Dragon wrote: :? :? I would have thought it obvious that with her extremely favourable poll numbers that they would push her image as representative of the party.



Representative yes, but the UNC name nowhere on that cover/poster. its as if they hiidng they party. If they not careful, some people going to go into the polling booth looking for KAMLA .


DAMNED IF YOU DO DAMNED IF YOU DON’T


Apparently the UNC has no graphic artists capable of putting both the UNC and Kamla on the same page.

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Redman » August 12th, 2015, 1:55 pm

Kamla never seemed to be on the same page any how.
why start now

User avatar
j.o.e
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 7429
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 8:56 pm
Location: On tuner

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby j.o.e » August 12th, 2015, 1:56 pm

Just put yuh 'X' next to kamla !!

User avatar
j.o.e
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 7429
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 8:56 pm
Location: On tuner

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby j.o.e » August 12th, 2015, 9:17 pm

Inshan Ishmael giving dem bai.

Team Loco
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 5297
Joined: April 18th, 2003, 4:37 pm
Location: Trinidad y Tobago
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Team Loco » August 12th, 2015, 10:51 pm

j.o.e wrote:Inshan Ishmael giving dem bai.


He just bitter over locking up ah some mandingas a while back. If you though jack cant he trusted well.....inshan could switch overnight. Totally unreliable fool. Opportunist

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 12156
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Habit7 » August 13th, 2015, 8:16 am

Dr. Rowley revealed last night a UWI report that the laptop program essentially added no benefit to the recipients.

But I guess Kamla realised that it is PNM lies and going to expand it to primary schools.

User avatar
dougla_boy
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9305
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 8:40 am
Location: Stinkin' up d dance

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby dougla_boy » August 13th, 2015, 8:23 am

wah u mean it eh add nothing?

my lil cuz reaching top ranks in Counter Strike.....

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 8:28 am

Habit7 wrote:Dr. Rowley revealed last night a UWI report that the laptop program essentially added no benefit to the recipients.

But I guess Kamla realised that it is PNM lies and going to expand it to primary schools.


Habit, I usually have very little faith in UWI studies, but if this is true, it represents a huge intellectual failure. Why?

What KPI or metric as used? Was it exam results? IQ? Computer knowledge and aptitude? Any statistical study like this is bound to fail given the number of uncontrolled variables.

Secondly, it is way too soon to study the effects, programmes like these seek to create a computer literate workforce. I doubt much of these students have moved into the working work.

Thirdly, in every first world or UN study, technological access is seen to be one of the most impactful measures in educating society. I believe I came across a study that showed simply giving kids in poor families computers with broadband not only made up for the technological divide between the rich children and poor, but improved the lives of parents who learned about things they never would have, thus improving their life as well as their children's.

K74T
TunerGod
Posts: 21568
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby K74T » August 13th, 2015, 8:34 am

Habit7 wrote:Dr. Rowley revealed last night a UWI report that the laptop program essentially added no benefit to the recipients.

But I guess Kamla realised that it is PNM lies and going to expand it to primary schools.


De Dragon about to spit De Fire on you.

goalpost
punchin NOS
Posts: 2954
Joined: June 24th, 2010, 8:18 am
Location: South by night, North by day

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby goalpost » August 13th, 2015, 8:35 am

Daran know everything oui

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 12156
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Habit7 » August 13th, 2015, 8:45 am

K74T wrote:
Habit7 wrote:Dr. Rowley revealed last night a UWI report that the laptop program essentially added no benefit to the recipients.

But I guess Kamla realised that it is PNM lies and going to expand it to primary schools.


De Dragon about to spit De Fire on you.
I know :(

I guess I will have to resort to the facts of the report :(

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Redman » August 13th, 2015, 9:00 am

Daran wrote:
Habit7 wrote:Dr. Rowley revealed last night a UWI report that the laptop program essentially added no benefit to the recipients.

But I guess Kamla realised that it is PNM lies and going to expand it to primary schools.


Habit, I usually have very little faith in UWI studies, but if this is true, it represents a huge intellectual failure. Why?

What KPI or metric as used? Was it exam results? IQ? Computer knowledge and aptitude? Any statistical study like this is bound to fail given the number of uncontrolled variables.

Secondly, it is way too soon to study the effects, programmes like these seek to create a computer literate workforce. I doubt much of these students have moved into the working work.

Thirdly, in every first world or UN study, technological access is seen to be one of the most impactful measures in educating society. I believe I came across a study that showed simply giving kids in poor families computers with broadband not only made up for the technological divide between the rich children and poor, but improved the lives of parents who learned about things they never would have, thus improving their life as well as their children's.


So you trust a study that you came across but discredit UWI....unless you agree with its findings.


Giving a child a computer is no different to giving them a welding set.

Is it supported with instructions ...incentive to use the TOOL properly....???

So this is a great idea...did we go far enough...I dont know

Daran...can you find any analysis on this program that shows the cost benefit???

User avatar
rfari
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 19169
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby rfari » August 13th, 2015, 9:09 am

Daran drop the analysis and findings on dey chess dey. Graffs also desirable

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Redman » August 13th, 2015, 9:28 am

Graff is always desirable with this lot.... :| :?

User avatar
Bezman
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6635
Joined: April 24th, 2003, 2:47 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Bezman » August 13th, 2015, 11:20 am

laptops only work if the syllabus and curriculum utilize them, THIS has been the findings in the UK and US.

giving kids laptops, without broadband in schools and online/digital/interactive curriculums to utilize the laptops are useless..

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 12156
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Habit7 » August 13th, 2015, 11:34 am

LEY CRITICISES LAPTOP INITIATIVE, PROMISES TO BRING "SANITY" BACK TO PROGRAMME


Created on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 23:24



PNM Political Leader Dr. Keith Rowley has taken a swipe at the People’s Partnership’s Education policies.

Speaking at a Political Meeting in Maloney on Wednesday, he reminded that it was the PNM who introduced education for all as before 1956 only some children were educated.

He said because of the PNM’s policies, the University of Trinidad and Tobago was created and the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses was implemented along with free Primary and Secondary education.

He also said schools were constructed under PNM rule, so there was never any need for the People’s Partnership to construct 90 more schools.

“So where did they come from to be claiming education as any accomplishment in Trinidad and Tobago? They claiming to build 90 schools during the five year plan, their five-year term. So when did we become so short of schools that when this Prime Minister came in she had to go and build 90? Of course there is always a need to maintain and upgrade, but don’t just take us for fools.”

Dr. Rowley criticised the School Laptop Programme, saying the former Government had put an arrangement for computer labs in schools.

He said the laptops “are of dubious quality and play dubious roles in the education system” and cited a University Report entitled ‘A Case Study of the Use of Laptops in Secondary Schools and Students’ Performance’ which found no real impact of the Laptop Programme.

He read the Abstract from the Report: ‘“The findings showed that the introduction of the one-to-one laptops and the incorporation of Information and Communication Technology in teaching and learning has had no statistically significant impact on student performance.’ That is the research finding of a University in Trinidad and Tobago. ‘Both staff and student groups indicated a relatively high dissatisfaction with the provision of internet service and overall structure and implementation of the Ministry of Education Laptop Programme in schools.’”

The PNM Leader stated that the Report also found inadequate teachers, insufficient IT Technical Staff and no alignment of the School Curriculum as challenges encountered in the Programme.

“Is that the best way to go about spending hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to bring our children up to the communication age? Minister Tim Gopeesingh, lay claim to this. This is yours. This is yours and it will take the PNM to come into office and bring sanity to this Programme and bring your children properly into the ICT age.”

Dr. Rowley told supporters it was PNM Minister Jerry Narace who introduced a Health Card in 2010 and it took the Government five years to do it.

He called for answers on the awarding of a $35 million contract to administer the Health Card.

“Is that the same company that has got access to this humongous database of all our phone numbers, all our email addresses, all our unlisted numbers and the only person, the only agency that could have packaged and aggregated all those databases is the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and as they move forward on campaigning on that database they created, you the people of Trinidad and Tobago, you are now naked and exposed. The Government must tell us what they have provided to that company, they must tell us what are the perimeters of that company operating that Health Card system and they must let us know the extent to which they are penetrating the privacy and secrecy of the people of Trinidad and Tobago.”

The PNM Leader also confirmed that he received a letter from the Integrity Commission which rejected his complaint about the million-dollar award of the Beetham Waste Water Treatment Plant to a "favoured" contr

http://www.ctntworld.com/cnews2/index.p ... Itemid=707

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 12:49 pm

Typical third world thinkers.....have you all never really examined Digital Inclusion and the Digital Divide? Something as simple as giving laptops and internet (this is sadly behind) bridges a socioeconomic gap that can leave behind not just the poor, but the entire country as we become internationally less competitive.

But don't listen to me:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has pointed out that communication and the access to communication technologies are just like social security fundamental human rights and that the digital divide is a pressing humanitarian issue: “Three days from now, the world’s population will pass the six billion mark. Five out of those six billion live in developing countries. For many of them, the great scientific and technical achievements of our era might as well be taking place on another planet. (…) The capacity to receive, download and share information through electronic networks, the freedom to communicate freely across national boundaries – these must become realities for all people. (…) These people lack many things: jobs, shelter, food, health care and drinkable water. Today, being cut off from basic telecommunications services is a hardship almost as acute as these other deprivations, and may indeed reduce the chances of finding remedies to them.” (Annan, 1999).


Understanding the potential economic benefits of digital inclusion

Improved education and employment outcomes, for example as individuals enhance their qualifications and this improves their earnings and/or their probability of finding employment;

Improved health and well being outcomes, for example through access to improved health information and health services;

Efficiency savings for public service providers enabled by greater use of online information and transactional services; and

Potential benefits for consumers able to purchase a wider range of products at lower prices. We have assessed the relevant direct and indirect benefits and how they impact on GDP and broader measures of economic welfare. We have also noted the wider effects on other areas of the economy including the social, health and environmental impacts.

Education, skills and employment benefits We have considered the potential education, skills and employment benefits for digitally excluded children and adults.

Children
There is a large body of evidence that suggests that home access to a computer and the internet can have a positive impact on children’s educational achievements. This has already been recognised in the development of the Home Access Programme (HAP). Using the same evidence, we estimate that the potential economic impact of home access to a computer and the internet to the 1.6 million children in digitally excluded households. If all these children had access to a computer and the internet at home, it could enhance their potential lifetime earnings by over £10.8 billion depending on how it affects their academic performance, especially at GCSE level.

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 12:54 pm

The reason I doubt UWI's study is that it fails to capture any of the real significance of this programme, simply it wasn't meant for the purpose of boosting exam scores.

But regardless, I have a HUGE f*cking pet peeve with the sh*t statistical anaylsis done by UWI and I'm willing to bet, they used a simple P-test to illustrate the 'no benefit' in exams performance. But carry on PNM sheep.....of all things the PP has done, I will not criticize this one at all.

Most of these studies fail to capture a proper measure of digital skills and associated measures of transferable skills, those skills that help those who are currently not engaged with ICTs to
engage in a meaningful way once access has been provided to them.
Last edited by Daran on August 13th, 2015, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rfari
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 19169
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby rfari » August 13th, 2015, 12:57 pm

Daren pull the report out and crush dem fellas dan

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 1:01 pm

rfari wrote:Daren pull the report out and crush dem fellas dan


Abbott, C. (2007). e-Inclusion: Learning Difficulties and Digital Technologies (No.
Report 15). London: Futurelab.
Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., and Marques, J. M. (2005). A social psychological
framework for understanding social inclusion and exclusion. In D. Abrams,
M. A. Hogg and J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of exclusion and
inclusion (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Books).
Adam, A., and Green, E. (1998). Gender, agency, location and the new information
society. In B. Loader (Ed.), Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy. London:
Routledge.
Amsden, A. H., and Clark, J. C. (1999). Software entrepreneurship among the urban
poor: Could Bill Gates have succeeded if he were black?... or impoverished? In
D. A. Schön, B. Sanyal and W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income
communities: prospects for the positive use of advanced information technologies
(pp. 213–234). Cambridge, Mass ; London, England: MIT Press.
Anderson, B. (2005). The value of mixed-method longitudinal panel studies in ict
research Transitions in and out of ‘ICT poverty’ as a case in point. Information,
Communication & Society, 8(3), 343–367.
Anderson, B. (2007). Social capital, quality of life and ICTs. In B. Anderson, M. Brynin,
J. Gershuny and Y. Raban (Eds.), Information and Communications Technologies in
Society: E-Living in a Digital Europe (pp. 163–174). Oxford: Routledge.
Anderson, B., and Tracey, K. (2001). Digital Living: The Impact (or Otherwise) of the
Internet on Everyday Life. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 456–475.
Annable, G., Goggin, G., and Stienstra, D. (2007). Accessibility, disability, and
inclusion in information technologies: Introduction. Information Society, 23(3),
145–147.
Annan, K. (2003, 18 June 2003). Secretary-General’s message [delivered by Amir
Dossal, Executive Director, UN Fund for International Partnerships]. Paper presented at
the Net world order: bridging the global digital divide, New York.
Anthias, F. (2001). The Concept of “Social Division” and Theorising Social
Stratification: Looking at Ethnicity and Class. 35(04), 835–854.
APEC. (2001). Digital divide blueprint. Shanghai, People’s Republic of China: APEC.
Baker, K. (1989). FE: a new strategy. Paper presented at the Association of Colleges
of Higher and Further Education, London.
Bandura, A., and Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.
60 | Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child development, 67(3),
1206–1222.
Beamish, A. (1999). Approaches to Community Computing: Bringing Technology
to Low-Income Groups. In D. A. Schön, B. Sanyal and W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High
technology and low-income communities: prospects for the positive use of advanced
information technologies (pp. 351–369). Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: MIT
Press.
Becta. (2002, 19 February). Digital divide. Paper presented at the Digital divide
seminar.
Bennett, F. (2007). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain: The millennium survey.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(3), 291–291.
Bennett, W. L. (2003). Communicating Global Activism: Strengths and Vulnerabilities
of Networked Politics. Information, Communication & Society, 6(2), 143–168.
Boneva, B., Kraut, R., and Frohlich, D. (2001). Using email for personal relationships.
American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 530–549.
Bradbrook, G., Alvi, I., Fisher, J., Lloyd, H., Moore, R., Thompson, V., et al. (2007).
Meeting their potential: the role of education and technology in overcoming
disadvantage and disaffection in young people. London: Becta.
Bradbrook, G., and Fisher, J. (2004). Digital Equality: Reviewing Digital Inclusion
Activity and Mapping the Way Forwards. London: CitizensOnline.
Bridges, D. (1993). Transferable skills: A philosophical perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, 18(1), 43–51.
Broeders, D. (2007). The new digital borders of Europe – EU databases and the
surveillance of irregular migrants. International Sociology, 22(1), 71–92.
Buckingham, D. (2005). The media literacy of children and young people. A review of
the research literature. London: OFCOM.
Burrows, R., Nettleton, S., Pleace, N., Loader, B., and Muncer, S. (2000). Virtual
community care? Social policy and the emergence of computer mediated social
support. Information, Communication and Society 3(1), 95–121.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of social capital. In J.C. Richards (Ed). Handbook of theory
and research for sociology of education (pp.241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Chapman, P., Phimister, E., Shucksmith, M., Upward, R., and Vera-Toscano, E.
(1998). Poverty and exclusion in rural Britain: The dynamics of low income and
employment. Layerthorpe, York: York Publishing Services.
Cho, J., Gil de Zúñiga, H., Rojas, H., and Shah, D. v. (2003). Beyond access: The
digital divide and internet uses and gratifications. IT & Society, 1(4), 46–72.
Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society | 61
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Commins, P. (1993). Combating exclusion in Ireland 1990–1994: A midway report.
Brussels: European Commission.
Commission of the European Communities. (2002). eEurope 2005: An information
society for all.
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Confederation of British Industry. (1989). Towards a Shills Revolution – a youth
charter. London CBI.
Cummings, J. N., and Kraut, R. (2002). Domesticating computers and the Internet.
Information Society, 18(3), 221–231.
Cushman, M., and Klecun, E. (2006). How can (non)users engage with technology:
Bringing in the digitally excluded. LSE Working paper.
de Haan, J. (2003). IT and Social Inequality in the Netherlands. IT & Society, 1(4),
27–45.
deToledo, J. A. A. (1997). Demographics and Behavior of the Chilean Internet
Population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3. Retrieved October
2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/mendoza.html.
deMunter, C. (2005). The digital divide in Europe. Statistics in Focus, 38.
Luxembourg: European Communities.
Didi, A., and LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and
the formation of news habits among college students in an internet environment.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193–210.
Dobransky, K., and Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in internet access and
use. Information, Communication and Society, 9(3), 313–334.
Durieux, D. (2003). ICT and social inclusion in the everyday life of less abled people.
Liege, Belgium: LENTIC, University of Liege.
Durndell, A., and Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes
towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East
European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 521–536.
Dutton, W., and Shepherd, A. (2006). Trust in the internet as an experience
technology. Information, Communication and Society, 9(4), 433–451.
Dutton, W., Shepherd, A., and DiGennaro, C. (2007). Digital divides and choices
reconfiguring access: National and cross-national patterns of internet diffusion and
use. In B. Anderson, M. Brynin, J. Gershuny and Y. Raban (Eds.), Information and
62 | Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society
communication technologies in society: E-Living in a Digital Europe (pp. 31–45).
Oxford: Routledge.
Dutton, W., and Helsper, E. J. (2007). The Internet in Britain: 2007. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
Eastin, M. S., and LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the
digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1).
Employment and social affairs committee. (2004). Knowledge
society – e-Inclusion: The information society’s potential for social
inclusion in Europe. Retrieved October 2008 from http://europa.
eu.int/comm/employment_social/knowledge_society/society_en.htm
Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the Beginning, Progress, and Ending of Antisocial
Behavior from Birth to Adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, Frameworks, and
Forecasts. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Farsides, T. (1993). Social Identity Theory-a foundation to build upon, not undermine:
A comment on Schiffmann and Wicklund (1992). Theory & Psychology, 3(2),
207–215.
Foley, P., Alfonso, X., Brown, K., and Fisher, J. (2003). Connecting people: Tackling
exclusion? London: Greater London Authority.
Foley, P., Alfonso, X., and Ghani, S. (2002). The Digital Divide in a World City: A
Literature Review and Recommendations for Research and Strategy Development to
Address the Digital Divide in London. London: Greater London Authority.
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way and the Renewal of Social Democracy.
Cambridge: Polity.
Gill, R., and Grint, K. (1995). The gender technology relation: Contemporary theory
and research. In R. Gill and K. Grint (Eds.), The gender-technology relation (pp. 1–28).
London: Taylor and Francis.
Gillard, H., Mitev, N., and Scott, S. (2007). ICT inclusion and gender: Tensions in
narratives of network engineer training. Information Society, 23(1), 19–37.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Haddon, L. (2000). Social exclusion and information and communication
technologies. Lessons from studies of single parents and the young elderly. New
Media & Society, 2(4), 387–406.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second Level Digital Divide: Differences in people’s online skills.
First Monday, 7(4).
Harvey, P., Green, S., and Agar, J. (2000). The imperative to connect and the
importance of place: the Social Contexts of Virtual Manchester. In S. Woolgar (Ed.),
Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society | 63
Virtual Society? Profile 2000 (pp. 11–13). Oxford: ESRC Virtual Society? Programme,
Said Business. School, University of Oxford.
Harris, R. W. (1999). Attitudes towards end-user computing: A structural equation
model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2), 109–125.
Haythornwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating
and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger and W. Shumar
(Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (pp. 159–
190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hellawell, S. (2001). Beyond access: ICT and social inclusion. York: York Publishing
Services for Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Helsper, E. J. (2004). Integration or exclusion: Internet for those in the margins. Paper
presented at the AOIR 5.0: Ubiquity?, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Helsper, E. J. (2007). Internet use by vulnerable teenagers: Social inclusion, selfconfidence
and group identity. Unpublished PhD, London School of Economics and
Political Science, London.
Helsper, E. J. (under review). Assessing a Social Psychological Perspective on Teenage
Digital Engagement. Information, Communication & Society.
Hilary Armstrong-Minister of Social Exclusion. (2006, 07/09/). Social inclusion means
tough policies. Guardian Unlimited.
Hinson Langford, C. P., Bowsher, J., Moloney, J. P., and Lilis, P. P. (1997). Social
support a conceptual analysis. Journal of advanced nursing, 25(1), 95–100.
Home, E. P., and EconPapers, F. A. Q. (2002). Interaction between Economic and
Political Factors in the Migration Decision. 30(3), 488–504.
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., and Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A Short Scale
for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Study.
Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672.
Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., and Schmitt, N. (2001). The racial digital
divide: Motivational, affective, and cognitive correlates of Internet use. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31(10), 2019–2046.
Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., and Fitzgerald, H. E.
(2006). Does home Internet use influence the academic performance of low-income
children? Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 429–434.
Jaeger, P. T. (2006). Telecommunications policy and individuals with disabilities:
Issues of accessibility and social inclusion in the policy and research agenda.
Telecommunications Policy, 30(2), 112–124.
Jung, J. Y., Qiu, J. L., and Kim, Y.-C. (2001). Internet Connectedness and Inequality:
Beyond the “Divide”. Communication Research, 28(4), 507–535.
64 | Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society
Jung, J.-Y., Kim, Y.-C., Lin, W.-Y., and Cheong, P. H. (2005). The influence of social
environment on internet connectedness of adolescents in Seoul, Singapore and
Taipei. 7(1), 64–88.
Kalichman, S. C., Weinhardt, L., Benotsch, E., DiFonzo, K., Luke, W., and Austin,
J. (2002). Internet access and Internet use for health information among people
living with HIV-AIDS. Patient Education and Counseling Patient Educ. Couns., 46(2),
109–116.
Karlsen, S., and Nazroo, J. Y. (2002). Relation between racial discrimination, social
class, and health among ethnic minority groups. American Journal of Public Health
92(4), 624–631.
Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., and Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in
networked communities. Information Society, 21(2), 119–131.
Kling, R. (1999). Can the “Net-Generation Internet” Effectively Support “Ordinary
citizens”? The Information Society, 15(1), 57–63.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis,
W. (1998). Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well-being? 53(9), 1017–1031.
Kvansky, L. (2006). Cultural (re)production of digital inequality in a US community
technology initiative. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 160–181.
Leighton, W. (2001). Broadband deployment and the digital divide. A primer. Policy
analysis, 410 (August), 1–34.
Levin, D., and Arafeh, S. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between
Internet Savvy Students And Their Schools. Washington DC, Pew Internet & American
Life Project (Vol. 18).
Lievrouw, L., and Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping
and Consequences of ICTs. London: Sage Publications.
Lin, N. (2001). Building a theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook and R. S. Burt
(Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3–30). New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Livingstone, S. (1998). Mediated childhoods – A comparative approach to
young people’s changing media environment in Europe. European Journal of
Communication, 13(4), 435–456.
Livingstone, S. (2003a). The changing nature and uses of media literacy. In R. Gill,
Pratt, A., Rantanen, T. and Couldry, N. (Ed.), Media@LSE electronic working papers
(Vol. 4). London.
Livingstone, S. (2003b). Children’s Use of the Internet: Reflections on the Emerging
Research Agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147–166.
Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society | 65
Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. (2005). Taking up online opportunities? Children’s
uses of the internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning, 1(3),
395–419.
Livingstone, S., Bober, M., and Helsper, E. J. (2005). Inequalities and the digital divide
in children’s and young people’s internet use.
Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2007a). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children,
young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.
Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2007b). Taking risks when communicating on the
internet: The role of offline social-psychological factors in young people’s vulnerability
to online risks. Information, Communication and Society, 10(5), 619–644.
Livingstone, S., and Millwood-Hargrave, A. (2006). Harm and Offence in Media
Content. A review of the evidence. Bristol: Intellect Press.
Loader, B. (1998). Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency, and Policy in the Information
Society. In B. Loader (Ed.), Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency, and Policy in the
Information Society. New York: Routledge.
Loader, B. and Keeble (2004) Challenging the Digital Divide? A Literature Review of
Community Informatics Initiatives, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Loges, W. E., and Jung, J. Y. (2001). Exploring the Digital Divide – Internet
connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28(4), 536–562.
Losh, S. C. (2003). (UPDATED IN ISSUE 5) Gender and Educational Digital Chasms
in Computer and Internet Access and Use Over Time: 1983-2000. IT & Society, 1(4),
73–86.
Mairs, C. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion in the digital world – Turing lecture 2006.
Computer Journal, 50(3), 274–280.
Mansell, R. (2002). From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies.
Current Sociology, 50(3), 407–426
Martin, S. P. (2003). Is the Digital Divide Really Closing? A Critique of Inequality
Measurement in A Nation Online. 1(4), 1–13.
Matei, S., and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2001). Real and Virtual Social Ties: Connections
in the Everyday Lives of Seven Ethnic Neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist,
45(3), 550–564.
Miliband, D. (2006) Social exclusion: The next steps forward, London: ODPM.
Millwood-Hargrave, A., and Livingstone, S. (2006). Harm and Offence in Media
Content: A Review of the Evidence. London: Intellect Books.
Morahan-Martin, J. (1998). Women and girls last: Females and the internet. Paper
presented at the IRISS, Bristol, UK.
66 | Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society
Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the
home and the school. Computers & Education, 36(4), 347–362.
National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). (2000).
Falling through the net. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/
contents00.html.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the
Internet Worldwide (2006 reprint ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities
Approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C., and Sen, A. (1993). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ofcom. (2006). Media literacy audit: Report on media literacy in the nations and
regions. London: Ofcom.
Ono, H., and Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly,
84(1), 111–121.
ONS. (2006). Internet access – individuals and households. Office of National
Statistics.
ONS. (2007). Internet connectivity – Q1. Office of National Statistics.
O’Reilly, P. (1988). Methodological issues in social support and social network
research. Social Science and Medicine 26(8), 863–873.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.oreillynet.
com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., and Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user
as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication
technologies. Science Technology & Human Values, 29(1), 30–63.
Owen, D., Green, A. E., McLeod, M., Law, I., Challis, T., Wilkinson, D., et al. (2003).
The use of and attitudes towards information and communication technologies (ICT)
by people from black and minority ethnic groups living in deprived areas. (Research
Report No: 450): Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations and Institute for Employment
Research, University of Warwick.
Papacharissi, Z., and Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196.
Phipps, L. (2000). New communication technologies – A conduit for social inclusion.
Information Communication and Society, 3(1), 39–68.
Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.
Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society | 67
Putnam. (1995). Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital
in America. PS: Political science & politics, 28(4), 664–683.
Rivers, I., and Carragher, D. J. (2003). Social-developmental factors affecting lesbian
and gay youth: A review of cross-national research findings. Children and Society,
17(5), 374–385.
Rommes, E. (2002). Creating places for women on the Internet – The design of
a ‘Women’s Square’ in a digital city. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 9(4),
400–429.
Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and
factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
Sallaz, J. J., and Zavisca, J. (2007). Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004.
Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 21–41.
Schön, D. A., Sanyal, B., and Mitchell, W. J. (1999). High technology and low-income
communities: prospects for the positive use of advanced information technologies.
Cambridge, Mass; London, England: MIT Press.
Saulsman, L. M., and Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality
disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,
23(8), 1055–1085.
Selwyn, N. (2002). ‘E-stablishing’ an inclusive society? Technology, social exclusion
and UK government policy making. Journal of Social Policy, 31, 1–20.
Selwyn, N. (2003). ICT for all? Access and use of public ICT sites in the UK.
Information, Communication and Technology, 6(3), 350–375.
Selwyn, N. (2004a). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital
divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362.
Selwyn, N. (2004b). Technology and social inclusion. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(1), 127–127.
Selwyn, N. (2005, 11th April). Taking responsibility for digital exclusion. Paper
presented at the Whose responsibility is digital inclusion? Conference. London, UK.
Selwyn, N. (2006a). Dealing with digital inequality: Rethinking young people,
technology and social inclusion. Paper presented at the Cyberworld Unlimited?
Conference, Bielefeld.
Selwyn, N. (2006). Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and lowusers
of computers Poetics, 34(4–5), 273–292.
Selwyn, N., and Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Rethinking digital
inclusion for the 21st century. London: Futurelab.
68 | Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., and Madden, L. (2003). Older adults’ use of
information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing and Society, 23,
561–582.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., and Williams, S. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity?
The role of technology in overcoming social exclusion in US education. Educational
Policy, 15(2), 258–277.
Sen, A. (2004) Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation.
Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.
Shaw, L. H., and Grant, L. M. (2002). Users divided? Exploring the gender gap in
Internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 517–527.
Slevin, J. (2000). The internet and society (1 ed.). Malden, MA: Polity.
Spears, R., Postmes, T., Wolbert, A., Lea, M., and Rogers, M. (2000). Social
Psychological Influence of ICT’s on Society and Their Policy Implications: Infodrome.
Spooner, T. (2001). Asian-Americans and the Internet: The young and the connected.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Spooner, T., and Rainie, L. (2000). African-Americans and the Internet. Washington,
D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Spooner, T., and Rainie, L. (2001). Hispanics and the Internet. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Internet & American Life Project.
Stewart, J. (2002). Information Society, the Internet and Gender. A Summary Of PanEuropean
Statistical Data.
Stienstra, D., Watzke, J., and Birch, G. E. (2007). A three-way dance: The global
public good and accessibility in information technologies. Information Society, 23(3),
149-158.
Sutherland-Smith, W., Snyder, I., and Angus, L. (2003). The digital divide: Differences
in computer use between home and school in low socio-economic households.
Educational studies in language and literature, 3(1–2), 5–19.
Tambini, D. (2000). Universal Internet Access: A Realistic View (Vol. 1/1): Institute for
Public Policy Research.
Tardieu, B. (1999). Computer as Community Memory: How People in Very Poor
Neighborhoods Made a Computer Their Own. In D. A. Schön, B. Sanyal and
W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the
positive use of advanced information technologies (pp. 289–313). Cambridge, Mass.;
London, England: MIT Press.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., and
Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Development,
validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society | 69
Thomas, G., and Wyatt, S. M. E. (2000). Access is not the only problem. In F.
Henwood (Ed.), Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society (pp.
240). London: Routledge.
Thurlow, D. C., Lengel, L. B., and Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated
Communication: Social interaction and the internet. London: Sage.
Torenli, N. (2006). The ‘other’ faces of digital exclusion: ICT gender divides in the
broader community. European Journal of Communication, 21(4), 435–455.
Torkzadeh, G., and Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy
and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479–495.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the Information
Society. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.: Sage.
Van Oost, E. (2002). Gender and ICT in the Netherlands – Review of statistics and
literature. SIGIS Deliverable no D02_Part 7.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: The
Pensylvania State University Press.
Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is
the art? Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447–464.
Wajcman, J. (2004). Techno feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, 7(7),
197-304.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitely, B. (1997). Gender differences in computer related attitudes and behavior: A
meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1–22.
Williams, J., Sligo, F., and Wallace, C. (2004, 19-22 September). Everywhere, with
everyone: The implications of internet presence in novice user settings. Paper
presented at the AoIR conference: Ubiquity? University of Sussex.
Yang, B., and Lester, D. (2003). Liaw’s scales to measure attitudes toward computers
and the Internet. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(2), 384–384.

User avatar
rfari
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 19169
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby rfari » August 13th, 2015, 1:03 pm

Ok. Lemme rephrase. Post up the uwi report and prove ur assumptions

User avatar
eliteauto
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14175
Joined: March 10th, 2006, 1:36 am
Location: PPP
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby eliteauto » August 13th, 2015, 1:03 pm

Daran, based on what you typed there, I want you to juxtapose that with:
1) the specs and capabilities (or limitations) of the machines handed out
2) the curriculum for IT in secondary schools currently
3) the availability of internet (and it's speeds) in both the school environment and homes esp in at risk communities

Now tell me what empirical evidence you have of real tangible successes of the programme, bear in mind I support the programme but are we really seeing results or are we dealing in theory?

User avatar
Obi-Wan
3NE 2NR for life
Posts: 128
Joined: June 23rd, 2005, 1:04 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Obi-Wan » August 13th, 2015, 1:06 pm

Anybody got a link to the report cited? Google throws up two master's in education theses, but these cannot really be cited as UWI reports as they were not done by UWI but submitted to them, plus the quoted text or title does not match.

User avatar
dougla_boy
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9305
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 8:40 am
Location: Stinkin' up d dance

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby dougla_boy » August 13th, 2015, 1:08 pm

should have never given them laptops...tertiary education students are more deserving of a laptop

children should have gotten a tablet, so they could have all their books with them, paperless classroom ting nuh

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 12156
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Habit7 » August 13th, 2015, 1:23 pm

I don't think Dr. Rowley wanna stop the laptops or think that laptops are bad. But he wants to correct the program and properly align the laptop with ICT courses that the students can use.

After 5 years these children should at least know how to write code. But the porn data management on fleek tho.

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 1:27 pm

You guys really misunderstand the intentions of a programme like this. I haven't seen the UWI study, but I have little faith in it given the that the effects of such a program cannot be measurably valuated in such a short time period.

Secondly, studying effect A on an exam, is statistically very very difficult given the number of varying conditions involved....I highly doubt UWI's scholars have the statistical knowledge to really understand this, (most scientists lack this as well when making conclusions).

Thirdly, there an undeniable programs which were highlighted......most of which amounted to 1) typical unionized workers (teachers) complaining about everything, 2) politically motivated complaints (i.e. them chiren only using it for facebook and youtube........which can in fact be educational) and 3) the never good enough people "why they aint do this first, or put things in place, or teach the teachers".....

The core fact remains, giving children access to technology (earlier the better) has innumerable societal, economic and educational benefits.......and is probably the represents the best value of money spent by the government.

Daran
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 1989
Joined: May 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Daran » August 13th, 2015, 1:30 pm

Habit7 wrote:I don't think Dr. Rowley wanna stop the laptops or think that laptops are bad. But he wants to correct the program and properly align the laptop with ICT courses that the students can use.

After 5 years these children should at least know how to write code. But the porn data management on fleek tho.


And who says they don't? Isn't programming a compulsory part of Computer at O-Levels?

I don't disagree if Dr. Rowley wants to improve upon it, but don't make it appear as a negative or 'whase ah time' thing. It isn't and I think the PP did a horrible job explaining the importance of these laptops to for the future of our society.

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 12156
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby Habit7 » August 13th, 2015, 1:32 pm

Don't worry Daran "Kamla has a plan, and it works!"

User avatar
UML
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6575
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 11:08 pm

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby UML » August 13th, 2015, 2:10 pm

1439488895224.jpg


La Horquetta wants Jairam Seemungal!!!!!


Unity with Jairam & the PPG!!!!!

User avatar
rfari
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 19169
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 11:20 am
Contact:

Re: .::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

Postby rfari » August 13th, 2015, 2:12 pm

UML wrote:
1439488895224.jpg


La Horquetta wants Jairam Seemungal!!!!!


Unity with Jairam & the PPG!!!!!

By the soap box, ballot box, jury box or the ammo box

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 385 guests