Team: Coasters
This post was co-authored with Lauren Chum, Chris Henderson, Stephen Peasley,
“Access is the starting point, but equity is the goal.”
– Goodwill Industries International
In conducting a critical inquiry of learning technologies, we investigated the issue of the digital divide (Cullen, 2001). While already familiar with the topic, we chose an online course entitled The Digital Divide (Goodwill Industries International, n.d.) on the learning platform Coursera, as the learning event to deepen our understanding of the topic while critically evaluating the delivery technology. We participated in the course through different critical lenses, resulting in numerous observations and insightful questions about the intersection of online courses and the digital divide.
Mobile Learning
Through a lens of mobile learning (m-learning), one can examine how the course pedagogy and instructional design perform in a mobile-device environment, alongside considerations inherent to relying on these devices. In some cases, m-learning might provide an accessible and flexible learning mode. In others, it might be unfavourable or undesired.
Course designers and delivery platforms must consider several factors beyond those primarily related to instructional design. Web design, technical implementations, and user experience also impact m-learning participants. Some challenges, such as internet access or mobile device capability, fall outside the scope of delivery platforms and course designers.
Related questions:
- What are the barriers to m-learning participation when taking a free online course?
- What are the risks and trade-offs of learners relying on their primary mobile device for learning access?
- What m-learning challenges are outside a platform’s control and what could be improved?
Commercialisation of Education
When considering the impact of online courses as a digital education modality, the effect of commercialisation can profoundly affect the access to and availability of learning materials, particularly for marginalised, vulnerable, and economically-disadvantaged populations. Issues such as assetisation and platformisation contribute to a rentier environment that influences institutions and platforms within which they become embedded (Komljenovic et al., 2025). In reviewing the course, problematic design choices surfaced, including mandatory payment information for free trials and course auditing, dark patterns and nudge behaviours when attempting to cancel a trial, a lack of recognition for unpaid content completion, and pay-to-play access for some course components.
Related questions:
- How do the platformisation and assetisation of education affect public and open education?
- How does commercialised digital education address Sriprakash et al.’s sociodigital futures of education?
- Does commercialisation improve or worsen the digital divide? If so, how and why?
Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Looking at this course through an accessibility and universal design lens, it became clear that although accessibility was discussed, it was not achieved in implementation. This course is currently offered only in English, with no built-in translation function, which also applies to audio, closed-captioning, and transcription. There is no way to expand text boxes to make it easier for learners to input their written responses while not feeling limited by such a small space. Although the course shared a great deal of information, it was all from American-based resources and perspectives, which do not necessarily apply to those from other parts of the world.
Related questions:
- How could language translations be implemented to make this course accessible? What limitations might there be?
- How can a larger workspace be created for learners without feeling limited for written response questions?
Hardware and Internet Access
Preliminary findings show that 94% of Canadians have access to the internet (Statista, 2024); however, limited information is available on the definition of access. Spatial access could mean access at home, in a public facility, or at work, whereas speeds could be expressed as potential, not actual speeds. These statistics demonstrate that proportional digital access may not be critical to the impact of the digital divide; however, it lacks context.
We observed the following issues taking the course when emulating slow and unreliable speeds, highlighting inequitable access:
- Errors were displayed as user interfaces were slow to update.
- Promotional prompts were delayed due to latency issues.
- Video buffering could not keep up with download speeds.
Related questions:
- What is the current state of digital access in Canada regarding access to reliable internet speed and hardware?
- How does the current state of digital access align with the Canadian connectivity strategy?
- How do online developers account for users’ varying levels of access to hardware and reliable internet when designing their applications?
Conclusion
Our approach to conducting a critical inquiry into this Coursera-delivered online course was to experience it directly: to engage in the course as any learner might, with each of us maintaining an empathetic perspective of our chosen focus. By synthesising our experiences and perspectives of m-learning, commercialisation, UDL, and digital access, we will compile an informative analysis of the online course modality for learning.
References
Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the digital divide. Online Information Review, 25(5), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520110410517
Goodwill Industries International. (n.d.). The Digital Divide. [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-digital-divide
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (n.d.). High-speed access for all: Canada’s connectivity strategy. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/high-speed-internet-canada/en/canadas-connectivity-strategy/high-speed-access-all-canadas-connectivity-strategy
Komljenovic, J., Birch, K., & Sellar, S. (2025). Mapping rentiership and assetisation in the digitalisation of education. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2025.2469559
Komljenovic, J., Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Davies, H. C. (2023). When public policy ‘fails’ and venture capital ‘saves’ education: Edtech investors as economic and political actors. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2023.2272134
Sriprakash, A., Williamson, B., Facer, K., Pykett, J., & Valladares Celis, C. (2024). Sociodigital futures of education: reparations, sovereignty, care, and democratisation. Oxford Review of Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2348459
Statista. (2024). Number of internet users in Canada 2013–2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/243808/number-of-internet-users-in-canada
Hi Allie and team,
This was such a comprehensive and well-structured post! I really liked how you tackled the digital divide from multiple angles; m-learning, commercialization, accessibility, and hardware access. The point about “access being the starting point, but equity the goal” really stuck with me, especially in the context of hidden costs and platform barriers like paywalls and trial traps.
Your critical look at Coursera’s accessibility features (or lack thereof) also raised important questions. I hadn’t thought much about the challenges with small text boxes or the dominance of U.S.-centric content, those insights really helped expand my thinking around universal design.
Great job synthesizing so many perspectives into a clear, engaging narrative!
Alex