Title: Effect of the “Digital Divide” in a University Campus.

Author: William Kennedy

Student ID: 0726885

Word Count (Not inc Appendices): 2000

Introduction:

In the modern information age we often make assumptions about the level of access that

people have to Information Technologies and ICTs. However, I feel that this assumption is

severely flawed and fails to take into consideration the needs of the economically

disadvantaged. Are those not trained to use such technologies at a disadvantage in the modern

University campus? The purpose of this study is to gauge the ICT literacy of the modern

university student (in the University of Limerick) and to discuss any correlations which may

arise between a student’s economic status, access to information technologies and effect on

grades.

Literature Review:

There is quite a large body of work in relation to the Digital Divide, and I also found a

number of reports which dealt with it directly in relation to College/Universities (Bisto,

2000). Bisto found that the ability of a student to find, manage and evaluate various sources

of information are vital for academic success in the modern age, and so often now the

Internet is the best source. However, studies have shown that there is still a huge gap between

those who have access to information technologies (and the skills to use them), and those that

don’t. This is known as the “Digital Divide” (Lentz, B., Straubhaar, J., LaPastina, A., Main,

S., & Taylor, J. (2000). In their paper, “The role of public access centers in the "digital

divide"”, Lentz, Straubhaar, LaPastina, Main and Taylor point out that “as public access

becomes available in libraries and community centers, it will be sought out by people in
minority and low income communities.” I feel that this may also be the case within

University libraries. The paper “Closing the Digital Divide” (Policy Action Team 15 (U.K.),

2000) deals specifically with the digital divide in economically depressed areas, and while

students from these areas might not make up a majority of students on a campus, they must

not be ignored. The report states specifically that “People who live in deprived

neighbourhoods are less likely to be able to use the most common methods of training or

points of access to ICTs. This presents particular problems.”

The UK Policy Action Team 15 found a number of barriers of entry for those who wish to

avail of ICTs:

– Lack of Joined Up Approach in Policy Making.

– Promotion and awareness of ICT services.

– Physical barriers to access such as opening times, security, location and childcare.

– Competency of staff.

– Funding.

– Costs and Perceived Costs.

(Policy Action Team 15, (U.K.), 2000)

The P.A.T.15 concluded that “For ICT programmes to be successful they need local ICT

champions and mentors who are drawn from the same background as the community they

serve”.

Methods:

In compiling this report, I surveyed members of the University of Limerick student body on

their knowledge of ICTs, access to ICTs, average QCA so far in their course and whether

they were availing of a third level grant. The last question was included as a rudimentary
measure of the subjects economic background. I chose to use a survey rather than interviews

because I wanted to get a general view of the ICT literacy of the students as a population

rather than specific cases.

The sampling frame used was students of University of Limerick, which has in excess of

12,000 students. When handing out the survey I wanted a sample size of at least 35 people

and was pleased to receive exactly this many responses on my first attempt without any

unusable surveys.

To get a relatively random sample I chose to hand out the survey personally in the UL library

and offer help in filling it out if required. While handing out the survey I made an effort to

receive a roughly equal gender balance. The survey was handed out on a Wednesday evening,

around 6pm in the UL library (4th November 2009) and the students I asked seemed more

than willing to cooperate. I felt that the library was an appropriate venue for the survey as it is

a location where almost every student will study, particularly around the mid-term exams. I

chose the evening because I felt I was most likely to find students who were studying at the

end of the day. I also felt that it would be less intrusive to hand out surveys in the evening

rather than when students are busy during the day.

However in retrospect I feel that the sample size of 35 people was not really enough to draw

significant results from. I also feel that I may have been mistaken in conducting the study

within the UL library because this is a venue where students are for the most part already

using University computers or their own laptops. There was therefore a bias towards

technical literacy and laptop ownership which might not be shared throughout the university

population as a whole.

Age Group of Respondents (Fig. 1)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18-21 16 45.7 45.7 45.7

22-23 10 28.6 28.6 74.3

24-30 6 17.1 17.1 91.4

Older than
3 8.6 8.6 100.0
30

Total 35 100.0 100.0

As shown in Fig. 1, almost half of the sample surveyed were between the ages of 18-21, with

a drop-off in percentage in the older groups. I feel that this is quite accurate to the university

population in general and was not surprised by these results. In Fig. 2, you can see that there

is roughly a 60-40 split between female and male respondents, with more women responding

than men. Again I’m not terribly surprised by this statistic as although I attempted to get a

relatively even sample there were undoubtedly more women present in the library than men

when I conducted the survey.

Gender of Respondents (Fig. 2)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Male 15 42.9 42.9 42.9

Female 20 57.1 57.1 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

From Fig. 3, you can see that there was quite an even spread of college years surveyed.

However I would have liked to have seen a larger number of postgraduates included,

however I feel that the number I received is probably representative of the student body as a

whole.

Year of College of Respondents (Fig. 3)

 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 1st Year 7 20.0 20.0 20.0

2nd Year 5 14.3 14.3 34.3

3rd Year 9 25.7 25.7 60.0

4th Year 11 31.4 31.4 91.4

Postgraduate 3 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

Results:

To gain a general overview of student attitude and knowledge of ICTs, I surveyed

proficiencies in a number of key ICT areas:

– Web Browsers

– Windows Vista

– E-mail

– Word Processing

– Spreadsheets

– HTML

– Mac OS X

– Linux

These were chosen they are all of the technologies which would be used with any regularity

in every University course and were ordered in terms of how often I felt they would be used

by the average student. I found that most students would describe themselves as having either

a Basic Knowledge or Working Knowledge of Web Browsers (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4
The results were similar for proficiencies in E-mail, Word Processing, Spreadsheets and E-

mail with almost everyone claiming to have either a basic or working knowledge of these

technologies and a number claiming to be experts in E-mail technology. This shows that the

knowledge of essential office application necessary for University work was quite high for

the sample surveyed. However, when I looked at the less common technologies such as

HTML, Linux and Mac OS X, I found that proficiency was quite low. (Fig 5)
Fig. 5
I feel this shows that students are still lacking in familiarity with more advanced or

specialised ICTs. From Fig. 6 we can see that there is no discernable relationship between

Year of College and knowledge of these technologies. This tells me that there is a general

lack of knowledge in these areas within the University.

Fig. 6
Proficiency with Mac OSX * Year of College Crosstabulation

Count

Year of College

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Postgraduate Total

Proficiency Never Used

with Mac 3 3 7 6 1 20
OSX

Occasionally Used 2 1 0 1 1 5
 Basic Knowledge 0 0 2 2 1 5

Working Knowledge 2 1 0 1 0 4

Expert 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 7 5 9 11 3 35

While not universally used, technologies such as Linux and Mac OS X are becoming more

and more prevalent every day. Mac OS X is present on almost all Apple devices in some

form, including the iPod and iPhone while Linux is both important within the Programming

and Computer Science fields, and becoming widely used as a ‘Netbook’ operating system.

Therefore it is worrying that students seem to have no knowledge of these technologies and

there may be policy implications for introducing literacy in these technologies to the general

University populace.

As can be seen seen from Fig. 7, 40 percent of those surveyed were in receipt of a

maintenance grant from either a local government authority or the university.

Fig. 7

I cross-tabulated this with the students average QPV (QCA) and found some interesting

results as seen in Fig. 8

Fig 8.

As can be seen in this table, Students in receipt of an academic grant seemed to receive a

lower QCA than those not in receipt of a grant, with none of these students receiving the

highest bracket QCA and the vast majority lying in the two lowest brackets. Students not in

receipt of a grant however were mainly centred in the two middle brackets, with 5.7% of

those surveyed claiming to have the highest bracket of QCA. This seems to show that

students from a lower economic bracket tend to do less well in University.

Figure 9 demonstrates that students in receipt of an academic grant are more likely to want to

use University PC’s for academic work, while Fig. 10 shows that students who are in receipt
Fig. 9

of an academic grant are just as likely as not to have a PC in their college residence while

students not in receipt of such a grant are more likely not to have such a PC in their residence.

However we can see in Fig. 11 that these students are slightly more likely to own a laptop

than students in receipt of a grant. In general though, Fig. 11 shows that the vast majority of

students surveyed seem to own a laptop of some sort.

Fig.12 shows that students with at least a basic knowledge of spreadsheet software seem to do

better in college than those who have no knowledge of these technologies and this trend

seems to continue throughout the rest of the proficiencies (see charts in appendices) The main

exception are the cases of the advanced technologies, with the ‘A’ students never having used

either Mac or Linux.

Fig. 11
Fig 12

Conclusion:
In conclusion, I found that although student access and familiarity with ICTs was stronger

than I expected, there is still a severe lack of knowledge of more advanced and specialised

technologies such as Linux, HTML and Mac OS X which are becoming more and more

commonplace both in the technology field and indeed everyday life. I feel that universities

should encourage competency in these areas going forward. Measures such as compulsory

introductory classes in these areas are one such method to encourage basic competency.
In terms of economic disadvantage, I found that students in receipt of academic grants are

more likely to struggle in a university environment. Students with at least a basic

understanding of basic office software such as word processing and e-mail seem to do better

than those without this knowledge and therefore there is a case for providing increased ICT

help and support on the university campus.

References:
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods United States: Oxford University Press Inc.

Hassan, R. (2008) The Information Society (Digital Media and Society Series) Cambridge:

Polity Press

Lentz, B., Straubhaar,J., LaPastina, A., Main, S., & Taylor, J. (2000). Structuringaccess:

The Role of Public Access Centers in the “Digital Divide”Austin, Texas: University of Texas

Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute.

Web: http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/reports/joe_ICA.pdf

Policy Action Team 15 (U.K.). (2000) Closing The Digital Divide: information and

Communication technologies in deprived areas.: U.K. Department of Trade.

Web: http://timbooktoo.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pat_report_1520pdf.pdf

Bruce, C. (2002) Information Literacy as a Catalyst for Educational Change: A Background

Paper, Prague, Czech Republic: Proceedings Information Literacy Meeting of Experts

Web: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4977/1/4977_1.pdf

Bitso, L. (2002) Investigating information literacy skills and academic results of

undergraduate students.: South Africa, Innovation

Web: http://www.innovation.ukzn.ac.za/InnovationPdfs/No21pp29-32Bitso.pdf

Appendices:

Survey:
Survey of access and familiarity of College Students with Information Technologies and the effect of this on
Student Academic Progress.
The survey is part of a research project for my course of study in U.L. The purpose of this questionnaire is to
study how access to information technologies affect academic progress in University.
The survey will take no longer than 5 minutes. The information provided by you in this questionnaire will be
used for research purposes. It will not be used in a manner which allows identification of your individual
responses. Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at anytime.
If there are any other concerns or questions please feel free to email my lecturer Dr. Carmel Hannan
(carmel.hannan@ul.ie) or my tutor Pierce Parker (pierce.parker@ul.ie).
Thank you for your cooperation.
Please tick in the appropriate box

1. Do you consent to take part in this survey? Yes □ No □

2. Are you Male □ Female □
3. Which age group do you fit into? 18-21 □ 22-23 □ 24-30 □ older than 30 □
4. What year are you in, in college?

1st □ 2nd □ 3rd □ 4th□ Postgraduate □

5. How would you describe your proficiency in the following technologies, on a scale from 1
to 5 (1 being Never used, 5 being Expert).
12345

Web Browsers □ □ □ □ □
E-Mail □ □ □ □ □
Word Processor □ □ □ □ □
Spreadsheets □ □ □ □ □
HTML □ □ □ □ □
Windows Vista/XP □ □ □ □ □
Mac OS X □ □ □ □ □
Linux □ □ □ □ □
Please Tick the best answer in the following Questions:
6. Do you own a Laptop?

Yes □ No □
7. Do you have access to a Desktop PC in your college residence?

Yes □ No □
8. Do you use the University PC’s (in the library for example) for studying and report
writing?

Yes □ No □
9. Do you Prefer to use the College or Home PC/Laptop when studying or doing academic
work?

Home PC □ Laptop □ College Computer □

10. Have you ever received any formal training in Information Technologies?

Yes □ No □
11. Do you own a Mobile Phone?

Yes □ No □
12. Do you own an MP3 player?

Yes □ No □
13. Do you own a device which can access the Web, other than a PC or Laptop?

Yes □ No □
14. Have you ever been in receipt of an Academic Grant, from either a county council or
University?

Yes □ No □
To the best of your knowledge, what is your average QPV?

1.20 – 1.99 □ 2.00 – 2.79 □ 2.8 – 3.59 □ 3.6 – 4 □

Thank you for participating in this research.
Charts

Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 15 42.9 42.9 42.9
Female 20 57.1 57.1 100.0
Total 35 100.0 100.0

Age Group

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 18-21 16 45.7 45.7 45.7

22-23 10 28.6 28.6 74.3

24-30 6 17.1 17.1 91.4

Older than
3 8.6 8.6 100.0
30

Total 35 100.0 100.0

 Year of College

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 1st Year 7 20.0 20.0 20.0

2nd Year 5 14.3 14.3 34.3

3rd Year 9 25.7 25.7 60.0

4th Year 11 31.4 31.4 91.4

Postgraduate 3 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

Ever been in receipt of an Academic Grant from either County

Council or University

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Yes 14 40.0 40.0 40.0

No 21 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

 Proficiency with Linux * Year of College Crosstabulation
Count
Year of College
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Year Year Year Year Postgraduate Total
Proficiency with Never Used 5 4 5 6 2 22
Linux Occasionally Used 1 1 3 3 0 8
Basic Knowledge 0 0 1 0 1 2
Working
1 0 0 1 0 2
Knowledge
Expert 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 7 5 9 11 3 35

Proficiency with Mac OSX * Year of College Crosstabulation

Count
Year of College
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Year Year Year Year Postgraduate Total
Proficiency with Mac Never Used 3 3 7 6 1 20
OSX Occasionally
2 1 0 1 1 5
Used
Basic Knowledge 0 0 2 2 1 5
Working
2 1 0 1 0 4
Knowledge
Expert 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 7 5 9 11 3 35