The goal of this exploratory research study was to use the self-directed learning framework in a nonformal learning environment to determine how an underserved community would use technology. The factors that support self-directed learning in a nonformal learning environment were the ability to communicate, access information, and acquire knowledge. The primary focus was on the needs of the residents as learners; looking at why, when, what, and how community members wanted to involve technology in their learning and living. Residents identified needs that included issues related to housing, health care, child care, finances, education, and community unity.
Anderson, T. E., & Melchior, A. (1995). Assessing telecommunications technology as a tool for urban community building. Journal of Urban Technology, 3(1), 29-44.
2.
Ausburn, L. J. (2002). The freedom versus focus dilemma in a customized self-directed learning environment: A comparison of the perceptions of adult and younger students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(3), 225-235.
3.
Ba, H., Culp, K. M., Green, L., Henriquez, A., & Honey, M. (2001). Effective technology use in low-income communities: Research review for the American Connects Consortium. New York: Center for Children and Technology.
4.
Bishop, A. P., Tidline, T. J., Shoemaker, S., & Salela, P. (1999). Public libraries and networked information services in low-income communities. Library and Information Science Research, 21(3), 361-390.
5.
Blakely, E. J., Hadi, S., & Johnson, P. (1995). Information city and the ghetto: The LA experience. Los Angeles: Lusk Center Research Institute.
6.
Chow, C., Ellis, J., Mark, J., & Wise, B. (1998). Impact of CTCNet affiliates: Findings from a national survey of users of community technology centers. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
7.
Clark, K. A. (2003). Using self-directed learning communities to bridge the digital divide. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 663-665.
8.
Goslee, S. (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
9.
International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
10.
Laffey, J. M., Espinosa, L., Moore, J., & Lodree, A. (2003). Supporting learning and behavior of at-risk children: Computers in urban education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 423-440.
11.
Laffey, J. M., Musser, D., & Tupper, T. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73-86.
12.
Lazarus, W., & Mora, F. (2000). Online content for low-income and underserved Americans: The digital divide’s new frontier. Santa Monica, CA: Children’s Partnership.
13.
Longworth, N. (1999). Making lifelong learning work: Learning cities for a learning century. London: Kogan Page.
14.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
15.
Morino, M. (2001). From access to outcomes: Raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income communities. Reston, VA: Morino Institute.
16.
Rowland, F., & Volet, S. (1996). Self-direction in community learning: A case study. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 36(2), 89-102.
17.
Servon, L. J., & Horrigan, J. B. (1997). Urban poverty and access to information technology: A role for local government. Journal of Urban Technology, 4(3), 61-81.
18.
Servon, L. J., & Nelson, M. K. (2001). Community technology centers and the urban technology gap. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 419-426.
19.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
