Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education by Maura A. Smale, Mariana Regalado (Auth.)

Digital Technology as Affordance
and Barrier in Higher Education

Maura A. Smale • Mariana Regalado
Digital Technology
as Affordance and
Barrier in Higher
Education
Maura A. Smale Mariana Regalado
New York City College of Technology Brooklyn College
City University of New York City University of New York
Brooklyn, New York, USA Brooklyn, New York, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-48907-0 ISBN 978-3-319-48908-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016957751
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Cover pattern © Harvey Loake
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Jonathan and Greg
And for Gus, William, and Charlotte,
who will be college students soon!
And for Jill, who worked so hard last summer
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to the 743 students and 140 faculty we interviewed or

who completed our questionnaire for this project at Brooklyn College and
New York City College of Technology in 2009–2010; at Borough of
Manhattan Community College, Bronx Community College, The City
College of New York, and Hunter College in 2010–2011; and at BMCC,
Brooklyn College, and City Tech in 2015–2016. We thank them for their
generosity in sharing their time and experiences with us, and we appreciate
the opportunities that this project has provided us to better understand
the students we serve and to make improvements in our libraries and on
our campuses. Sincere thanks are also due to our research assistants
Christopher Baum, Rachel Daniell, Jay Blair, and Brenna McCaffrey for
their work on this project, especially their many hours spent on transcrip-
tion. We are also grateful for the assistance of our library faculty colleagues
at BMCC, Bronx CC, City College, and Hunter College in facilitating our
interviews with students and faculty at those campuses.
Our work has been supported by grants from the City University of
New York PSC-CUNY Research Award program, a CUNY Fellowship
Leave, and Professional Reassignment Leave. We thank the administration
and our colleagues on our own campuses and in our libraries for their
support during our research.
A few passages in Chapters 1 and 2, as well as much of the description of
our earlier research methods in the Appendix, were previously published in
articles we wrote for EDUCAUSE Review Online, Urban Library Journal,
and College & Research Libraries. We would like to thank the editors and
vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
anonymous peer reviewers who provided us with thoughtful feedback for

those articles.
As this research project has developed over the years, we have been
lucky to work with many talented colleagues at CUNY, in academic
librarianship, and beyond. We thank Nancy Foster for sparking our initial
interest in the study of undergraduate academic culture, and Lesley
Gourlay for her encouragement to write up our research on students’
use of technology as this book. Our long-time collaborations and con-
versations with Andrew Asher and Donna Lanclos have made our research
stronger (and much more enjoyable!), and we look forward to our con-
tinuing work together.
Data from the student SMS survey in fall 2015 was gathered as part of a
larger project, and we are thankful to be collaborating with Project
Director Andrew Asher and our fellow research team members: Jean
Amaral, Juliann Couture, Barbara Fister, Donna Lanclos, and Sara Lowe.
Any project of this length will necessarily spawn conversations both
formal and informal, and we are indebted to our many CUNY colleagues
who have helped us think through this work over the years. Many thanks
are due to Jean Amaral at BMCC for partnering with us on the 2015–
2016 data collection. Alycia Sellie suggested that we have students draw
maps of their days rather than trace them onto campus maps, and we are so
glad that she did. We have benefitted from ongoing conversations with
Frans Albarillo, Jill Cirasella, Beth Evans, and Helen Georgas throughout
the years of our research, especially in considering how our lessons learned
can be applied at our own colleges. We have also appreciated conversations
about students’ use of technology with Matt Gold, Jody Rosen, and Luke
Waltzer, and with the spring 2014 and spring 2016 cohorts of the CUNY
Graduate Center’s Interactive Technology & Pedagogy program.
Jonathan Miller provided thoughtful feedback on our manuscript
(twice!), and we appreciate his sharp eyes and red pen. Our families have
our sincere gratitude for their patience and support while we wrote,
especially on the weekends and during summer vacations. We couldn’t
have done this without them.
Any errors of fact or omission are, of course, our own.
CONTENTS
1 Situating College Students and Technology 1
2 College Students and Fixed Technology 23
3 College Students and Mobile Technology 41
4 College Students, Technology, and Time 57
5 Recommendations for Technology in Higher Education 73
Appendix: Research Methodology 89
Index 99
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Off-campus internet access for CUNY undergraduates, 2010

and 2014 (CUNY OIRA 2016a, b). 27
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus (CUNY OIRA

2016a) 12
Table 2.1 US personal computer ownership, adults over 18 years old,
2015 (Anderson 2015, 7–8) 25
Table 2.2 Student use of personal computers, questionnaire responses
from Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015 26
Table 3.1 US mobile device ownership, adults over 18 years old, 2015
(Anderson 2015, 7, 10, 11) 43
Table 3.2 Student use of mobile devices, questionnaire responses from
Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015 44
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Situating College Students and Technology
Abstract All US college students use digital technologies in their aca-

demic work, so understanding their experience using both their personal
and campus technology is vital to supporting student success. Despite a
widely held view of college students as “digital natives” proficient in the
use of digital technology, undergraduates do not all share the same
technology background or own and use technology to the same extent.
Further, the mainstream media focuses on the experiences of residential
students at research-intensive or private colleges and universities, though
commuter and nontraditional students make up the majority of US under-
graduates. Using qualitative methods and insights from the social sciences,
this study at the City University of New York explores how commuter and
nontraditional students are actually using technology for their
coursework.
Keywords Undergraduates Commuter students Nontraditional

students Digital technology Digital literacy Digital divide Student
experience
Chandni1 is an 18-year-old sophomore at New York City College of

Technology (City Tech) who we met in fall 2015 when she participated
in our study of how students use technology for their academic work.
Majoring in liberal arts, Chandni lives in Queens and attends college full
© The Author(s) 2017 1

M.A. Smale, M. Regalado, Digital Technology as Affordance and
Barrier in Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7_1
2 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AS AFFORDANCE AND BARRIER IN HIGHER EDUCATION
time, commuting to her classes at City Tech in Brooklyn 4 days a week.

Her commute begins at about 8:30 a.m. when she gets on a crowded
subway train for the 45–60-minute trip to school. In the mornings, she
tries to spend her commute reading course materials or studying notes on
her smartphone, though on the rare occasion that she gets a seat she
sometimes takes a quick nap to catch up on sleep. Her phone is light-
weight enough that she can study even standing up on a crowded train,
reading and reviewing her course materials. Sometimes she buys her
course textbooks, and sometimes she borrows a reserve textbook from
the library, but she never brings the heavy books to school, preferring to
use her phone’s camera to take and store pictures of the pages she needs to
read. To use her phone for studying without internet access, she told us,
“Since I don’t have wifi underground, I screenshot certain things that
I need to study.”
On the day we spoke with her, Chandni headed first to the City Tech
library’s computer lab to work on a paper for her child psychology course,
which she finished and printed in between her other classes. She usually
studies either in the library or in one of the campus computer labs. While
she does have a computer at home, she told us that she couldn’t use it
because “it’s totally messed up because of some virus issue, so I have to get
pretty much everything done at school.” Her sister also has a computer
but won’t let her use it; while Chandni has a tablet computer, she only
uses it occasionally to type up short assignments in the notepad application
since it doesn’t have a word processing application. Chandni always prints
on campus as there is no printer for her to use at home.
At 7:00 p.m., after finishing with her day on campus going to classes,
studying, and hanging out with friends, Chandni heads back to Queens
for her part-time job as a tutor for high school students in her neighbor-
hood. By the time she gets home around 11:00 p.m. that night, her
parents and two siblings are winding down their days. She eats some
dinner before settling into a session of math homework—both with her
textbook and with internet videos to help her work through challenging
concepts—punctuated by talking with friends on her phone. Chandni
shares a one-bedroom apartment with her family and finds it easier to do
her academic work at school since space at home is limited. As well, she
told us that when she studies on her bed it’s easy to fall asleep. In fact,
studying at home is so challenging that she sometimes makes the
90-minute round trip commute into City Tech to use computers, study,
and do homework even on a day when she doesn’t have any classes.
1 SITUATING COLLEGE STUDENTS AND TECHNOLOGY 3
As we see in Chandni’s story, access to and use of digital technology is an

integral feature of the student experience of higher education in twenty-first-
century USA. However, despite the tech-savvy image propagated by the
media, not all American college students own and use digital technology to
the same extent.
In this book, we explore college students’ lived experiences in using
digital technology for their academic work: both in and out of class, both
on and off campus. We consider students’ uses of technology in support of
their coursework—personal computers, mobile devices, and printers—rather
than digital technology use in the classroom. We show that the ways in which
undergraduates use digital technology go beyond checking their grades on
the learning management system or emailing a professor. In particular, we
examine how students—and especially urban commuter students—use digi-
tal technology to create space and time for their schoolwork. At the same
time, digital technology can present unanticipated barriers to students that
impede their academic work and restrict their opportunities for making space
and time for themselves. Understanding how students use digital technology
in the context of their coursework is crucial for colleges and universities to
better support students in their academic careers.
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

There is no question that computing and mobile devices in particular are
thoroughly integrated into our lives, and no less in the realm of higher
education. A recent article claims, “Digital technology is the fabric of
nearly everything associated with teaching and learning” (Brown 2015,
18). From ubiquitous word processing to online course registration to
accessing library databases from home, students, faculty, administrators,
and staff rely on a wide range of computing devices and related applica-
tions in practically every aspect of the higher education endeavor. Digital
technology is also found in the classroom proper, with computer-enabled
podiums, projection screens, and full computer classrooms. Learning
management systems can augment and extend the classroom as well as
provide a platform for online courses. The possibility that a US under-
graduate could move through her college career without being required to
use digital technology in support of her coursework has vanished in the
last decade.
A number of themes are notable in the American conversation on digital
technology in higher education. Most recently, the potential for information
technology to provide a more customized experience for students—“a

learning ecosystem that is responsive and can be personalized”—has been
claimed to encourage student success (Brown 2015, 18). The possibilities
for using student data collected by the institution, by learning management
systems, and by other technology used by students have initiated a conversa-
tion on the potential benefits of learning analytics, defined as “analytics
aimed at learner profiling, a process of gathering and analyzing details of
individual student interactions in online learning activities” (Johnson et al.
2016, 38). Digital technology can provide immediate feedback on assign-
ments and assessments, as well as more targeted interventions such as alert-
ing a student and her advisor if the student’s grade drops. The potential for
these and other innovations in teaching, pedagogy, and student affairs to
contribute to academic persistence and graduation rates is often highlighted
in discussions of digital technology in higher education.
Given its ubiquity in our society, mobile digital technology is also
assumed to be integral to the future of higher education. Recent surveys
from the Pew Research Center (Pew) reveal that most college students in
the USA own at least one mobile device, typically a smartphone (Smith,
Rainie and Zickuhr 2011). While the level of integration of students’
personal mobile devices into their education varies widely across and
within institutions, the availability of wireless internet access on campus
all but guarantees that students who own these devices will use them at
school (diFilipo 2013). Mobile devices have been promoted as a cost-
effective way to incorporate students’ own devices into higher education,
for example, some faculty have experimented with ways to integrate
smartphones into classes as student polling or response technology
(Kelly 2015b, 5). Portable computing may also aid in personalization
efforts by facilitating more immediate contact with students. Overall,
institutions are encouraged to “broker services that help students, faculty
and staff assemble the right portfolio of technology, services and resources
to accomplish their work, no matter whether they are ‘owned’ by the
institution or not” (Kelly 2015a, 2).
A great deal of ink has been spilled about digital technology in higher
education in the mainstream news media (Davis 2014; Lewin 2011),
information technology trade publications (Will 2016; Brown 2015),
and higher education media (Blumenstyk 2016; Kim 2016). Reports
and white papers that discuss trends and predictions in information tech-
nology in higher education appear at least annually (Johnson et al. 2016;
CDE 2014). While some reports of trends, predictions, and new products
do acknowledge some of the constraints of digital technology in higher

education, they are most often wrapped in strongly positive language,
often with little consideration of possible negative aspects of technology
in colleges and universities (Dahlstrom et al. 2015). The media fore-
grounds the corporate perspective in information technology and its
focus on the next big thing in gadgets, insisting, for example, that
“consumer technology trends are driving the enterprise, with the indivi-
dual student the primary driver of product” (Kelly 2015a, 5). As well,
many institutions’ strategic plans reference these trends.
THE TROPE OF THE DIGITAL NATIVE

Many current and future plans for digital technology on campus are
predicated on a generally accepted view of college students as “tech
savvy,” which both fuels a sense of inevitability and undergirds assump-
tions about student success. A pervasive concept in current discussions of
digital technology in higher education is the trope of the “digital native.”
The term was originally coined by Prensky (2001) to describe college
students who had grown up with ubiquitous digital technology: compu-
ters, video games, and the internet. Inherent in the trope of the “digital
native” is the belief that college students in the twenty-first century are
fundamentally different from those who came before, and that their skill
and competency with digital technology is a given, to be assumed. Like
the technology enthusiasm discussed above, the trope of the digital native
is widely accepted and is now a common feature of many mainstream and
educational news media discussions of education at all levels, from ele-
mentary through post-secondary. The breadth of acceptance of the idea-
lized digital native college student can also be seen in its inclusion in
strategic plans at many colleges and universities.
Its pervasive acceptance notwithstanding, the concept of the digital native
has been problematized by many researchers and with increasing frequency
in recent years, who argue that there is little evidence to support it (Selwyn
2014a, 75–78; Wright et al. 2014, 136). Despite what seems like constant
connection to friends and family via text messaging and social networks,
students’ experience of and preparation for using technology in their
academic work is uneven. Research has shown that not all undergraduates
use digital technology the same way or feel equally comfortable with the
technology they must use, especially for their academic work. A recent
survey from the EDUCAUSE Center for Education and Analysis (ECAR)
found that undergraduates expressed a desire to increase both their basic

technology skills and their proficiency with specific applications for their
academic work, findings that “challenge the notion that students inherently
know how to use technology” (Dahlstrom and Bichsel 2014, 34). The
potential consequences of misunderstanding student preparation or access
to digital technology are all too real because assumptions inherent in
the rhetoric of digital natives can set students up for failure. As Lanclos
(2016) has noted, “If your university philosophy is grounded in assump-
tions around digital natives, education and technology, you’re presupposing
you don’t have to teach the students how to use tech (sic) for their
education.”
Unrealistic expectations about what college students know and are
prepared to do with digital technology may especially affect undergradu-
ates who have had limited access and training during elementary and
secondary school (Bennett and Maton 2010; Rideout and Katz
2016, 39). Students from economically disadvantaged households typi-
cally have less access to digital technology in their homes as computers and
internet access may be cost-prohibitive for them and their families
(Bennett and Maton 2010, 5; Rideout and Katz 2016, 5–6). A recent
study found that students from “families with the lowest incomes and
where parents have less education” have the weakest digital skills, which
puts them at a disadvantage in using technology in college compared to
students from more economically or educationally privileged backgrounds
(Rideout and Katz 2016, 5–6). Lack of experience in using digital tech-
nology for academic work is cause for concern. Research points to a
“second-level digital divide” wherein students may lack skills in using
the digital technology they do have access to, pointing out that “profi-
ciency matters” (Hargittai and Hinnant 2008, 109). Indeed, a survey of
the literature found that there is evidence for “the crucial role of digital
skills in differentiating internet users’ opportunities to enhance their life
chances” (Hsieh 2012).
THE PROBLEM OF POSITIVITY IN DISCUSSIONS

OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
Scholars have expressed concern with the relentlessly positive ways that
academic and news media portray digital technology in higher education.
Selwyn (2010; 2014b) notes that many publications uncritically celebrate
the benefits of digital technology for education, including “assumptions

within the education community that digital technologies . . . are reconfigur-
ing substantially the processes and practices of education” (68; 199). Watters
concurs and extends this critique to suggest that we in higher education are
often drawn to think “that technology is inevitable, that technology is
wrapped up in our notions of progress, and that somehow progress is
inevitable itself and is positive” (Young 2016). Discussions of the opportu-
nities that digital technology can offer for individualized and self-paced—as
well as self-motivated—learning at colleges and universities, and in locations
and at times that are most convenient to the student, are among the most
pervasive (Brown 2015, 18; Selwyn 2014b, 199–200).
However, research has shown that students do not always use digital
technology for the full range of experiences that are theoretically possible
and are often not deeply engaged in individualized and self-paced learning
(Henderson et al. 2015, 9–10). For example, the excitement several years
ago over the emergence of the MOOC—massive online open courses that
promised to make self-directed higher education more widely available—
has given way to the reality of low course completion rates and the
subsequent reconfiguration of many MOOCs as a path for job skills
training (Lewin 2012; Watters 2015). Selwyn (2012) reminds us that
technological determinism—the assumption that more technology
makes things better—is both “misleadingly reductive” and also ignores
“gender, race, social class, identity, power, [and] inequality” (83). He has
consistently called for more critical studies of the use of digital technology
in education and suggests that more research is needed to explore the ways
that digital technology is actually being used by students and in higher
education more broadly (for further discussion, see Selwyn 2014b, Selwyn
and Facer 2013, and Selwyn 2010).
We too are concerned that the realities of digital technology use in
education are more complex than is generally assumed and “include basic
questions of equality and diversity concerning who is (and who is not)
doing what with which digital technologies” (Selwyn 2014b, 209). To
what degree are unqualified positive views of digital technology shifting
the responsibility for ownership of, access to, and competencies in this
technology onto students, who may or may not be able to take them on?
Many of the structures of higher education replicate systemic inequalities
of our broader society, and while the use of digital technology by college
and university students may ideally be intended to resist and dismantle
these inequalities, it may reinforce them instead.
Media attention to digital technology in higher education is especially

focused on elite residential colleges and universities, and very little
research has examined the ways that students at universities like our own
City University of New York (CUNY)—public, urban, commuter colleges
with a large and socioeconomically diverse population of undergraduates
—use technology to accomplish their schoolwork. To resist the often
unchecked enthusiasm for academic technology and the digital native
trope and to convey a clearer picture of the complexities, successes, and
frustrations of being an undergraduate today, we present a case study of
our research into students’ everyday lived experiences using technology
for their academic work.
NONTRADITIONAL AND COMMUTER STUDENTS IN THE USA

Higher education in the USA is almost universally portrayed through the
experience of students ages 18–24 at residential colleges and universities
living on campuses well provided with dormitories, libraries, laboratories,
and athletic facilities. But despite this outsized presence in the mainstream
news and entertainment media, not all students fit the traditional model of
transitioning directly from high school to a 4-year, residential institution
(Casselman 2016; Brown 2016; Johnson 2013; McMillan Cottom 2013).
In fact, residential undergraduates represent a very small percentage of the
total number of students in college, and most US undergraduates are non-
traditional students, or commute to classes, or both. Community colleges—
which typically lack residence halls—educate nearly half of all students in the
USA, and many public 4-year institutions also have substantial numbers of
commuters and nontraditional students (AACC 2016).
The U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2015) uses
the following set of attributes to define a nontraditional college student:
Being independent for financial aid purposes, having one or more depen-
dents, being a single caregiver, not having a traditional high school diploma,
delaying postsecondary enrollment, attending school part time, and being
employed full time. (1)
In 2011–2012, fully 74% of US undergraduates “had at least one non-

traditional characteristic” as defined by NCES. This percentage has held
relatively constant over the past two decades: the proportion of nontradi-
tional students was 70% in 1995–1996 (1).
About 85% of US students commute to college (Dugan et al. 2008,

283). While the category of commuter student encompasses much het-
erogeneity, “they are distinct from resident students in a fundamental
way: for them, home and campus are not synonymous” (Jacoby and
Garland 2004, 62). Residential status is not considered a characteristic
of nontraditional students, though there is significant overlap between
nontraditional and commuter students. Overall commuter students are
more likely than residential students to be of the first generation in their
families to attend college, to be older than traditional college-aged stu-
dents, to work more hours, and to attend college part time (Newbold
et al. 2011, 149–151; Kuh et al. 2001, 5). They may live with family
members or dependents, with roommates, or alone (Dugan et al. 2008,
284).
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE 2016) divides
commuter students into those who live within walking distance and
those who live further than walking distance from campus, a distinction
that may accommodate students who begin their college careers by living
in a residence hall and subsequently move to housing off campus.
However, the distinction between driving and walking students is less
relevant in an urban setting in which driving may be less likely and public
transportation is readily available (Clark 2006, 3). Commuting to campus
on mass transit may provide students with an opportunity to work on
schoolwork, as opposed to students who drive to college. The commute to
campus can be a significant investment of students’ time and has been
found by a number of researchers to define and shape the experiences of
commuter students in college; indeed, “the act of commuting in itself is a
prominent feature of commuter students’ college experience” (Jacoby and
Garland 2004; Clark 2006, 3).
The characteristics of both nontraditional and commuter students
can raise barriers to success. Nontraditional students often have multi-
ple life roles—student, worker, caregiver—that can affect the amount of
time available for their academic work. Further, nontraditional students
“can be vulnerable to challenges that can affect their well-being, levels
of stress and satisfaction, [ . . . ] and likelihood of persisting and attain-
ing a degree” (NCES 2015, 1). Researchers concur that students who
commute are much more likely than residential students to have multi-
ple life roles, and that the nonacademic demands of their lives impact
their experiences as college students differently than for residential
students (Clark 2006). Commuter students have been shown to
minimize the amount of time they spend on campus and may be less
involved in college-related activities (Newbold et al. 2011, 144). When
they are on campus, many commuter students spend much of their
time negotiating obstacles, including finding places to create academic
and nonacademic space (Clark 2006).
With growing urban populations nationwide and around the world, the
urban, commuter, nontraditional student is the present and the future of
undergraduate education (Florida 2016). It is critically important for
administrators, faculty, and staff to understand these students’ experiences
in order to best support them through their college careers. If digital
technology can be used to add flexibility of time and space to students’
academic work, nontraditional and commuter students may especially
benefit from its affordances (and be impacted by its barriers). To under-
stand the use of digital technology by undergraduates for their academic
work, especially nontraditional and commuter students, we undertook a
study at our own institution, the City University of New York, the largest
urban public university in the USA.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: THE CITY UNIVERSITY

OF NEW YORK
Student demographics at CUNY reflect the university’s mission to provide

affordable opportunities for higher education to historically underserved
populations in New York City. Further, CUNY’s diverse urban student
body represents the future of American demographics: more racially and
ethnically diverse, older, and increasingly urban (United States Census
Bureau 2012a, b). The roots of CUNY lie in the Free Academy, founded
in 1847; CUNY was established as a multi-institution university in 1961
(CUNY 2016). In fall 2015, the university enrolled 245,279 undergrad-
uate students at seven senior (baccalaureate) colleges, four comprehensive
colleges, seven community colleges, and one fully online college, as well as
29,078 graduate students across a number of schools and programs
(CUNY OIRA 2016e). The university has a long history of open admis-
sions for students. Currently, the community colleges and some programs
in the comprehensive colleges have open admissions, while there is greater
selectivity at the senior colleges. Transfer rates within CUNY are high and
many students begin their studies at a community college before transfer-
ring to a senior college (Wrigley 2010).
Undergraduates at CUNY mirror the extraordinary diversity of New

York City demographics. In fall 2014, 37% of undergraduates were born
outside of the mainland USA, and 43% of undergraduates spoke a home
language other than English. Self-reported races and ethnicities of under-
graduates in fall 2014 were 30.7% Hispanic, 26.1% black, 23.1% white,
19.8% Asian, and 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native. Many CUNY
undergraduates can be appropriately described as nontraditional students:
26.7% are over the age of 25, 35.1% attend college part time, and 30.2%
work at a job more than 20 hours per week. Just over 42% of students at
the CUNY colleges are in the first generation of their families to attend
college; 38.5% report a household income of less than $20,000 per year,
and 57.9% receive Federal Pell Grants to cover some or all of their college
tuition (CUNY OIRA 2015).
CUNY schools are located throughout all five boroughs of New York
City. Our research involved three senior colleges, Brooklyn College, The
City College of New York (City College), and Hunter College; one com-
prehensive college, New York City College of Technology (City Tech);
and two community colleges, Bronx Community College (Bronx CC) and
Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC). In 2009–2010, we
undertook a pilot study at Brooklyn College and City Tech, our home
campuses, and we expanded to the additional four colleges in 2010–2011.
We also completed a follow-up study in 2015–2016 at Brooklyn College,
City Tech, and BMCC. The CUNY Office of Institutional Research
(CUNY OIRA 2016a, c, d, e) collects information about CUNY colleges
and students that provides useful background to our study.
Of the three senior colleges where we did this research, two are located
in Manhattan (City College, Hunter College) and one in Brooklyn
(Brooklyn College). All three offer programs in the liberal arts and
sciences and professional studies; each also serves a smaller population of
master’s students.2 In general, students at these three colleges are more
likely to attend college full time and somewhat more likely to have an
annual household income over $20,000 than students at the other col-
leges we visited. The one comprehensive college in our study, City Tech,
located in downtown Brooklyn, is the technical and professional college of
CUNY, offering associate and baccalaureate degrees. Students there are
more likely than at the three senior colleges to attend college part time and
to be the first generation of their family in college. Two community
colleges, BMCC (located in Manhattan) and Bronx CC, both offer associ-
ate degrees in the liberal arts and sciences that prepare students for transfer
to a baccalaureate college, as well as a range of pre-professional associate

degrees. BMCC and Bronx CC students are more likely than those at the
three senior colleges to be part-time students, to have a household income
of less than $20,000 per year, as well as to be the first generation in their
family to attend college.
CUNY is a commuter institution, and just over 77% of CUNY students
are New York City residents. While there are residence halls at six of the
senior colleges, they house less than 5% of CUNY undergraduates, and
some are actually privately owned dorms with students from a variety of
institutions. Some residence halls are located off campus and require
students to take public transportation to get from the dorm to their
campus. Each of the three senior colleges in our study has one residence
hall; City Tech does not, and, like most community colleges in the USA,
BMCC and Bronx CC also do not have residence halls.
Mass transit can be empowering for all New Yorkers including CUNY
students; it is far less expensive to travel throughout the city on subways
and buses than it is to own and park a car. All CUNY campuses are
accessible via public transportation. Data from CUNY student surveys
reveals that slightly more than half of CUNY students commute between
30 and 60 minutes each way (Table 1.1), while about a quarter each have
commutes shorter than 30 minutes and longer than 60 minutes (CUNY
OIRA 2016a). Note that, depending on the number of days per week
students must come to campus, this may be considerably more than the
average length reported by the NSSE of 5 hours per week for full-time
college seniors who commute (NSSE 2011, 15). While the majority of
CUNY students commute to college from the five boroughs of New
York City, some live in the surrounding suburbs; our interviews suggest
that these students are on the upper end of the time required for travel
to campus.
Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus

(CUNY OIRA 2016a)
0–30 minutes 24%
30–60 minutes 52%
60–90 minutes 19%
90+ minutes 5%
RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Our own backgrounds in anthropology and current work as academic
librarians led to our interest not only in student interaction with the
college library, but also each student’s experiences in the broader context
of her life as a student. As a result, our findings bridge research on student
use of libraries and broader studies of the undergraduate experience,
complementing and extending them.
In analyzing and discussing our data, we draw on theories of space and
time from the social sciences to understand how students use their digital
technology to produce and negotiate academic space, enabling us to con-
sider students in their environment, both on and off campus, to help make
sense of the everyday student experience. In our research, we have asked
students about the role that digital technology plays in their schoolwork. We
learned that sometimes these computing devices serve as affordances, allow-
ing and making it easier for students to complete their work, while at other
times technology is a barrier and source of frustration for them. For the
purposes of this study, we build on definitions of affordance by Gibson and
more recent technology scholars and will use it to refer to the activities that
digital technology makes possible in order to explore the ways in which
students use those computing devices in support of their academic work.
The term affordance was first used by Gibson (2014, originally 1979)
to refer to what it is possible to do with or in an object or environment.
Gibson suggests that the most basic affordances of an object or environ-
ment are generally obvious, and that people modify objects and the
environment in ways that are beneficial to them (56–60). Gibson further
differentiates between objects that are attached and detached and the
different affordances each allows, and especially the option for detached
objects to be portable (57). More recently, researchers have used the
concept of affordances to examine the varied possible uses—and limits—
of technology by different users, the “consideration of the obvious mate-
rial enablements and constraints of technologies” (Selwyn 2012, 89).
These uses are dependent on both the properties of the technology itself,
what the technology makes possible, as well as the abilities, interests, and
training of the user (Neff et al. 2012, 300–301; Faraj and Azad
2012, 251). As Davis (2015) has noted, the concept of affordances applied
to digital technology “give(s) us language to address the push and pull
between technological objects and human users as simultaneously agentic
and influential.”
We have found it useful to differentiate between digital technology that

is mobile and that which is fixed, aligning with Gibson’s use of detached
and attached. We discuss the ways in which students take advantage of
these technologies as well as how they are prevented from doing some-
thing they need or want to do with both mobile and fixed digital technol-
ogy, barriers that may take many forms. Discussions of affordances and
barriers can help us to understand the active role that mobile and fixed
digital technology brings to bear on the creation of space and time for
schoolwork by our students.
The student experience with technology is not a static interaction with
a device. Rather, it is dynamically constructed by the student within her
environments and with different purposes over time.
De Certeau (1984) describes a distinction between place and space that
helps contextualize our analysis (117). He proposes that a place is a
location that has a defined meaning or purpose constituted by socially
derived rules—the bus, the library, the living room—with both implicit
and explicit understandings about its purpose and what represents accep-
table behavior there. It is the activities that occur in these places, both in
the present moment and successively over time, which produce them as
meaningful spaces (117). In other words, space is what we make of a place.
For example, a student may sometimes use her bed, a place, as a study
space by bringing her laptop and books to it. The presence of many
students studying in the academic library establishes and confirms a shared
understanding of the library as a place for study. However, activities that
constitute a space may or may not be congruent with the intended purpose
or the set of rules for that location, and incongruous activities can under-
mine the rules, implicit or explicit, as when overt socializing leads to a
“party” atmosphere in the library.
Ingold’s (1993) notion of taskscape illuminates each student’s experi-
ence of navigating places and constructing them as academic spaces, and
using digital technology to create meaningful academic spaces for herself.
Ingold—an anthropologist by training—coined the term taskscape to
describe “the temporality of the landscape,” suggesting that “as the land-
scape is an array of related features, so, by analogy, the taskscape is an array
of related activities” (158). Ingold further posits that taskscapes are by
necessity social, “because people, in the performance of their tasks, also
attend to one another”; thus, “the taskscape exists not just as activity but as
interactivity” (160, 163; italics in the original). It also follows that multi-
ple actors may be simultaneously engaged in creating different kinds of
meaningful spaces in the same place, creating the possibility of conflict

over who can define how the space in particular locations is used.
The academic taskscape encompasses the totality of the student experi-
ence, including students’ perceptions of their schoolwork, the locations
where their academic work takes place, the tools or support that are
available to them, and the people they interact with along the way. In a
typical day, a student’s academic taskscape might include time at home
reviewing study notes, traveling to campus to attend class at the college, or
going to the library to work on an assignment. The devices that students
use are critical components of the academic taskscape as well. Technology
incorporated into a student’s taskscape might include using a laptop at
home to download materials from the course website, or using a campus
computer in the library to research and download articles that she emails
to her smartphone to read on the subway or at home later.
Temporality is a critical component of the academic taskscape that
manifests itself in the time needed for academic work, including course
schedules, assignment due dates, and the academic calendar. We argue
that the temporal aspect of a student’s academic taskscape—entwined with
the affordances and barriers of the technology she uses—must be consid-
ered in decisions about institutional use of and support for digital tech-
nology for students’ academic work. How do the affordances and barriers
of technology influence decisions each student makes about where and
when to do her academic work, and how do they affect her success as a
student?
During two cycles of qualitative research with CUNY students and
faculty, we sought to understand students’ scholarly habits: how they
found space and made time to do their schoolwork independently outside
of class, including their use of digital technology for coursework, as well as
the challenges and opportunities they encountered.3
Our first cycle of research during the 2009–2011 academic years
involved a total of 178 students and 63 faculty at six CUNY colleges:
Brooklyn College, City College, Hunter College, City Tech, BMCC, and
Bronx CC. To learn about the contours of a typical school day, we asked
students to draw maps of their activities on a day they came to school,
while other students created photo diaries of objects and locations related
to academic work and scholarly habits. To learn how students approached
their course-related research, we conducted retrospective research process
interviews in which we asked students to recall the steps they had taken to
complete a recent research project. We also conducted open-ended
interviews with faculty members at each college to explore their expecta-

tions and experiences working with students on these assignments.
To continue to explore the undergraduate experience with digital
technology, we conducted a follow-up study for the 2015–2016 academic
year. This second cycle of research included 565 students and 77 faculty
from Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC. To update our knowledge
of how CUNY students move through their school days, we used text
messaging to send prompts to students’ cell phones throughout one day
that asked them to report their location, activity, and affect, and subse-
quently interviewed students about their daily maps. We also conducted
brief interviews with students about their access to and use of digital
technology for their academic work. With the increase in (and enthusiasm
for, in some sectors) online and hybrid learning in higher education, we
were also interested to learn more about students’ and faculty members’
experiences in online and hybrid courses. We invited students taking
online or hybrid courses in fall 2015 and faculty teaching online or hybrid
courses in spring 2016 to complete short, open-ended questionnaires on
their use of digital technology for those courses.
All of our student and faculty interviews during both research cycles
were recorded and transcribed into text. Transcribed interview text and
questionnaire responses were coded to elucidate common themes in the
interviews and responses to facilitate further analysis.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

In the next three chapters, we discuss CUNY students’ use of digital
technology for their academic work and its effects on their use of time. In
Chapter 2, we explore the ways in which the immobile nature of fixed
digital technology defines opportunities for students to use it, especially
urban commuter students. While fixed technology may seem far less flexible
than mobile computing and may represent a financial investment that
institutions would prefer not to make, it also has many affordances for
students. The potential for mobile digital technology to enable students
to create space and time for their academic work is both attractive and
promising, especially since many students already own at least one mobile
device. In Chapter 3, we will show that, while mobile technology offers
many affordances, especially in light of fixed barriers, this more recently
developed technological model also introduces barriers for students. In
Chapter 4, we consider the temporal component of student taskscapes.
Digital technology—mobile or fixed—can be used by students to create

time; however, it can also function as a time constrictor, making it difficult
for students to accomplish their academic work. While time is an important
factor in the academic lives of all college and university students, there
are several reasons that time may be more critical to consider for nontradi-
tional and commuter students. We conclude in Chapter 5 that it is impor-
tant for all who are invested in higher education—faculty, staff, and
administrators—to understand students’ use of digital technology, most
especially the interplay of technology and time in students’ taskscapes, so
that we may take action and make the best decisions about technology on
campus to support students’ success in their academic work.
NOTES
1. A pseudonym.
2. In fall 2015, Brooklyn College enrolled 3,203 graduate students, City
College enrolled 2,577, and Hunter College enrolled 6,368.
3. Here, we briefly present our methods of research and data analysis; a more
detailed description is available in Appendix.
REFERENCES
AACC (American Association of Community Colleges). 2016. “2016 Fact Sheet.”
American Association of Community Colleges. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/
AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2.pdf.
Bennett, Sue, and Karl Maton. 2010. “Beyond the ‘Digital Natives’ Debate:
Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students’ Technology
Experiences.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 321–331.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x
Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2016. “Same Time, Many Locations: Online Education Goes
Back to Its Origins.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14. http://chroni
cle.com/article/Same-Time-Many-Locations-/236788.
Brown, Jessie. 2016. “Shifting Policy to Support the ‘Typical’ College Student.”
Ithaka S+R (blog), August 14. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/blog/shifting-pol
icy-to-support-the-typical-college-student/.
Brown, Malcolm. 2015. “Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher
Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August: 16–28. http://er.educause.
edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1541.pdf.
Casselman, Ben. 2016. “Shut Up About Harvard.” Five Thirty Eight, March 30.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/.
CDE (Center for Digital Education). 2014. Intelligent Campus: Innovative Tools
in Education Increase Efficiencies. Folsom, CA: Center for Digital Education.
http://www.centerdigitaled.com/paper/Intelligent-Campus-Innovative-
Tools-in-Education-Increase-Efficiencies.html.
Clark, Marcia Roe. 2006. “Succeeding in the City: Challenges and Best Practices
on Urban Commuter Campuses.” About Campus 11(3): 2–8.
CUNY (City University of New York). 2016. “About CUNY.” City University of
New York. http://www.cuny.edu/about.html.
CUNY OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). 2015. A Profile of
Undergraduates at CUNY Senior and Community Colleges: Fall 2014. New
York: City University of New York. https://cuny.edu/about/administration/
offices/ira/ir/data-book/current/student/ug_student_profile_f14.pdf.
–––. 2016a. 2012 Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New
York. https://cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/ira/ir/surveys/stu
dent/SES2012FinalReport.pdf.
–––. 2016b. 2014 Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New
dent/SES_2014_Report_Final.pdf.
–––. 2016c. Undergraduate Enrollment by Degree/Non-Degree Status, Full-time/
Part-Time Attendance, and College, Fall 2015. New York: City University of
New York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_
0002_DSTAT_FTPT.rpt.pdf.
–––. 2016d. Total Enrollment by Residency and Colleges: Percentages, Fall 2015.
New York: City University of New York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/
rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0045_RES_TOT_PCT.rpt.pdf.
–––. 2016e. Total Enrollment by Undergraduate and Graduate Level, Full-time/
Part-time Attendance, and College, Fall 2015. New York: City University of New
York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0001_
UGGR_FTPT.rpt.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden, D. Christopher Brooks, Susan Grajek, and Jamie Reeves.
2015. ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2015.
Louisville, CO: ECAR. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss15/
ers1510ss.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden, and Jacqueline Bichsel. 2014. ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, 2014. Louisville, CO: ECAR. https://
net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss14/ERS1406.pdf.
Davis, Donn. 2014. “Why Colleges Should Stop Splurging on Buildings and Start
Investing in Software.” Washington Post, October 13. https://www.washing
tonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/10/13/why-colleges-should-
stop-splurging-on-buildings-and-start-investing-in-software/.
Davis, Jenny. 2015. “A Short History of Affordances.” Cyborgology, July 13.
http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/07/13/a-short-history-of-
affordances/.
De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of

California Press.
diFilipo, Stephen. 2013. “The Policy of BYOD: Considerations for Higher
Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, March/April. https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2013/4/the-policy-of-byod-considerations-for-higher-education.
Dugan, John P., John L. Garland, Barbara Jacoby, and Anna Gasiorski. 2008.
“Understanding Commuter Student Self-Efficacy for Leadership: A Within-
Group Analysis.” NASPA Journal 45(2): 282–310.
Faraj, Samer, and Bijan Azad. 2012. “The Materiality of Technology: An
Affordance Perspective.” In Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in
a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis
Kallinikos, 237–258. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, James J. 2014. “A Theory of Affordances (1979).” In The People, Place,
and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, William Mangold, Cindi Katz,
Setha Low, and Susan Saegert, 56–60. New York: Routledge.
Hargittai, Eszter, and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. “Digital Inequality: Differences
in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet.” Communication Research 35(5):
602–621. http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/A25.Hargittai.Hinnant-
DigitalInequality.pdf
Henderson, Michael, Neil Selwyn, and Rachel Aston. 2015. “What Works and
Why? Student Perceptions of ‘Useful’ Digital Technology in University
Teaching and Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 2015: 1–13.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.
Hsieh, Yuli Patrick. 2012. “Online Social Networking Skills: The Social
Affordances Approach to Digital Inequality.” First Monday 17: 4. http://first
monday.org/article/view/3893/3192
Ingold, Tim. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology
25(2): 152–174.
Florida, Richard. 2016. “The Reality of America’s College Towns.” CityLab,
September 8. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/09/americas-big
gest-college-towns/498755/.
Jacoby, Barbara, and John Garland. 2004. “Strategies for Enhancing Commuter
Student Success.” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice 6(1): 61–79. doi:10.2190/567C-5TME-Q8F4-8FRG.
Johnson, Jenna. 2013. “Today’s Typical College Students Often Juggle Work,
Children, and Bills with Coursework.” Washington Post, September 14.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/todays-typical-college-
students-often-juggle-work-children-and-bills-with-coursework/2013/09/
14/4158c8c0-1718-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html.
Johnson, Larry, Samantha Adams Becker, Michele Cummins, Victoria Estrada,
Alex Freeman, and Courtney Hall. 2016. NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.
nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-higher-education-edition/.
Kelly, Rhea. 2015a. “9 Ed Tech Trends to Watch in 2015.” Campus Technology,

January 22: 1–6. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/01/22/9-
ed-tech-trends-to-watch-in-2015.aspx.
–––. 2015b. “Tackling BYOE in Higher Ed.”Campus Technology, June 25: 1–4.
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2015/06/25/Tackling-BYOE-in-
Higher-Ed.
Kim, Joshua. 2016. “3 Principles for Student Devices in the Classroom.” Inside
Higher Ed (blog), January 27. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/tech
nology-and-learning/3-principles-student-devices-classroom.
Kuh, George D., Robert M. Gonyea, and Megan Palmer. 2001. “The Disengaged
Commuter Student: Fact or Fiction?” Commuter Perspectives 27(1): 2–5.
Lanclos, Donna. 2016. “The Death of the Digital Native: Four Provocations.” Jisc
Digifest. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform-feature/the-death-of-the-digital-native-
23-feb-2016.
Lewin, Tamar. 2011. “The Evolution of Higher Education.” New York Times,
November 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/
the-evolution-of-higher-education.html.
–––. 2012. “Instruction for Masses Knocks Down Campus Walls.” New York
Times, March 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/education/
moocs-large-courses-open-to-all-topple-campus-walls.html.
McMillan Cottom, Tressie. 2013. “Redefining the ‘Typical’ College Student.” Slate,
September 23. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2013/
09/obama_s_college_affordability_plan_why_it_doesn_t_address_the_needs_of_
most.html.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2015. Demographic and
Enrollment Characteristics of Nontraditional Undergraduates: 2011–12.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.
gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015025.
Neff, Gina, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie. 2012.
“Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural
Production.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(2): 299–313.
Newbold, John J., Sanjay S. Mehta, and Patricia Forbus. 2011. “Commuter
Students’ Involvement and Identification with an Institution of Higher
Education.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 15(2): 141–153.
NSSE (National Survey for Student Engagement). 2011. Fostering Student
Engagement Campuswide: Annual Results 2011. Chicago: NSSE: Distributed
by the University of Chicago Press. http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2011_
Results/.
–––. 2016. “Survey Instrument.” National Survey for Student Engagement.
http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/survey_instruments.cfm.
Prensky, Marc. 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon 9(5):
1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816.
Rideout, Victoria, and Vikki Katz. 2016. Opportunity for All? Technology and
Learning in Lower-Income Families. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/
jgcc_opportunityforall.pdf.
Selwyn, Neil. 2010. “Looking Beyond Learning: Notes towards the Critical Study
of Educational Technology.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(1):
65–73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x.
–––. 2012. “Making Sense of Young People, Education and Digital Technology:
The Role of Sociological Theory.” Oxford Review of Education 38(1): 81–96.
–––. 2014a. Digital Technology and the Contemporary University. London: Routledge.
–––. 2014b. “Rethinking Education in the Digital Age.” In Digital Sociology,
Critical Perspectives, ed. Kate Orton-Johnson and Nick Prior, 197–212.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Selwyn, Neil, and Keri Facer. 2013. The Politics of Education and Technology.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, Aaron, Lee Rainie, and Kathryn Zickuhr. 2011. College Students and
Technology. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinter
net.org/2011/07/19/college-students-and-technology/.
United States Census Bureau. 2012a. “An Older and More Diverse Nation by
Midcentury.” United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/news
room/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html.
–––. 2012b. “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census
Bureau Reports.” United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/news
room/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.
Watters, Audrey. 2015. “The MOOC Revolution that Wasn’t.” Kernel, August
23. http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/14046/
mooc-revolution-uber-for-education/.
Will, Madeline. 2016. “5 Education Schools Making Ed Tech a Top Priority.”
Education Week, June 6. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/06/
09/5-schools-of-education-making-ed-tech.html?qs=Education+Schools
+Making+Ed-Tech+a+Top+Priority.
Wright, Fiona, David White, Tony Hirst, and Alan Cann. 2014. “Visitors and
Residents: Mapping Student Attitudes to Academic Use of Social Networks.”
Learning, Media and Technology 39(1): 126–141. doi:10.1080/
17439884.2013.777077.
Wrigley, Julia. 2010. Improving Student Transfer at CUNY. New York: City
University of New York. http://www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/
sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/undergraduate-studies/
pathways/about/archive/archive/TransferReport.pdf.
Young, Jeffrey R. 2016. “Why Audrey Watters Thinks Tech is a Trojan Horse Set
to ‘Dismantle’ the Academy.” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 18. http://
chronicle.com/article/Why-Audrey-Watters-Thinks-Tech/236525.
CHAPTER 2
College Students and Fixed Technology
Abstract The immobile nature of fixed digital technology—including

personal computers, printers, photocopiers, and scanners—defines oppor-
tunities for students to use it for their coursework, especially commuter
and nontraditional undergraduates. Students need and appreciate full-
featured computing and printing, though not all students have access to
this technology in their homes or other off-campus locations, or the
broadband internet access required for its optimal use. While campus
computer labs require institutional investment, these labs facilitate stu-
dents’ academic work, and students use them heavily. However, most
commuter and nontraditional students must use fixed technology in
shared spaces for their academic work. The distractions and lack of privacy
that using fixed technology in computer labs entails is a challenge for
students.
Keywords Commuter students Nontraditional students Personal com-

puters Printing Computer labs Broadband internet Undergraduate
student experience Campus technology
Undergraduates’ academic use of digital technology is dependent on

hardware that is fixed in space, immobile rather than portable. Our
interviews and questionnaire with CUNY students revealed details
about when, where, and how they use this technology—typically

including personal computers and printers—which may be located in

students’ homes, on campus, or in other venues such as public libraries;
some students also mention their use of scanners and photocopiers.
On the college campus, fixed digital technology can be found in com-
puter labs, in the library, in the learning center, in various student
support offices, or even as kiosks in hallways and cafeterias. What is the
role of the university and other entities in providing access to fixed
digital technology for students? How do students navigate the fixed
digital technology of their academic taskscapes?
The stationary nature of fixed technology is the defining factor in
opportunities for students to use it, especially commuter and nontradi-
tional students. Some students may own or otherwise have private,
unrestricted access to this technology, while others must share compu-
ters or printers with family members, fellow students, or members of the
community. The cost of digital technology is prohibitive for some
students, so opportunities to use it on campus are a certain benefit
that can enable them to complete their academic work, a reality recog-
nized by colleges and universities in making computer labs available to
students. However, access to fixed digital technology may be restricted
to specific days and times, and the locations in which it is available may
not always be most conducive to students’ academic needs. Still, overall
we found that while fixed technology is not always convenient to use,
especially for commuter undergraduates, this somewhat older technolo-
gical model offers students important advantages in access and comput-
ing power.
STUDENTS’ USE OF FIXED TECHNOLOGY

The most prominent fixed technology that students use for academic work
is the desktop computer. These first personal computers became generally
available in the USA in the 1980s, and their use in homes, offices, and
schools grew rapidly in subsequent years. As Dourish and Bell (2011) note
in their discussion of ubiquitous computing, well into the 1990s “com-
puting was still something linked primarily to particular places (i.e., aca-
demic labs and computing centers), and the dominant paradigm for
information services was the desktop computer connected to fixed infra-
structure” (117). This model persists on college campuses where desktop
computers and printers are common in computer labs, classrooms,
libraries, and student support centers. Laptop personal computers have
2 COLLEGE STUDENTS AND FIXED TECHNOLOGY 25
grown in popularity in recent years, especially as their size and weight

have decreased, and for many people the use of a desktop and laptop
computer has become interchangeable.
Consideration of national and CUNY survey data provides context for
our discussion of students’ use of fixed digital technology for their aca-
demic work. A Pew survey of US internet use conducted in early 2015
revealed that 73% of US adults over age 18 own a personal computer,
either desktop or laptop. A review of the data from 2004 to 2015 shows
personal computer ownership to be nearly flat, ranging between 70% and
80% of those surveyed throughout that decade.1 Within that 73%, there
are further demographic differences, and ownership of personal computers
differs between self-identified racial and ethnic group and based on house-
hold income (Table 2.1). In general, whites and those with household
incomes above $75,000 annually have higher rates of ownership than do
blacks or Hispanics or those with annual incomes below $30,000
(Anderson 2015, 3, 12).
Lower ownership rates among minorities and those in lower income
brackets are reflected in the numbers of CUNY students who own
personal computers. The 2010 CUNY Student Experience Survey
(CUNY OIRA 2016a), which cannot be correlated exactly with the
Pew survey data due to slightly different questions, revealed that 59%
of CUNY students reported regular use of a desktop computer, 64% of a
laptop computer, and 11% of a netbook.2 Unfortunately, the 2014
Student Experience Survey no longer polled students on their use of
specific technologies. Alongside these rates of desktop and laptop com-
puter use, CUNY surveys also reveal that in both 2010 and 2014, 56% of
students reported use of their campus computer labs at least once per
week (CUNY OIRA 2016a, b).
Table 2.1 US personal computer ownership, adults

over 18 years old, 2015 (Anderson 2015, 7–8)
Desktop/laptop (%)
White 79
Black 45
Hispanic 63
Income <$30,000 50
Income >$75,000 91
Table 2.2 Student use of personal computers, questionnaire responses from

Brooklyn College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015
Sometimes or often Don’t own or have Sometimes or often
at home (%) access at home (%) on campus (%)
Desktop computer 52 24 69
Laptop computer 88 4 41
In our own questionnaire for students in hybrid or online courses at

Brooklyn College, BMCC, and City Tech in fall 2015, we learned about
their ownership of and access to personal computers for their academic
work in those classes (Table 2.2). The majority of these students use a
laptop at home, and fewer have access to a desktop computer at home.
Students’ use of laptops on campus, however, is lower than that of desk-
tops on campus; additionally, it is not clear whether these are their own
laptop computers or whether they are loaned from their campus libraries.
Despite their portability, our studies at CUNY and by researchers at other
institutions have revealed that students are likely to leave their laptops at
home most or all of the time (Clark 2007, 51–52; Mizrachi 2010, 578).
When a laptop computer remains at home, it functions nearly identically
to a desktop computer.
The CUNY Student Experience Survey also reports on students’ access
to the internet off campus (Fig. 2.1). It is worth noting that between 2010
and 2014, the most current survey data available at the time of writing,
CUNY students’ broadband access to the internet off campus declined
while cellular internet access increased. These data are for all CUNY
students—when students at the seven community colleges are considered
separately, they have slightly higher rates of access via dial up or no access
at all, and slightly lower rates of access via broadband. CUNY community
college students have, on average, somewhat lower household incomes
than students at the comprehensive and senior colleges, and the higher
cost of broadband internet may be a constraint for their households
(Rideout and Katz 2016, 5).
While survey data is useful in painting a broad picture of the fixed
digital technology landscape for US and CUNY students, our interviews
and questionnaire allow us to explore students’ experience using fixed
technologies for their academic work in more detail.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Dial up Broadband Cellular No access off-
campus
2010 2014
Fig. 2.1 Off-campus internet access for CUNY undergraduates, 2010 and 2014
(CUNY OIRA 2016a, b).
PERSONAL COMPUTERS
Personal computers—both desktops and laptops—afford certain uses and
efficiencies. Listening to students describe some of the reasons they prefer
to do their academic work on a personal computer, the term “full-featured
computing” describes the wide array of hardware and software features
that support their schoolwork. For example, many students told us that
they appreciate the fast typing and easy access to special keys for punctua-
tion or numbers that using a full keyboard with physical keys allows.
Students mentioned their strong preference for a full keyboard particularly
when engaged in long-form writing such as a term paper or in-depth
research as this City Tech allied health student suggests.
It’s just . . . easier. I feel like, you know, it’s ideal for deeper researches,
whereas with the iPad it’s just more so . . . the time that I spend using my
iPad is less, significantly less than the amount of time I would spend on the
desktop, and just the easibility of having a keyboard and using the mouse,
and mobile platforms are usually not as easy to browse as opposed to using it
from a regular desktop computer.
We have also heard students say that a personal computer is best for
accessing websites that may require a login, may spawn pop-up windows,
or, due to their design, may simply display best on the large screen of a
personal computer. In the most extreme cases, some or all features of a
website may only be visible or usable on a full-featured computer because
the website has not been optimized for mobile devices such as smart-
phones or tablet computers. Further, common activities when using the
internet include task-switching and having multiple applications or web
browser tabs open for use, activities that can be much easier on the large
screen of a personal computer than the usually smaller screen of a mobile
device, as the student quoted above also alludes to.
At the same time, personal computers can present barriers to students.
A common impediment to students’ ownership of personal computers at
home is their cost. While lower-priced models are available, at the time of
writing it is difficult to purchase a desktop computer, monitor, keyboard,
and mouse, or a full-featured laptop, for less than about $500, which may
be cost-prohibitive for some students. Personal computers all but require
home access to the internet to be useful, especially for academic work that
involves use of the university’s learning management system or other web-
based applications, which represents an additional, monthly cost. That
said, we did meet a few students with a personal computer at home who
did not have home internet access.
Maintenance required for personal computers can also constrain their
use. Common forms of upkeep that we heard about from students include
hardware problems that require repair or replacement parts, or software
problems such as system updates or uninstalling and addressing the
damage from viruses. Some students indicated that they delayed fixing
their personal computer to avoid the cost of service. Of significance is the
substantial amount of time that might pass before a computer is repaired,
easily taking weeks, possibly at critical moments in the semester when
assignments are coming due. This City Tech student studying computer
systems technology shared his frustrations over his home computer main-
tenance requirements.
I have a computer at home, it’s annoying though because, not to derail a

little bit, but sometimes my computer will be broken a little bit and I have to
send it to Geek Squad3 and then I don’t really have a computer for a week or
two which is very stressful because my major is in computers, so I’m just like,
great, I can’t do programming. I had a Surface [laptop computer], but
I need to buy a new charger for that.
Faculty who teach hybrid and online courses also noted in their responses
to the questionnaire we distributed that students sometimes struggled
with computer maintenance, which could impact their performance in
these courses, as this City Tech business faculty member notes.
The course management platforms require students to run system checks on

their computers and make corrections/adjustments as necessary, so that the
programs work well. Many times students have outdated computer software
and continue to ignore system requirements such as allowing for pop-ups.
PRINTERS, PHOTOCOPIERS, AND SCANNERS

Despite assertions that we are living in a digital (or even paperless) age, the
humble printer is still very much required for undergraduate academic
work. Printers allow students to print their work to submit to their
instructors, many of whom require student assignments as hard copy
rather than as electronic submission. Students may also print their course
readings or articles from the internet or academic journals—in subscrip-
tion-based library databases and openly available on the web—and course
materials posted by their instructors such as lecture slides or handouts.
Students also print because they prefer to read for their courses in print
rather than electronically, whether they are taking in-person or hybrid and
online courses. When assisting students at our libraries’ reference desks,
we have heard students ask if the library also has the hard copy when
presented with an ebook. A recent study at CUNY’s Queens College
revealed that students there preferred to read for their coursework in
print rather than electronically, both because of the length of their course
readings and also because they found it easier to annotate a printed text
(Foasberg 2014, 719); research at the University of California, Los
Angeles (UCLA), has also highlighted students’ preference for print for
course-related reading (Mizrachi 2015, 305). This health education stu-
dent at BMCC who always prints out her reading sums it up neatly.
I can’t look at electronics, it’s always paper.

The printers that students need access to for their academic work are
always a fixed technology, which may be available for students to use at
home, on campus, or in other locations. Even with their many academic
needs for printing, fewer students have access to a printer at home than to
a personal computer. We found that more of the students we interviewed
in 2015–2016 had a printer at home than when we first spoke with CUNY
students in 2009–2011, which may reflect a decrease in the price of
printers over that time. However, among the students who did have
printers at home, their actual use was mixed. Many students told us that
they preferred to print on campus where at least some printing was free for
them; they cited the cost of consumable supplies for their printers—ink
and paper—as their main reason for not printing at home. Some students
mentioned delaying maintenance on a home printer that was broken,
which highlights another potential cost of this key digital technology.
Most students use the heavy-duty printers available on campus—in
computer labs, libraries, and student support offices—often available for
free or at a nominal fee. Campus printers are typically networked with
desktop computers in a campus space, where students may be working
on their assignments on the computers, with many computers using
each printer. Some campuses provide dedicated print stations that
restrict access to students who only need to print, which can be a faster
option than waiting in line at a computer lab. Additionally, students in
certain majors—design and architecture, for example—may require
printing in color or in sizes that necessitate specialized printers pro-
vided by the college, printers that are too large or expensive for
individual ownership. Fee-based printing may also be available at public
libraries or office supply stores.
While not as heavily used as printers on college campuses, photocopiers
are still used by students to make copies of class notes, journal articles, or
course readings on reserve at their campus library. A small fee is typically
charged for using photocopiers, often equal to printing costs. Scanning
technologies for the consumer market have found a place in the landscape
of academic work and serve a similar function to photocopiers for the
students we met. Once scanned, materials may be printed or saved in
digital form, and the latter may be cost-free for students. Scanners were
not widely available in our CUNY libraries for students when we con-
ducted interviews in 2009–2011; in our more recent research, several
students mentioned using scanners in the library, and in our observation
the scanners see constant use by students.
AFFORDANCES AND BARRIERS OF FIXED TECHNOLOGY

IN STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC TASKSCAPES
We have found that fixed digital technology is an important component of

the undergraduate experience, and that the locations in which students
must use it are closely tied to whether students perceive technology as
affordance or barrier in their academic taskscapes.
AT HOME
Modern computing relies to a large extent on the internet, and personal
computers require access to the internet in order to be maximally useful.
Wired access can be available from home via broadband (or, more rarely,
dial-up internet) that provides a robust and stable connection to the
internet and usually allows unlimited data access for a single monthly
fee. Despite its advantages, there is increasing evidence (Fig. 2.1) that
wired access to the internet is becoming less common in individual, private
residences and especially for our CUNY students (Horrigan and Duggan
2015). Cost is likely the primary factor: a monthly broadband access fee
may be cost-prohibitive, especially if one or more members of a household
already purchase a smartphone data plan. However, sole reliance on a
cellular data plan for internet access is constraining for several reasons.
While it is possible to use a smartphone as a wireless access hub for
desktop, laptop, or tablet computers, use of web-based applications is
likely to be slower and more susceptible to interruption than with broad-
band access. Further, typically a smartphone plan does not offer unlimited
data access, which may lead those with smartphone-only access to curtail
their internet use rather than face additional fees.
Academic work often requires word processing, presentation, and
spreadsheet software such as Microsoft’s Office package (Word,
PowerPoint, Excel, etc.), and students may be required to purchase this
software to accomplish their coursework. There are also open-source
versions of these applications that are freely available to download; how-
ever, they are not as well-known as, and may not be compatible with,
Microsoft’s product. Software compatibility is an important concern as
Microsoft Office is generally what is available in campus computer labs and
public libraries. Students who are unable to purchase required software for
their personal computers at home may need to use computers in other
locations to complete their academic work.
Recent years have seen an increase in cloud computing, in which

applications and services are available on a remote server and accessible
over the internet via a web browser rather than hosted on a personal
computer. Cloud computing substantially shifts the paradigm of comput-
ing, for example, files can be accessed from a computer on campus and also
a computer at home. At the same time, cloud computing requires a
consistent and, ideally, robust connection to the internet, and without it
the cloud is essentially unavailable. Cloud-based applications used by
students for their academic work may include free word processing, pre-
sentation, spreadsheet applications, and file storage space offered by com-
mercial entities. Students may also use an institution-provided learning
management system or other cloud-based applications and services for
their coursework on their own or as required by their instructors.
Cloud-based applications can be both affordance and barrier for students;
while they are accessible across digital technology, they also require an
internet connection for use, which may not always be available.
In our conversations with CUNY students, location as a component of
the academic taskscape also presented affordances and barriers. If students’
home or family computer is located in a shared space such as a living room
or the kitchen, it may be impossible for students to use the computer for
their schoolwork without others around them. Most CUNY students live
with others, most often multiple family members (sometimes multiple
generations), as well as friends or roommates. Apartment living predomi-
nates in New York City, with single-family houses more common in the
outer parts of the boroughs and in the suburbs. Many students we spoke
with do not have access to a private space in their homes. They may share a
bedroom; occasionally a living room or other common space served as
their bedroom as well.
There are certainly positive aspects to CUNY students’ shared living
spaces. The importance of the support and encouragement of family mem-
bers—parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, and others—as students pro-
gressed through their college careers was mentioned by a number of
students we interviewed. Several students who are parents themselves told
us that they worked on their coursework while their children did home-
work, which they found to be a mutually encouraging environment. At the
same time, working at home may present distractions, and students may
lack privacy to do their work while other members of the household engage
in activities around them while they are studying. Further, the fixed tech-
nology that students have access to at home—a personal computer or
printer—may be used by multiple members of their household rather than

solely by the student. When access to technology is restricted, students may
be required to share a computer with others in their home who need it as
this psychology major from Hunter College describes sharing a computer
with her sister, who was also a student at Hunter.
The main computer is in the living room, so sometimes we use the main
computer. Actually, we use the main computer a good amount…like, if we
have big projects we’ll use the main computer, ‘cause we don’t really trust
the laptop. So, you know, it’s kinda big, so . . . yeah. It’s appropriate in the
living room.
In both our 2009–2011 and our 2015–2016 interviews with students, a

handful of the students we spoke with had no consistent off-campus access
to a personal computer connected to the internet. These students had
little choice but to use computer labs at their college or in other locations
when they were assigned coursework that required computer access. For
these students, the availability of on-campus computing options that were
conducive to academic work was a critical factor in their daily college
experience and ultimate college success.
ON CAMPUS
Computer labs and libraries on campus are an important way for students
to access computers and printers, and our research and CUNY surveys
have shown that they are heavily used by CUNY students, similar to
students at other colleges and universities (Delcore et al. 2014; Cooley
et al. 2011; Gourlay and Oliver 2013). Computer labs support students
who do not have or cannot access their own computers and thus impact
directly on technology equity and educational opportunity (Hawkins and
Oblinger 2007, 10). More than half of the students who responded to the
CUNY Student Experience Survey (CUNY OIRA) in 2010 and 2014
reported using their campus computer labs at least weekly (2016a, b).
Considering the enrollment at each college, at a minimum there are 7,000
students every week using campus computer labs at Brooklyn College, a
larger campus, and more than 10,000 students at each of the more space-
constrained campuses of City Tech or BMCC.
For students with specialized computing needs, either occasional or
ongoing, campus computer labs provide access beyond basic computing as
well. Certain software is only available for use on full-featured computers.

These may include specialized academic software for statistical or mathe-
matical analysis, visual applications for graphic design or animation, or
modeling software for use in architecture or engineering courses. Licenses
for these software packages are often purchased for a department or other
campus unit and made available to students in computer labs on campus.
This software can be very expensive; students may not be able to purchase
it for their personal computers, and thus may need to use campus com-
puter labs to complete their work in classes that require specialized soft-
ware (Gourlay et al. 2015, 273).
Students appreciate the important role that campus computer labs fill in
their academic taskscapes. For students with personal computers at home,
campus computer labs provide a convenient place to get work done during
their breaks between classes or a stop to print an assignment before class.
For students who lack a personal computer at home, campus computers
can serve as their main computing source. Data collected by CUNY
Student Experience Surveys (CUNY OIRA) indicate that students were
generally satisfied with both “access to lab software on campus” and
availability of “meeting space with multimedia access” (2016b).
However, our interviews with students paint a more nuanced—and
equivocal—picture of their experiences in campus computer labs, and
the degree to which they were able to use these labs to leverage their use
of digital technology and create effective academic spaces for themselves.
For all that students rely on them, campus computer labs can also be
problematic spaces. In particular, long lines and wait times are the most
common complaint that we heard about computer and printing access on
campus. Campus size and enrollment correlated with student frustration
related to campus printing, and students at more crowded campuses
reported encountering more lines in computer labs. At the same time,
nearly every CUNY student we talked to told us they use the campus
computer labs at least occasionally; in crunch times between classes and
during midterms and finals, the lines are especially long. It is hard to
overstate how frustrating students find these long lines when they
are pressed for time and need to use the computers to complete a task
between classes or other commitments. An international studies student
at City College echoed the sentiments of many of the students we
spoke with.
I mean, there’s a lot of computers and everything, but there’s always lines.
Another underlying student frustration was a common but largely unspo-

ken set of expectations about what constitutes appropriate behavior in the
campus computer labs. Students noted their disappointment with the
presence of other students whose activities—usually identified as noisy or
nonacademic—interfered with their attempts to constitute an academic
space. Some students felt it was especially unfair for their fellow students to
use the computers for leisure purposes while a line of other students
waited to use the computers for their assignments. Students expressed an
unwillingness to speak to computer lab managers or their fellow students
about nonacademic behavior in the labs. A few students suggested that
attempting to negotiate the use of the computer lab space could itself be
considered rude, while others bore out Clark’s (2005) finding that “stu-
dents typically perceived other peoples’ behaviors to be part of the
unchanging, non-negotiable environment of college” (312).
One BMCC liberal arts student stated forthrightly:
That’s where I socialize: at the Computer Center.
While another BMCC liberal arts student lamented:
My first year, I didn’t have the Microsoft Word application so I couldn’t

type essays. So I would spend HOURS on hours sitting here and trying to
focus while people are chewing gum and talking on the phone and arguing
and hitting each other, like . . . I don’t even want to go there. [ . . . ] It says
it’s a “Learning Resource Center” but in actuality it’s a “Hang Out With
Your Friends and Look at Your Cousin’s Wedding Pictures Center” . . . “on
Facebook.”
We also heard about frequent use of the campus computer labs from
students enrolled in hybrid and online courses. We had observed this
in our libraries for several years, with students asking a librarian for
assistance with the learning management system to take a test or com-
plete an assignment for their hybrid or online course. A City Tech
engineering student shared his reliance on campus computing for his
hybrid and online courses, and told us: “I would say it is the campus
computer in which I do most of my work for the hybrid/online class.”
The concerns that students expressed about long lines and the loud or
disruptive behavior of their fellow students in the campus computer lab
may be especially problematic for students who are taking online or
hybrid courses since they are required to use computers to complete all
of their coursework.
OTHER LOCATIONS: WORKPLACES AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES

While many students engage in their academic work using fixed technol-
ogies at home and on campus, with the constraints we have discussed it is
not surprising that we also hear from students of their use of computers
and printers in other locations such as a workplace or the public library.
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that these environments can provide
distraction-free, private, and unrestricted access to these technologies for
students’ academic work. Workplaces may have filters and firewall restric-
tions that could impede student ability to access academic applications or
library databases. Other researchers have also noted that computer access
at work can be problematic as it is often monitored or constrained
(Robinson et al. 2003, 8). Public libraries typically offer access to desktop
computers and printers in a way that is similar to campus computer labs.
For many students, proximity and familiarity drive their decision to use the
public library for computing. However, the requirement of a library card is
one possible barrier to use. Computer use at the public library also
typically has a time limit, to ensure that these computing resources are
available for many patrons to use. While computer use at the public library
is free, printing carries a cost; a few CUNY students told us that they print
their assignments at the public library near their house.
SHARING SPACE IN PLACES WITH FIXED TECHNOLOGY

We heard from many CUNY students about the affordances they found in
fixed digital technology, including full-featured, fast, reliable access to
software and web-based applications, as well as the ability to produce a
hard copy of readings and assignments required for their coursework.
At the same time, students face a number of obstacles to their effective
use of fixed digital technology. In particular, not all students are equally
able to accommodate the costs of hardware and software, as well as the
costs of their maintenance, monthly broadband or smartphone contract
expenses, and consumables such as ink and paper. For these students, the
opportunities to use fixed digital technology in locations other than their
homes are essential for the successful completion of their academic work.
One of the most critical impacts of location—home, the college or

university campus, public libraries, the workplace—on the student experi-
ence is that students may be required to use digital technology for their
coursework in a shared, nonprivate space. There are benefits to working in
a shared space, and it has been found that “being in a setting with others
who are also engaging in scholarly activities apparently helps students
study by adapting to a sense of conformity to the appropriate task and
role” (Cooley et al. 2011, 4). Our research and other studies have shown
that the academic library in particular can offer an environment to foster
learning and studious behavior (Bennett 2011; Buschman and Leckie
2007; Jackson and Hahn 2011; Webb et al. 2008; Regalado and Smale
2015a; Delcore et al. 2009). Campus computer labs can also provide an
encouraging environment for academic work (Cooley et al. 2011; Delcore
et al. 2014; Lomas and Oblinger 2006, 5.3).
At the same time, the presence of other students can cause difficulties for
students, and as Lefebvre (1991) has noted, “social spaces interpenetrate
one another and/or superimpose themselves upon one another” in what he
termed collisions or interference (86–87). Other studies have also shown
that the presence of people and activities in the places where they use
computers for their academic work can be problematic for students (May
and Swabey 2015; Regalado and Smale 2015a, 906; 2015b; Delcore et al.
2014). For many students, it may not be possible to ignore the distractions
inherent in shared spaces when working in proximity to others.
Our research found that many CUNY students must navigate their aca-
demic taskscapes through a lens of resource scarcity. For these students,
uncontested access to functional fixed digital technology and private space
for their academic work is a luxury that may not be easy to achieve. In the next
chapter, we will explore students’ use of mobile digital technology for their
academic work, which, though it may offer affordances that overcome some
of the barriers of fixed technology, is accompanied by barriers of its own.
NOTES
1. As might be expected, mobile device ownership (smartphones, tablets) has
increased in the same decade, which we discuss in more detail in Chap. 3.
2. Netbooks are subcompact laptops designed to be used primarily with inter-
net-based applications and data; Google’s Chromebook is a similar product
that is widely available at the time of writing.
3. Geek Squad is a popular US computer repair service at the time of writing.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Monica. 2015. Technology Device Ownership: 2015. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technol
ogy-device-ownership-2015/.
Bennett, Scott. 2011. “Learning Behaviors and Learning Spaces.” Portal: Libraries
and the Academy 11(3): 765–789. doi:10.1353/pla.2011.0033.
Buschman, John, and Gloria J. Leckie. 2007. The Library as Place: History,
Community, and Culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Clark, Katie. 2007. “Mapping Diaries, or Where Do They Go All Day?” In
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of
Rochester, ed. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, 48–54. Chicago:
Association of College and Research Libraries.
Clark, Marcia Roe. 2005. “Negotiating the Freshman Year: Challenges and
Strategies among First-Year College Students.” Journal of College Student
Development 46(3): 296–316. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/182830.
Cooley, Christopher J., Thomas Malaby, and David Stack. 2011. How Are Students
Actually Using IT? An Ethnographic Study. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2011/11/
how-are-students-actually-using-it-an-ethnographic-study.
CUNY OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). 2016a. 2010
Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New York. http://
www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/adminis
tration/offices/oira/institutional/surveys/SES2010FinalReport.pdf.
Delcore, Henry D., James Mullooly, and Michael Scroggins. 2009. The Library
Study at Fresno State. Fresno, CA: Institute of Public Anthropology, California
State University. http://www.csufresno.edu/anthropology/ipa/thelibrarys
tudy.html.
Delcore, Henry D., Cynthia Teniente-Matson, and James Mullooly. 2014. “The
Continuum of Student IT Use in Campus Spaces: A Qualitative Study.”
EDUCAUSE Review, July/August. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/
continuum-student-it-use-campus-spaces-qualitative-study.
Dourish, Paul, and Genevieve Bell. 2011. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and
Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foasberg, Nancy M. 2014. “Student Reading Practices in Print and Electronic
Media.” College and Research Libraries 75(5): 705–723. doi:10.5860/
crl.75.5.705.
Gourlay, Lesley, Donna M. Lanclos, and Martin Oliver. 2015. “Sociomaterial

Texts, Spaces and Devices: Questioning ‘Digital Dualism’ in Library and
Study Practices.” Higher Education Quarterly 69(3): 263–278.
Gourlay, Lesley, and Martin Oliver. 2013. “Beyond ‘the Social:’ Digital Literacies as
Sociomaterial Practice.” In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives
on Learning, Scholarship and Technology, edited by Robin Goodfellow and Mary
Rosalind Lea, 79–94. New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, Brian L., and Diana G. Oblinger. 2007. “The Myth about the Need
for Public Computer Labs.” EDUCAUSE Review 42(5): 10–11. http://er.
educause.edu/articles/2007/8/the-myth-about-the-need-for-public-
computer-labs.
Horrigan, John B., and Maeve Duggan. 2015. Home Broadband 2015.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/
2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015.
Jackson, Heather Lea, and Trudi Bellardo Hahn. 2011. “Serving Higher Education’s
Highest Goals: Assessment of the Academic Library as Place.” College and
Research Libraries 72(5): 428–442. http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/5/428.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lomas, Cyprien, and Diana G. Oblinger. 2006. “Student Practices and Their Impact
on Learning Spaces.” In Learning Spaces, edited by Diana G. Oblinger, 5.1–5.11
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces.
May, Francine, and Alice Swabey. 2015. “Using and Experiencing the Academic
Library: A Multisite Observational Study of Space and Place.” College and
Research Libraries 76(6): 771–795. doi:10.5860/crl.76.6.771.
Mizrachi, Diane. 2010. “Undergraduates’ Academic Information and Library
Behaviors: Preliminary Results.” Reference Services Review 38(4): 571–580.
Mizrachi, Diane. 2015. “Undergraduates’ Academic Reading Format Preferences
and Behaviors.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(3): 301–311.
Regalado, Mariana, and Maura A. Smale. 2015a. “‘I Am More Productive in
the Library Because It’s Quiet:’ Commuter Students in the College
Library.” College and Research Libraries 76(7): 899–913. doi:10.5860/
crl.76.7.899
Regalado, Mariana, and Maura A. Smale. 2015b. “‘I’m Just Really Comfortable’:
Learning at Home, Learning in Libraries.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe.
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/im-just-really-comforta
ble-learning-at-home-learning-in-libraries/.
Robinson, John P., Paul Dimaggio, and Eszter Hargittai. 2003. “New Social
Survey Perspectives on the Digital Divide.” IT & Society 1(5): 1–22. http://
webuse.org/p/a11/.
Webb, Kathleen M., Molly A. Schaller, and Sawyer A. Hunley. 2008. “Measuring
Library Space Use and Preferences: Charting a Path toward Increased
Engagement.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 8(4): 407–422.
doi:10.1353/pla.0.0014.
CHAPTER 3
College Students and Mobile Technology
Abstract Mobile digital technology has the potential to enable students

to create space and time for their academic work. Most undergraduates
have a smartphone; some also use tablet computers and ereaders for their
coursework. While students appreciate laptop computers, older and hea-
vier models are often used more like desktop computers, and not all
students can afford the additional expense of a laptop. Mobile technology
offers many affordances for students, especially in light of fixed barriers,
and can facilitate students’ academic work in varied locations. However,
this more recently developed technological model also introduces barriers
that are distinctly location-based. Mobile technology requires internet
access to be most useful for coursework, and access to solid, reliable wifi
is not guaranteed for students, either on campus or off.
Keywords Commuter students Nontraditional students Smartphone

Laptop Wireless internet Cloud computing Undergraduate student
experience Campus technology
Claims for the positive and transformative benefits of mobile technology

on the higher education experience are common in the mainstream and
education news media. Our research reveals nuances in students’ use of
mobile technology for their academic work by way of detailed discussion
with CUNY undergraduates. The mobile devices that our students use

most commonly for their academic work include laptop computers, smart-
phones, and tablet computers, as well as auxiliary devices such as USB
drives and headphones. This technology is by its nature portable, and
students take advantage of opportunities to use it for academic work at
home, all over campus, and throughout their neighborhoods and the city,
including during their commutes. While mobile technology offers many
affordances for students, especially in light of the barriers presented by
fixed technology, this more recently developed technological model also
introduces barriers of its own.
As with fixed digital technology, CUNY students have a range of access
to mobile devices that are owned, shared, or even on loan from a college
or public library. All mobile devices require some degree of internet access
to enable academic work, and access to wifi or cellular networks in varied
locations—on campus, at home, in public spaces—impacts students’
opportunities for their use. Because mobile devices allow students to
carry their computing with them, they can do schoolwork in any place
they happen to be, and thus create an academic space for themselves
“wherever” they want. The potential of mobile digital technology to
enable students to create space for their academic work is both attractive
and promising because it allows students to shape and control their
activities across the landscape of their days. At the same time, constraints
of the wired physical world do impact students, in what Gourlay et al.
(2015) refer to as a “constant intertwining of the physical and digital in
students’ experience” (276).
STUDENTS’ USE OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY

Since the 1990s when laptop computers with internet access first became
generally available, mobile computing technology has evolved at a rapid
rate. At the same time, improved wireless standards and technology have
allowed multiple devices to share a single broadband connection in the
home or a wireless network in other locations, ushering in an era of
ubiquitous computing (Dourish and Bell 2011, 2). Mobile devices with
sophisticated communications abilities have come to define much of the
modern experience, prompting researchers to argue that “these are not
simply technological transformations but also transformations in social
and cultural practice; our expectations about what computers are, what
they might do for us, and the role of digital objects in everyday life have
evolved considerably in the past nearly twenty years” (117).
3 COLLEGE STUDENTS AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY 43
A brief discussion of national and CUNY survey data about ownership of

mobile technology offers background information to situate the ways that
CUNY students use this technology for schoolwork. The Pew survey on
technology device ownership conducted in early 2015 found, unsurpris-
ingly, that mobile technology ownership among adults over the age of 18 is
higher than ever: 92% of adults own a cell phone, including smartphones.
The percentage of adults who report that they own cell phones, smart-
phones, and/or tablet computers rose between 2011 and 2015; an excep-
tion is ereaders, ownership of which declined from 32% to 19% from 2014
to 2015. Ownership of mobile technology differs between self-identified
racial and ethnic groups and based on household income (Table 3.1).
Notably, within the portion of survey respondents aged 18–29, the age
range of most college students, smartphone ownership was 86%, the high-
est of any age range considered (Anderson 2015, 7).
The CUNY Student Experience Survey (CUNY OIRA) asked students
about their use of mobile devices in 2010. In that year, 50% of CUNY
students surveyed reported regular use of smartphones and 2% regularly
used an ereader; tablet computers were just becoming available at that
time and were not included as an option on the survey. While the survey
did not ask students about use of devices in 2014, students were asked
about their use of wifi on campus in both years. In 2010, 37% of students
reported accessing wifi on campus at least once per week, while 39%
reported that they never used wifi on campus. By 2014 those numbers
had, predictably, changed and 69% of students used wifi on campus at
least once per week while only 18% reported never using campus wifi
(2016a, b).
During our 2015 research cycle, we also learned about how students in
online and hybrid classes use mobile devices for their academic work.
Table 3.1 US mobile device ownership, adults over 18 years old, 2015
(Anderson 2015, 7, 10, 11)
Smartphone (%) Tablet (%) Ereader (%)
White 66 47 21
Black 68 38 13
Hispanic 64 35 14
Income <$30,000 52 28 14
Income >$75,000 87 67 27
Table 3.2 Student use of mobile devices, questionnaire responses from Brooklyn
College, City Tech, and BMCC, 2015
Sometimes or Don’t own or Sometimes or Sometimes or often
often at home have access at often on campus on the commute
(%) home (%) (%) (%)
Laptop 88 4 40 23
Smartphone 76 1 70 74
Tablet 53 19 38 32
Ereader 12 46 7 9
Among the students who completed our questionnaire, smartphone usage

predominated overall, with the majority reporting that they used their
smartphones for academic work at least sometimes at home, on campus,
and on the commute (Table 3.2). Reported tablet usage was lower, and
ereaders lowest of all, similar to the national Pew survey responses. It is
important to note that while many of the students who replied to our
questionnaire report use of laptops at home, far fewer claim to use their
laptops on campus or on the commute.
As depicted in Fig. 2.1, our CUNY students report that their home
access to broadband internet dropped between 2010 and 2014, while
access via cellular networks increased, meaning that current CUNY stu-
dents are more likely to have personal access to the internet on a mobile
cellular network than a wired one. As we will see, heavy reliance by
students on access to the internet via cellular networks for their academic
work can be problematic.
LAPTOP COMPUTERS
Laptops are full-featured, portable computers with an integrated monitor
and keyboard that can be folded shut; recent models are small and light-
weight enough to be carried in a backpack or bag. Most laptops use the
same operating systems as larger desktop computers, and thus they can
run the same software applications and provide full-featured access to
websites and web-based applications as desktop computers. Many students
consider a laptop to have all of the benefits of a desktop computer plus
portability, representing convenient, powerful computing for students to
use for their academic work in multiple locations. One BMCC student
majoring in international business noted that his laptop is the digital

technology that he finds most useful for his academic work.
My laptop, I can be able to study whenever I’d like at my convenience to

pursue my education.
Laptop computers are, however, subject to many of the same concerns as

are desktop computers. They can be expensive to purchase and, with their
hinged folding screen, are somewhat more fragile than desktop compu-
ters. Like desktop computers they require updates and maintenance, and
their functionality can be impeded if regular maintenance is ignored. Some
students told us that their laptop was too outdated to be of much use for
their schoolwork or that it was broken, again similar to discussions about
desktop computers.
Over half of the students who told us that they owned or had access to a
laptop also told us they left it at home at all times, revealing a small but
persistent set of barriers to bringing a laptop to campus that literally
outweighed the potential benefits for these students. The largest barrier
that students noted to using their laptops as truly mobile devices is their
weight, paradoxically making some laptops less than truly portable. Given
the long CUNY student commutes and school days that might last as long
as 14 hours, this is not a negligible concern for some. Based on what they
told us, we learned that many students are using older, heavier laptops,
though a few proudly described newer, lighter models. Studies of students
at the University of Rochester and at UCLA found similarly that students
often did not carry their laptops with them due to their weight, even
though most of those students lived on campus (Clark 2007, 51–52;
Mizrachi 2010, 578). This City Tech business student laments the weight
of her laptop in sharing that she does not bring it to campus often.
[I bring my laptop] maybe once a week. Because it’s heavy. Plus my books.
It’s heavy. It kills my back. Because I’m in school from 11:00 until 8:30.
For some students, the potential convenience of a laptop is negated by

inconveniences presented by the fixed world, notably, a lack of places to
plug in and charge up or lack of access to wifi; again, older computers are
more likely to require frequent (or even constant) charging. In addition,
we did hear some security concerns, both about laptops getting damaged
or stolen while out of the house. For these students, barriers to using their
laptops portably means their laptop mimics a desktop computer, and they
always or almost always leave their laptops at home.
SMARTPHONES
As portable, handheld computing devices that feature a high-resolution
touchscreen, the small size and weight of smartphones make them easy to
carry. Students are very likely to have their smartphones with them at all
times since smartphones have many communications features including
telephony, texting, video chat, and access to social media. Given the rates
of ownership, students are undoubtedly using their smartphones exten-
sively in the contexts of their personal lives and “are likely to have well-
established repertoires of digital practices” that are unconnected to their
scholarly work (Gourlay and Oliver 2013, 84).
The potential utility of smartphones for academic tasks stems from their
capacity to function as tools for receiving, transporting, accessing, and
creating educational materials. Students can use them for class readings or
streaming media or web-based research, and also to create documents in a
wide variety of formats, most notably word processing. Smartphones
typically have integrated cameras and audio recorders that students can
use to create their own multimedia or to photograph class notes on a
whiteboard. We also heard from students of myriad ways that they use
their smartphones to capture course texts to read when convenient for
them or when internet access is unavailable, including using the camera to
photograph pages of a textbook borrowed from the library’s reserve
collection, or using a scanning application to enable them to scan pages
of a print book. Students we spoke with appear to incorporate academic
activity into their broader smartphone experience quite easily and cited
smartphones as a top mobile device in support of their academic work,
including this liberal arts student at BMCC.
Question: Which technology contributes most to making it all

work for you in your hybrid/online classes?
Student response: My iPhone, I can take my work with me anywhere
without having to carry around my laptop.
Mobile access to the internet anywhere and anytime is a defining char-

acteristic of smartphones as well, with built-in wifi connectivity and cel-
lular telephone and data plans. The most positive affordance the
smartphone provides to students in support of their academic endeavor is

quick access to information via the internet, including email or alerts from
their instructors. They also specifically highlighted the usefulness of the
calendar and alarm functions as reminders. Students told us they particu-
larly appreciate the ability to access course and assignment and due date
information from their smartphones throughout their days.
Despite their many advantages, the small screen size and lack of key-
board are barriers for many students in effectively using their smartphone
for some schoolwork. Not all software applications that students must use
during their college careers are available for mobile devices, since smart-
phones run mobile operating systems that differ from the operating sys-
tems of full-featured computers. As a result, access to software may require
students to use desktop or laptop computers, and for some students the
specialized software they need for their coursework is only available on
campus computers. Further, while in many cases students found that
mobile applications or websites were more than adequate to their need,
they also told us that all too often software and web-based applications did
not function well or at all on their mobile devices. Unfortunately, this is
particularly true of some websites students must use to submit assignments
to their instructors as the undeclared Brooklyn College student and the
City Tech liberal arts student below both lament.
I try to use my phone or iPad, but a lot of times there are no mobile versions
of things, and it’s harder to work on compared to a computer.
I personally don’t use a smartphone or tablet for schoolwork but have been
present numerous times while my friends work was deleted or would not
upload from one of these devices.
TABLETS AND EREADERS

Tablet computers are in many ways like larger versions of smartphones
though they have no telephone feature. They may connect to the internet,
most commonly via wifi though paid cellular data plans are also available,
and can be used for the same kinds of activities as smartphones. With their
larger screen size, tablets may be more easily used with optional periph-
erals and can mimic a laptop when an external keyboard is added. While
tablets are typically more expensive than the lower end of the smartphone
price range, they are less expensive than many laptop computers.
Tablet access and ownership by the students we met is lower than that
for laptops or smartphones, though they do feature as a preferred mobile
device for a few. Those students especially mentioned using their tablets
for academic reading, and the added benefit of a larger screen size makes
any reading, viewing, or creating for their academic work that much easier
than with a smartphone. Tablets are very similar to smartphones in their
functionality and can often run the same software applications. However,
they remain mobile devices and thus may suffer from the same constraints
as do smartphones when using software or websites designed for full-
featured computing.
Ereaders are small, lightweight tablet computers dedicated almost
exclusively to reading ebooks and other electronic texts. A very few
students referenced ereaders among devices they own and find useful for
schoolwork. Tracking the decline in ereader ownership revealed in the
Pew survey results discussed above, we heard more students describe
taking advantage of ereaders in our 2009–2011 research than in 2015.
We suspect that the decline may be at least in part a result of the introduc-
tion and popularity of tablet computers that, while more expensive than
ereaders, offer far more functionality. Among the small number of stu-
dents we met who mentioned ereaders, they especially appreciated the
opportunity their ereader afforded to download course readings and other
materials for access during the commute or other locations and times
when they were offline.
MOBILE INTERNET ACCESS

Perhaps the most pressing requirement for students to take full advantage
of mobile digital technology is a robust connection to the internet via wifi
or a cellular network. Wifi may be available to students at home through a
paid broadband connection, on campus provided by the institution, at
businesses or other commercial entities such as coffee shops and book-
stores, or in public locations offered by a municipality. Though often free
to use, wifi networks may be limited to authorized users and require a
password for access, and may be more or less robust in terms of their
capacity to transmit data. Cellular networks are used mainly by mobile
phones and smartphones, though tablets and ereaders can have cellular
access as well. Cellular access plans are purchased directly by consumers
from telecommunications carriers; depending on their plan, smartphone
owners may pay separately for telephone and text messaging services or for
uploading and downloading data. Many cellular data plans have limita-
tions on the amount of data transfer allowed per month and will charge
consumers for any overage.
The costs of mobile internet access can add up for students, which may
be one reason that not all students are using the internet the way we might
assume, as we learned during our research. During our first cycle of research
in 2009–2011, we met several students who shared an alternative strategy
for internet access using mobile devices. These students signed in to college-
provided wifi using their iPod Touches or smartphones to gain mobile
access to the internet and save on data charges or when their data plans
had run out; research at the University of Florida in 2010 revealed similar
usage (Johnson and Means 2013). By 2015, every student we spoke to paid
for a cellular data plan on their smartphone, and we no longer heard about
this strategy from students—it seems that the purchase of a cellular data plan
for students’ smartphones is no longer considered optional. Both home
broadband access and cellular data plans represent a monthly cost to enable
internet or cellular access via mobile devices, which may be prohibitively
expensive for some students and their families. In both rounds of research,
students told us they used the free wireless services available in certain
businesses, public libraries, and public parks across New York City.
Students’ mobile academic activity includes general internet searching
and accessing course websites and textbooks, as well as more data-intensive
downloading or streaming of course-related materials—articles, presenta-
tions, images, and videos, among others—and uploading the work they
produced for their courses. For online and hybrid courses, these needs are
more acute. Students may also use the communications features of their
devices to access class emails and communicate with faculty and other
students. Mobile devices also generally have a capacity to allow for some
offline activity, including access to stored documents, images, and videos
that can be retrieved and viewed without requiring an internet connection
to function. In particular, students told us that they store and access course
reading material and use word processing programs on their mobile devices
while offline.
FILE ACCESS, TRANSPORT, AND STORAGE

A major advantage of mobile technology is the ability for students to move
files from one computing device to another, bringing completed docu-
ments to print on campus or using campus computers to download or
create coursework to complete later at home, for example. Students may

use their devices like laptops or smartphones to both complete their work
and transport it. They commonly transport files from one full-featured
computing environment to another on USB drives, a critical supplement
to their repertoire of mobile devices. USB drives are visible in our
2009–2011 photo survey pictures taken by students of “the things you
always carry with you,” and our observations in campus libraries and
computer labs more recently suggest that these small, inexpensive storage
devices are still in frequent use by students.
Students also use online options to transport and store their course-
work to facilitate access on multiple digital technologies. They may email
files to themselves, using campus or personal email accounts. Via cloud
computing students may also have access to online storage offered either
through their college or university or through commercial services.
Typically, cloud-based services can be accessed by any computing device:
a desktop or laptop computer, smartphone, or tablet. While many of them
are free to use once a student has created an account, concerns about
privacy, data ownership, and security may arise, especially with services
provided by commercial entities rather than the college or university.
All of these storage and transport solutions support students’ opportu-
nities to use their mobile technology to create their academic taskscapes in
multiple locations.
AFFORDANCES AND BARRIERS OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY

IN STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC TASKSCAPES
Mobile devices provide students with the opportunity to use computing

for schoolwork in ways that can free them from some of the barriers
of fixed technology and allow students the convenience of doing work
“anywhere,” even in places that are not specifically designated for
academic work.
ADVANTAGES OF MOBILITY
The advantages of portability begin at home. Most important to the
students we spoke with is the ability to create a personal academic space
by removing themselves from the distractions of shared locations in their
homes. The most frequently cited place they retreat to is their bed,
whether in a shared or private bedroom. Laptops in particular allow

students to work comfortably in their beds or armchairs when in need of
a full-featured computer experience. Smartphones similarly afford students
the ability to create or stay in their own space while at home, especially
when they are engaged in tasks that may require little more than internet
access via web browser or email as opposed to software needs such as word
processing. The smartphone is such a constant companion and feature of
student experience that some students told us they would use their smart-
phones at home for research and coursework even when they had a laptop
nearby.
A small number of students take advantage of laptops’ portability to
take them to campus, and some told us they have an option to borrow
laptops on campus from libraries or other locations. While they some-
times use them during class time to take notes or to participate in class
activities, more commonly students indicated they use their laptops for
independent work between classes at a variety of locations on their
campus, and appreciate how the flexibility of the laptop allows them to
constitute a workspace within the campus. In particular, the flexibility
and convenience of the laptop contrast with the long lines, limited time,
and the distractions of other students—Lefebvre’s collisions inherent
in the superimposition of social spaces (1991)—reported at campus
computer labs.
Between home and campus, the majority of CUNY students commute
an average of 45 minutes each way on public transportation, typically a bus
or subway train. Mobile digital technology, in particular smartphones and
tablets, offers them the opportunity to engage with schoolwork during
this time, primarily reading and reviewing course materials including
electronically available textbooks or assigned readings, lecture notes or
slides, or other materials. As mentioned above, students shared a variety of
strategies for using their smartphones and tablets to access course reading
offline, including downloading documents, scanning required texts, and
storing screenshots of websites. Only a few students mentioned their use
of ereaders for course texts, consistent with the results of a 2016 Pew
survey that found that adults read ebooks on smartphones or tablets more
often than on ereaders (Perrin 2016).
As well, students take advantage of long commutes to type up assign-
ments and even longer papers using their smartphones. In our earlier
research, students told us they used email or notepad-type programs to
create text documents that they would subsequently convert to word
processing documents when they had access to a computer, as this City

College student majoring in advertising and public relations shared.
Interviewer: And what do you usually do on your commute?

Student: While I’m on, riding on the train?
Interviewer: Yeah. On the train or the bus.
Student: My homework. Because I have long days. So, I do my read-
ings, my . . . Sometimes I type papers on my cellphone.
Interviewer: Really? Wow. On the train.
Student: Mm-hmm. And then I upload it. I send it to myself as an
email. Then I’ll upload it once I get to school. Then, you
know, attach it as a, copy as a Word document, into a Word
document.
Among the students we spoke with in 2015, the use of word processing
programs on smartphones was much more widespread, perhaps because
those applications had become more available and affordable. A further
consequence has been to make the smartphone more universally useful to
students for their academic work, which may affect students’ expectations
for when and where they will conduct their schoolwork.
Though the students who bring their laptop to campus clearly have it
during the commute, most students did not actually use their laptop on
the commute. The reasons are largely logistical: it is difficult to use a
laptop unless seated, and since subway trains and buses in New York
City are crowded much of the time, students may not be able to get a
seat. Further, reliable access to wifi is needed to take full advantage of the
computing power of a laptop, something students said was often not the
case, especially when commuting by subway.
BARRIERS OF LOCATION
Despite the affordances of mobile computing, we also noted a tension for
students between the convenience, portability, and ubiquity of mobile
devices, especially smartphones, and some significant barriers to their
effective use for schoolwork.
The requirement to plug in and recharge the battery on a mobile device
is a potentially limiting factor in its use. While portable supplementary
batteries do exist, they represent both additional cost and an additional
weight for students. The requirement to recharge a mobile device
represents a planning need that students cannot ignore, a need that is

particularly acute with our CUNY students who are often away from home
all day. Issues with charging devices were especially noted by students in
regard to laptops, perhaps because of their weight; some students com-
plained about accidentally leaving their power cord at home, while others
noted that their older laptop did not hold a charge very well. Many
students we spoke with bemoaned the lack of charging stations or elec-
trical outlets on campus, especially in older buildings or spaces that had
not been renovated since the rise in mobile computing devices.
Conversely, a liberal arts student at BMCC mentioned with great affect
the charging stations distributed throughout a new building on campus
that had just opened in 2012.
I really like the hangout spots they have, the sweet charging stations they
have, like they think of us in little ways.
Another important barrier to student use of mobile technology concerns

gaining access to the internet. Smartphones generally are paired with a
cellular data plan that provides internet access. However, students are acutely
aware of the additional costs they might incur over the data allowance on
their plans. For example, for large data transfers—uploading or downloading
files, watching video—many students told us that they preferred to use freely
available wifi rather than their data plan, further limiting where and when
they might accomplish those academic tasks on their smartphones. Students
extend and augment their access to the internet via wifi connections.
While all of the campuses at CUNY offer wifi for student use, practically
every student we spoke with expressed profound dissatisfaction about campus
wifi access. Most commonly, students lamented that the network was slow,
though other complaints include classrooms and other locations with weak
signals, or security protocols that made accessing the network at all an exercise
in frustration. Our university is hardly alone in experiencing challenges in
offering robust wifi on campus: a 2015 survey revealed that “students’ experi-
ences with campus wifi are disappointing” (Dahlstrom et al. 2015, 4). This is a
potentially serious problem: with cellular data plans for smartphones likely
insufficient for students’ academic needs, the availability of wifi for their
mobile technology is a critical factor in students’ academic taskscape.
Students may also have wireless internet access beyond campus via wifi
services provided by municipal or commercial entities like public libraries,
parks, coffeshops, and bookstores. However, wifi access is generally
unpredictable, and there are many public or commercial areas that do not
have wifi at all. Access to wifi in these locations may require students to
register and exchange some personal information for access, and these
connections may be less secure than home or campus wifi. Notably for our
CUNY commuter students, currently there is little internet access of
any kind in most of the New York City subway system, though buses
and the trains that run above ground are generally within range of cellular
networks.
While wireless access to the internet does enable students to use their
mobile technology to conduct their schoolwork anywhere, the students
we spoke with also noted that wifi presented serious limitations very often
not under their control. The speed and stability of wifi access can vary due
to a number of factors including the speed of the wired connection, the
number of access points available, and the number of users concurrently
connected. These limitations hold for students accessing wifi at home, on
campus, on the commute, or elsewhere. It is important to note that
impaired (or unavailable) wifi greatly diminishes the usefulness of mobile
devices.
CREATING SPACE WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGY

The CUNY students we spoke with in both 2009–2011 and 2015 share
the sentiment of many of us who own and use mobile devices: mobile
digital technology is amazing. The ability to use these small, lightweight,
and powerful computers in multiple locations is a crucial part of students’
lives, both for academic work and nonacademic uses, and they are deeply
tied to their mobile devices, as this City Tech nursing student noted in
answer to our question “Which technology contributes most to making it
all work for you in your hybrid/online classes?”
My smartphone. I am able to access my grades, type up a paper, review a

PowerPoint, etc. in the palm of my hand.
The central place of mobile technology for students means that they are
using it to support their schoolwork, and they are taking advantage of
mobility and computing power to do it at their own convenience.
However, for all of the affordances that enable students to constitute
their academic taskscape anywhere and anytime, mobile technology
remains place-bound in many important ways. In particular, fast and stable
access to wifi facilitates the affordances of mobile technology, while lack of

wifi is a significant barrier. Thus, we have seen that while mobile informa-
tion technology overlays and transcends place, it is also tied to place and
imposes both access to and restrictions on mobility. As other researchers
have also noted, “The technologically mediated world does not stand
apart from the physical one within which it is embedded” (Dourish and
Bell 2011, 132).
The as-yet-imperfect affordances and continued location-based barriers
of mobile technology mean that for the students we spoke with there is no
one, best device for their academic work; rather, there are combinations of
technologies and of strategies for planning the best use of their time.
We too found that “students’ study practices continue to be shaped in
important ways by the physical spaces and resources with which they work”
(Gourlay et al. 2015, 275). For many students, the combination of a laptop
and a smartphone provides the best mix of access to full-featured comput-
ing, mobile computing, and persistent internet access. While laptops are
noted by students as the more powerful tool in many cases, the top benefit
of the smartphone is its sheer availability. Indeed, students called out the
convenience of having a small computer (i.e., a smartphone) with them so
they could avoid carrying a laptop. Many students noted that the optimal
circumstance for using mobile devices for schoolwork is a combination of a
smartphone for quick access to information and a laptop for sustained
work. However, ownership of multiple mobile (or fixed) devices may not
be economically feasible for all students.
In our conversations with CUNY students, smartphones emerged as
their key technology for managing schoolwork and other aspects of their
busy personal lives, and every student we spoke with in fall 2015 had a
smartphone. Students also noted its importance for time management, for
keeping coursework central in their academic taskscapes. With their smart-
phones a constant companion, students’ digital practices transcend place
and can extend time, as we will discuss in our next chapter.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Monica. 2015. Technology Device Ownership: 2015. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technol
ogy-device-ownership-2015/.
Clark, Katie. 2007. “Mapping Diaries, or Where Do They Go All Day?” In
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of
Rochester, ed. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, 48–54. Chicago:
CUNY OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). 2016a.
2010 Student Experience Survey. New York: City University of New York.
http://www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/
administration/offices/oira/institutional/surveys/SES2010FinalReport.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden D., Christopher Brooks, Susan Grajek, and Jamie Reeves. 2015.
ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2015. Louisville, CO:
ECAR. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss15/ers1510ss.pdf.
Gourlay, Lesley, Donna M. Lanclos, and Martin Oliver. 2015. “Sociomaterial
Texts, Spaces and Devices: Questioning ‘Digital Dualism’ in Library and
Study Practices.” Higher Education Quarterly 69(3): 263–278.
Gourlay, Lesley, and Martin Oliver. 2013. “Beyond ‘the Social:’ Digital Literacies
as Sociomaterial Practice.” In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical
Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology, ed. Robin Goodfellow
and Mary Rosalind Lea, 79–94. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, Douglas, and Tawnya Means. 2013. “A State of Flux: Results of a
Mobile Device Survey at the University of Florida.” EDUCAUSE Review,
May/June. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/5/a-state-of-flux-results-
of-a-mobile-device-survey-at-the-university-of-florida.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mizrachi, Diane. 2010. “Undergraduates’ Academic Information and Library
Behaviors: Preliminary Results.” Reference Services Review 38(4): 571–580.
Perrin, Andrew. 2016. Book Reading 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/01/book-reading-2016/.
CHAPTER 4
College Students, Technology, and Time
Abstract Time management is important for all undergraduates, and

especially nontraditional and commuter students who have considerable
responsibilities outside of school and must make time for travel to and
from campus. Students use technology to create or extend time, using
mobile devices to fit their academic work into times and locations that are
most available to them. Urban commuter students can take advantage of
time spent on public transportation, though internet access is not always
guaranteed. However, digital technology can also constrain time and
make it difficult for students to accomplish their schoolwork. The require-
ment for many students to plan their schedules around the availability of
fixed technology in a shared space can waste students’ time, making it
more challenging for them to complete their coursework.
Keywords Commuter students Nontraditional students Undergraduate

student experience Time management Multitasking Smartphones
Computer labs Broadband internet Wireless internet Digital divide
We have seen that the fixed and mobile digital technologies that under-
graduates use occupy important roles in their academic taskscapes, for
supporting their schoolwork and for creating spaces for themselves to
accomplish it. However, more than just a way to view activities, the tasks-
cape is an individual’s interlocking ensemble of tasks over time (Ingold
1993, 158). The temporal aspect of the taskscape is critical; it is not just

that a student needs to print out her homework to hand in for class, but
also that she has to leave her home early to allow time to do so. The
experience of time in the taskscape is embedded in “shared contexts of
practical activity”—taking the subway to campus, waiting for a compu-
ter, heading off to class—these are all activities the student shares with
others, and she must anticipate the activities of others to plan and
conduct her own (160).
While time is an important factor in the academic lives of all college and
university students, there are several reasons that time may be more critical
to consider for nontraditional and commuter students, as we have at
CUNY. Commuting to attend college or university can be a significant
time burden on students that their residential counterparts do not incur,
and may be especially intrusive when commutes are long. Other charac-
teristics of nontraditional students involve time commitments beyond
schoolwork that may be substantial, including “having one or more
dependents, being a single caregiver, [ . . . ] attending school part time,
and being employed full time” (NCES 2015, 1). It is obvious but worth
stating: in general, the time that students must spend on paying work,
caregiving, commuting, and other responsibilities is time that cannot be
spent on their academic work, which can affect students’ opportunities for
success in their college careers.
For our students, many of the affordances of digital technology can
have a profound effect on their academic taskscapes, potentially saving
them time or even going so far as to make time for them. As in Gourlay’s
(2014) study of undergraduate and graduate student technology use, we
also found that “students not only experience time but appear to actively
and creatively create time in conjunction with technologies” (152).
However, there are also barriers—both anticipated and unanticipated—
with the use of digital technology for their academic work that can func-
tion to steal time from students and constrict the temporal component of
their academic taskscape. In our discussions with CUNY students, we
learned much about time as a factor in their academic lives and the various
ways that digital technology impacts their time.
MANAGING TIME
Managing their time to accommodate their academic schedules is some-
thing all undergraduates must grapple with, and the students we met are
generally very aware of the need for time management. A college student
4 COLLEGE STUDENTS, TECHNOLOGY, AND TIME 59
has many roles, and her academic taskscape often overlaps or is impinged
upon by nonacademic taskscapes, including responsibilities and activities
that compete with her coursework (Perna 2010). At the University of
Rochester, a predominantly residential college, a study found that “stu-
dents were actually on the go day and night and were seldom focused
exclusively on any one activity” (Foster and Gibbons 2007); research with
residential undergraduates at UCLA came to a similar conclusion (Mizrachi
2011). At California State University at Fresno, a commuter institution,
students’ overlapping taskscapes were evident throughout the study, which
aptly demonstrated that “schoolwork is not an activity that stands separate
and apart, or that can be analyzed in isolation” from the other responsi-
bilities of students’ lives (Delcore et al. 2009, 13). Research has shown that
undergraduates use a variety of strategies for managing their time and
keeping track of their various commitments (Foster and Gibbons 2007;
Mizrachi 2011), and we found that CUNY students used paper planners,
computers, and smartphones most commonly among a variety of tools,
technologies, and strategies to manage their time.
Our data collection in 2015 on students’ use of digital technology for
their academic work surfaced a new perspective on time management that
we did not hear about during our previous research 5 years earlier. Many
students expressed a strong desire to receive reminders of upcoming dead-
lines for their course assignments or exams via notifications to their email or
directly to their phone via text messaging. The faculty who completed our
questionnaire also suggested that digital reminders for students would make
it easier for students to remember and thus complete their assignments
within their busy lives. Recent advances in learning analytics technologies
have made automatic reminders much more common in learning manage-
ment systems and other online platforms students may use for their aca-
demic work, which may make it easier for students to incorporate reminders
on their digital devices as part of their time management strategy.
One of the most common challenges of time management that CUNY
students told us about is in planning their daily schedule around their need
to use fixed technologies, most often printers but also computers. When
students need to use a printer or computer on campus, they must leave
their home early enough to allow sufficient time given the crowding and
long lines they often reported encountering at campus computer labs.
Even for students with access to a printer at home, the need to print
could significantly impact on their day. Some students specifically shared
with us that they would print at home when time is short and they are in a
hurry, even despite the supply costs associated with printing at home. If
they had plenty of time, they would print on campus, as this City Tech
communication design student notes.
If I’m printing larger prints, I’ll print it at school, I’ll make time and I’ll
come, but if it’s just two or three pages I’ll just print it at home so I don’t
run late in the morning.
Other students preferred the opposite strategy for time management: they
print at home when they have lots of time and on campus if they are running
late. However, they managed it individually, students who used campus
computers and printers shared the requirement to plan their time carefully.
MAKING TIME WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Like many of us, the CUNY students we interviewed commonly use their
digital technology to layer their activities, what is generally referred to
as multitasking. But multitasking for our students is more than simply
task-switching; it includes those times when various student taskscapes—
academic, home, work, leisure—may be constituted simultaneously. Indeed,
other researchers have noted that “digital devices teleport work into spaces
and times once reserved for personal life” (Wajcman 2015, 137), something
we saw often in our study of CUNY students’ use of digital technology for
their academic work.
Some students were able to take advantage of the affordances of com-
puters at work in order to help complete their coursework. These students
had access to technology—often a desktop computer, though sometimes a
smartphone—as well as some down time available during their working
hours. This BMCC liberal arts student discussed multitasking at her job as
an office manager for a medical doctor, and this City Tech biomedical
informatics student who worked in the health professions also used tech-
nology to find time during her workday for her academic work.
I like to do it at work because I do a lot of multitasking, I have, I split my

screen, one for homework, and . . . one is on Blackboard and the other is on
the office. So usually I’m doing both things back and forth and still answer-
ing the phones.
I use technology at my job as well to study in between patients and on my

breaks.
Task-switching behavior also illustrates the adaptability of students when

they are using digital technology for their academic work. Our question-
naire answers from both students and faculty in hybrid and online courses
reveal the multiple platforms and applications that are in use in these
courses and, in many cases, in face-to-face courses as well. These applica-
tions include content platforms (e.g., Blackboard), online collaboration
tools (e.g., discussion boards), presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint),
streaming media (e.g., YouTube), feedback tools (e.g., online quizzes or
polls), screencasting, and data manipulation. Students will often work in
one of these academic applications at the same time as they are engaged in
nonacademic activities online, such as social media, reading the news, or
shopping; or in person while they are socializing with friends on campus or
with family at home.
Students also multitask during their commutes. While not all commu-
ter students use public transportation to commute to campus, for those
who do the commute may represent an opportunity to engage in course-
work while traveling, including reading course materials and reviewing
class notes. However, we also heard from many students who typed
academic assignments on smartphones while riding the subway or bus to
and from campus. Combining their academic and commuting environ-
ments allows our CUNY students to take maximum advantage of their
often lengthy commute times to do schoolwork. A student who uses her
smartphone to write her paper on the subway while she commutes to
campus is creating time for herself, potentially allowing her to use the time
outside of her commute for a variety of other activities.
These examples of students doing coursework on their commutes
showcase students’ adaptation and innovation in using their digital tech-
nology to take advantage of the time they have available for their academic
work. However, it is important to note that in some cases students may
need to spend significant time and effort in advance of their commutes
converting documents, uploading course materials onto their devices, or
printing out their course materials. Additionally, a student who writes a
paper on her phone may need to download and convert it to a print-
friendly format to print out for her instructor. CUNY students with a
commute primarily via subway typically do not have access to the internet
during the time the train travels underground, though they may on a bus
commute; to allow themselves to multitask on a subway commute, stu-
dents must invest their time in preparing to use their mobile technology
there.
For example, in 2010 we met a Hunter College media studies student

who converted his course texts to a different file format in order to load
them onto his ereader, and had also found a way to highlight text and
make exportable annotations in the ereader. In part he did this for con-
venience, to get more out of the time spent on his daily commute and
complete his academic reading on the subway. But he also mentioned that
he found he liked reading on the ereader. More recently other students,
including those taking hybrid and online classes, noted the occasional
need to convert course readings into a format that was more accessible
on their device. A City Tech allied health student described her process
with her tablet for making sure she could read and review the lecture notes
that faculty provided for student use.
I use an app I found called PDF and I’ll save the . . . sorry, what’s it called,
the PowerPoints, I’ll save them, I’ll convert them to a PDF and then save
them to Google Drive and then download them to this app so then I don’t
have to worry about using the internet on the train.
We heard of a number of other innovative strategies with digital technology

that some students used to save time for their academic work. While not
common methods, the several students who did use them were able to do
so well. One student we spoke with used BitTorrent—an online file-sharing
protocol—to download books that he indicated he could not get at the
college library. He mentioned this method of obtaining course materials as
a component of his preference for studying at home rather than the library.
It should be noted that since using file-sharing to download copyrighted
files is illegal it might be impossible to do so on campus due to network
restrictions. A number of students mentioned downloading music files,
but this particular student was the only one who mentioned using file-
sharing for academic texts, though we also heard from a few faculty that
they have observed their students downloading and printing the course
textbook.
And, after that, I got home, started on my laptop and started up some
torrents for some PDF books that I needed, ‘cause yeah, as much as this
library is well equipped with computers and stuff it’s fairly limited in what
you can do with them. Like, certain things it’s just more comfortable to do
at home.
We met several students who specifically mentioned the importance of

streaming video on the internet to maximize their learning experience in
college. Some noted that they used videos on YouTube and other services
to review and reinforce concepts learned in their classes, often from home
or in other internet-enabled locations. Others mentioned that the internet
provides many opportunities to learn almost anything of interest, even if
not directly related to their coursework or major. Internet video allowed
students to extend their learning into times and locations that were most
convenient for them, though, of course, students are reliant on access to
the internet to view videos online.
Students also implement other strategies to overcome some of the barriers
they face when using digital technology for their academic work. Some bring
their own wireless hotspot to campus or used their smartphone as a wireless
hotspot in order to enjoy faster and more reliable access to the internet for
their academic work. When explaining her decision to bring a wifi hotspot to
campus with her, a City Tech accounting student told us that “the wifi here
is so slow you can’t really do anything unless you have your own.” This
solution, while innovative, impacts both the students’ time and finances—
the need to purchase a hotspot or extra data on their smartphone service
plan, and the time involved to learn how to configure it for access by other
devices—and thus may not be equally available to all students.
Students found time for themselves in resisting technology as well. We
met two students from Hunter during our first round of research in 2010
who chose to have no cell phone or smartphone at all. Neither saw this
lack as a constraint, keeping in touch via email and using a web-based chat
service between classes on the computer kiosks placed around campus;
additionally, each had a phone line at her home. One expressed to us that
she felt that she had more control over her time without a mobile phone,
which would place her at the beck and call of her friends, echoing Dourish
and Bell’s (2011) observation that “mobile technology suggests the pos-
sibility of a constant, fixed expectation about who one is and one’s level of
accessibility and engagement” (118). During our 2015 research, we met
one Africana studies student at Brooklyn College who began her interview
by proclaiming: “I hate technology!” She indicated that technology wastes
people’s time. While she did have a smartphone, beyond that she had no
access to a computer or the internet at home. She made time for using
computers in campus or library computer labs for her academic work, and
summed up her experience by saying: “I only use a computer when it’s
necessary.” For this student, at least, the lack of fixed digital technology at
home was not a barrier to creating her academic taskscape, and campus
computers afforded her all she needed.
Finally, we discovered when we interviewed students about their use of
technology for their academic work that there are some types of behaviors
that students neglected to mention to us unless we specifically asked them,
confirming what other researchers have found, that “some uses of tech-
nology are so natural or ingrained that students don’t think to report
them” (Cooley et al. 2011, 2). Multiple students told us that they did not
use their smartphones for their academic work, just for personal, non-
school-related activities. However, when we probed further and asked
those students if they ever emailed their professors from their phone or
used their phone to check the Blackboard learning management system,
these students universally agreed that yes, they did. This unreported use of
digital technology is an example of multitasking that was such a regular
habit that it easily went unacknowledged by students.
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY WASTING STUDENTS’ TIME

Despite their many successes in using technologies to manage and create
time, students also find that digital technology and academic applications
can be a time constrictor, adding barriers that make it difficult to accom-
plish their academic work and stealing their time. For example, students
(and faculty) may need multiple login credentials, and each application
may have a significantly different interface and user experience. There is
time required to learn each system or application needed for their aca-
demic work, and for some students (and faculty) that time could be
significant. Sometimes students encounter significant failures of the tech-
nology or lack of support available to them, while at other times frustra-
tions arose around distractions associated with technology.
When fixed or mobile digital technology fails, the impact on students can
be significant. For example, while she may have successfully finished writing
her paper on the subway during her commute, if her professor requires her
to turn in a printed copy of the paper and the line at the campus computer
lab is too long for her to print before her class begins, the time she created
with one digital technology evaporates due to the barriers of another.
Complaints about CUNY’s learning management system were numerous,
some of which also applied to other digital platforms students were required
to use for their academic work. Student frustrations ranged from the
unstable behavior of the platform on mobile devices to the system going
down for maintenance at inopportune times to the perceived slow speed of

the system. Interestingly, several students enrolled in online and hybrid
courses mentioned that they struggled to meet assignment deadlines that
fell during a scheduled session for another, in-person class they were taking,
which represented a challenge for them as they attempted to accommodate
multiple course modalities into their academic taskscapes.
Students’ concerns about the potential for failure of the digital tech-
nology that they use centered particularly on when they most needed it to
complete their academic work. Technology failures that students men-
tioned encompass their own slow, outdated, or broken hardware or soft-
ware, slow or unstable internet connections in any location, and website or
online platform instability or system maintenance downtime. When com-
bined with their assignment deadlines, especially for assignments or
quizzes on a learning management system, students were well able to
articulate their concerns about the barriers of digital technology and
their effects on the temporal component of students’ academic taskscapes.
As one BMCC liberal arts student so succinctly said to us: “Technology is
great, but it’s really time consuming.”
Many students also expressed frustration with what they found to be a
lack of support for their use of digital technology for their academic work,
especially at the specific times when they encountered technical difficulties.
The opportunity for students to get answers to their questions from faculty
members does not always align with the time that the student may have a
question, including overnight hours. Further, there is latency inherent in
sending an email request for support and waiting for a response. Students
also expressed frustration that they lacked technical support for the digital
technology they are required to use. Technical support whenever students
need it is not always guaranteed, and some students told us about struggles
with assignments that were due to be uploaded to the learning management
system by 11:59 p.m. on the deadline date and the lack of support at that
time of day. As these City Tech students majoring in nursing and biomedical
informatics note in response to our question asking what they find most
frustrating about their work in their online or hybrid course, both academic
and technical support with technology may not always be available to them.
Not understanding the material and not being able to get an answer right away.
Another thing that frustrates me is not being to have 24 hour access for help
when dealing with an assignment through a certain program required for
class.
While mobile technologies can sometimes be used to overcome the time

constraints that students may experience with fixed digital technology, the
requirement for access to the internet can impede students’ opportunities
to create time with their mobile devices. Many students we spoke with
expressed strong concern that the wifi access on campus was too slow to
enable them to effectively use their mobile digital technology for their
academic work. Even students who own or have access to lightweight
laptop computers sometimes mentioned that they do not use them for
work on campus that requires wifi access, as this computer engineering
technology student from City Tech notes below. Some students also
noted that the leisure activities of their fellow students—watching videos,
posting photos on social media—“wasted bandwidth” and contributed to
the slow speed of campus wifi. Lack of access to a fast internet connection
via wifi on campus is especially concerning in regard to those students who
lack adequate broadband access at home, a group that is on the rise at
CUNY.
I have to use the school’s [lab] computers if I’m taking the online courses, as
the wifi slows down.
Finally, lack of private, unrestricted access to the digital technology they

need for their academic work deeply impacts the student experience and
their use of time. Reliance on access to computing in the shared spaces
they find themselves in during the day leads to frustrations when students
attempt to use digital technology to construct their academic taskscapes
and encounter the overlapping or interfering taskscapes of others who
surround them. Other than students’ homes, most locations where they
use technology for their academic work are not open around the clock,
and students must conform to those locations’ opening hours and make
time for whatever delays they might encounter, including waiting in line
to use a computer or printer. Using digital technology in shared spaces
also requires accommodating, and impinging upon, the activities of other
people simultaneously using those spaces and technologies. These limita-
tions can combine in many ways to negatively impact the temporal com-
ponent of students’ academic taskscapes.
Even in their homes, students are not always able to use digital tech-
nology to create both space and time for their academic work. One
education student from Brooklyn College shared his strategy for carving
out a distraction-free study location in his family’s living room. While he
describes a situation in which he was successfully able to claim a space at

home for his schoolwork at a time that was convenient for him, his
reference to his family members and other activities like watching televi-
sion reveals that this is not available to him at all times and requires
negotiation with others to make it work.
My house is very noisy, it’s a lot of noise, and the thing about it is if I can’t
study on campus, I would go home and sit in this little corner [ . . . ] every-
body knows that while I’m in the living room and I’m studying, they can’t
come in and watch T.V.
A liberal arts student we met from Bronx CC, who has several younger
siblings, photographed the hallway outside her apartment for the prompt
“a place at home where you study” and explains her choice:
Sometimes when kids are running around, “Aaaaargh!” I need to find some
quiet, so what I do is that I just sit in the hallway. It’s not uncomfortable; it’s
pretty cool. You know, I know everyone on my floor, so, they’re like “Oh,
you’re studying again!” But they admire me, you know, for putting so much
hard work into my schoolwork.
It is important to note that this student did have access to a personal

computer and the internet at home; her family owns a desktop computer.
However, because that desktop computer is fixed technology she is only
able to use her smartphone in the hallway location where she succeeded in
finding the quiet she needs.
Distractions or lack of a suitable place to create an academic space for
themselves often leads students to seek access to digital technology in
locations outside of their homes. This adds both time for students to travel
to the computer lab, library, or another location. When many people need
to use these technologies simultaneously, there may be long lines and
students must wait or spend time finding a location without a line. All of
the CUNY colleges have seen enrollment grow in the past decade, and in
many cases the physical facilities and availability of digital technology on
campus have not increased proportionally. The potential distractions of
shared technology on campus may be especially exasperating when
approaching an assignment deadline, as this liberal arts student from
BMCC notes.
The most frustrating was when your (sic) on a timed schedule with other
classes that are all priority and internet is slow, computer labs are full and
when you need certain tools only.
FACULTY PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENTS’ USE OF DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGY
Faculty are also concerned about the ways that digital technology can be
time-consuming for their students and themselves. Many are hampered by
difficulties with learning management systems and other digital platforms.
Faculty frustrations center on usability challenges as well as the system’s
stability and maintenance requirements; several faculty also mentioned
that learning management system failures impact their teaching and stu-
dents’ learning. These concerns are shared by faculty and students across
higher education. In May 2016, an outage of the learning management
system at the University of California Davis made national news. This
multiday downtime occurred during final exams, and it was initially
reported that course-related information might not be able to be recov-
ered (Hill 2016). Our own university suffered a series of outages to its
learning management system throughout the spring 2009 semester that
continues to affect faculty willingness to use the platform in their classes.
Faculty also shared their disappointment with access to the internet via
wifi on campus. Their concerns echoed what we heard from students:
inconsistent coverage across campus, slow internet speeds, and unstable
connections. With full, wired computer classrooms featuring a workstation
for each student still the exception rather than the rule, at least on our
CUNY campuses, many faculty suggested that the lack of reliable wifi
access on campus impedes their use of digital technology in their courses,
as this hospitality management faculty member at City Tech notes.
Access to better wifi on campus would make the use of technology in the
classroom a lot easier and more desirable.
The time required for faculty to train students and themselves in the use of
the digital technology for their academic work represents a barrier for and
impacts the academic taskscapes of both faculty and students. Faculty, too,
note their overall frustration with the time and effort required to use
digital technology in their courses. They point to a lack of support both
for the technical aspects of the systems and for instructional design, and
the need they and their students have to constantly experiment with and
learn to use new software and systems. This quote from a faculty member
in the mathematics department at BMCC is illustrative of the experiences
of many faculty.
I have to cobble together the best experience I can from a whole slew of
different technologies, each of which has its merits but falls short in some
other way, and I have to pick just the top 3–4 technologies for a single class,
because otherwise the students get overwhelmed. But in the 13 years that I
have been teaching online, I’ve still never really been able to get to the point
where I feel that all the technologies really work well. There are too many
workarounds, and instances where I have had to teach myself coding just to
get something done, or where I have had to give the students convoluted
instructions just to get something to work at a basic level.
IMPLICATIONS OF FIXED AND MOBILE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

ON STUDENTS’ TIME
In exploring our CUNY undergraduates’ use of digital technology for
their academic work, we have seen that fixed and mobile technologies
have different impacts on the temporal component of students’ aca-
demic taskscapes. Fixed technology—for example, in campus computer
labs—may be technologically more reliable and offer fast, stable access
to the internet and the software applications that students require.
However, fixed technology is tied to location and thus is more rigidly
bound by time, and students must work around the availability of that
technology in each specific location to schedule it into their days.
Mobile technologies that are owned by students are more time-flexible
and may be more readily available to students for their academic work
at a time that is most convenient them. Yet the functionality of mobile
digital technology does not always match students’ academic require-
ments—from the inconsistent behavior of learning management sys-
tems on mobile devices to the lack of reliable and fast wifi access to
the internet—which means students cannot take advantage of mobile
affordances to create time for themselves.
Printing-required assignments or course materials offer an apposite
example of the impact of digital technology on the temporal component
of students’ academic taskscapes. We found that each student gave
thorough consideration to her printing needs at home and on campus

(and occasionally other locations like the public library), calculating free
versus pay printing, availability, convenience, and her own comfort. In
fact, students had worked out complex internal maps of campus labs and
their printing policies as well as usage patterns so that they knew where
they could print most efficiently. They spoke about their frustration when
they encountered difficulties while relying on the college computer labs to
print out an assignment to meet a deadline. The need to print as well as the
availability of printers constrained not only each student’s campus experi-
ence but also impinged on her life off campus, as planning time to print
could affect commuting time and nonacademic responsibilities. It is not
too much to say that for some students on some days the need to print,
and the struggle to locate and use a printer on campus within the time
available, was a defining feature of her experience as a college student.
Students are well aware of the importance of time in their academic
careers, and they are amenable to using digital technology to help them
take control and make the most of their academic taskscapes (Czerniewicz
et al. 2009, 82). Adaptability with technology is all but required for
students to complete their academic work, as they work across multiple
platforms, devices, and applications on campus, at home, and in other
locations. Some of the students we spoke with are able to find success in
using digital technology to extend their time, while others are trying their
best to use these technologies to their advantage but are stymied by
circumstances outside their control. When we asked students what they
would do if given a magic wand to make their technology better, nearly
every student answered with some variation on “always fast and never
crashes” or “everything instantly connects and is always there.” Indeed,
time is perhaps the most critical aspect of students’ use of digital technol-
ogy in their academic work.
REFERENCES
Cooley, Christopher J., Thomas Malaby, and David Stack. 2011. How Are
Students Actually Using IT? An Ethnographic Study. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. https://library.educause.edu/
resources/2011/11/how-are-students-actually-using-it-an-ethnographic-
study.
Czerniewicz, Laura, Kevin Williams, and Cheryl Brown. 2009. “Students Make a
Plan: Understanding Student Agency in Constraining Conditions.” ALT-J,
Research in Learning Technology 17(2): 75–88. http://www.researchinlear

ningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/10866.
Delcore, Henry D., James Mullooly, and Michael Scroggins. 2009. The Library
Study at Fresno State. Fresno, CA: Institute of Public Anthropology, California
State University. http://www.csufresno.edu/anthropology/ipa/thelibrarys
tudy.html.
Foster, Nancy Fried, and Susan Gibbons. eds. 2007. Studying Students: The
Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Chicago:
Gourlay, Lesley. 2014. “Creating Time: Students, Technologies, and Temporal
Practices in Higher Education.” E-Learning and Digital Media 11(2):
141–153. doi:10.2304/elea.2014.11.2.141.
Hill, Phil. 2016. “Scriba Disaster: Sakai-Based LMS for UC Davis Is Down with
No Plans for Recovery.” e-Literate (blog), May 27. http://mfeldstein.com/
scriba-disaster-sakai-based-lms-uc-davis-no-plans-recovery/.
Ingold, Tim. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology
25(2): 152–174.
Mizrachi, Diane. 2011. “How Do They Manage It? An Exploratory Study of
Undergraduate Students in their Personal Academic Information Ecologies.”
PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2015. Demographic and
Enrollment Characteristics of Nontraditional Undergraduates: 2011–12.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.
gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015025.
Perna, Laura W. ed. 2010. Understanding the Working College Student: New
Research and Its Implications for Policy and Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wajcman, Judy. 2015. Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital
Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CHAPTER 5
Recommendations for Technology in

Higher Education
Abstract When thinking about the ideal digital technology landscape for
higher education, it is critically important to consider commuter and
nontraditional undergraduates, who may have less access to the internet
or other digital technology and more pressure on the time available for
their academic work. Students work hard to get the resources they need
for their coursework, and digital technology has in many ways made this
work more complicated and time-consuming. Students need reliable wifi
on campus, continued access to computer labs, increased access to char-
ging and printing, robust training, timely support, and mobile-friendly
academic software. Concerns about technology access and digital literacy
are imperative, a question of social justice in US higher education and
beyond to best support students’ academic success.
Keywords Commuter students Nontraditional students Digital literacy

Digital divide Internet access Technology infrastructure Institutional
support Pedagogy Undergraduate student experience
Understanding students’ everyday use of digital technology in support

of their academic work, in particular its impact on their time, is funda-
mental to supporting students in college. This knowledge is a critical
consideration for all involved in higher education—faculty, staff, and
administrators—and must inform decisions about technology on campus.

During our conversations with CUNY students and faculty, we learned

much about how students use digital technology for schoolwork across their
days. We have found that fixed technology’s greatest restriction on students’
academic taskscapes is that it requires them to create academic space for
themselves in locations that may be occupied by multiple other people
engaged in a variety of activities. Time is also a concern, and often students
who want or need to use fixed technology must work around specific hours
for access, restricting their flexibility in scheduling their own time. Mobile
technology can allow students to transcend place and to constitute their
academic taskscapes in a variety of locations and times, affording them the
opportunity to reduce the distractions of others and take advantage of the
time they have available between their academic and nonacademic respon-
sibilities. However, the use of mobile technology for academic work may be
limited by distinctly location-bound concerns such as wifi internet access
and the need for charging, as well as the reduced functionality of some
applications when compared to full-featured computing.
The most successful students we spoke with saw themselves as active
constructors of and participants in their own academic taskscapes. Their
holistic view of their taskscapes led them to make decisions about when
and where to study that took into account the advantages and constraints
of different locations and times. They implicitly, if not explicitly, under-
stood that succeeding at particular assignments, as well as in college more
broadly, depended on fitting academics into their days: successfully nego-
tiating the use of places not necessarily meant for academic work and
anticipating (and working around) difficulties such as long lines at com-
puter labs. Students who struggled to constitute their taskscapes, or who
simply could not find the place or make the time to do their academic
work, were more frustrated and dissatisfied with their experience as stu-
dents, despite the advantages of technology.
Our mission in higher education is not just to teach undergraduates a
specific topic or discipline, but also to ensure student success on a broad
scale: both a college experience that is positive and meaningful overall as
well as preparation for their life beyond college. To help our students
make the most of the digital technology that is available to them, we join
other researchers in calling for better understanding of how students are
already using digital technology and how it is supporting or failing them
(Henderson et al. 2015, 2). Understanding student and faculty lived
experiences and needs is key to effective institutional planning for digital
technology infrastructure and support.
5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 75
We are concerned by the pervasive image of students as technology-

savvy individuals who come to college well-versed in a variety of comput-
ing applications, with prior knowledge that enables them to manipulate
and apply technologies in support of their education. On the contrary, our
interviews with CUNY students and faculty as well as our experiences
working with students in the library have shown us that many students
are both unfamiliar with and unsure of their skills with many digital
technologies and their applications for academic work. It is fundamentally
unfair to students to assume that they are all equally well-prepared to use
technology in their coursework, and points to a disinvestment in students.
We agree with Bennett and Maton (2010), who suggest that we must
“move beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate as it currently stands and
towards a more sophisticated, rational debate that can enable us to provide
the education that young people deserve” (19).
Lower income and minority students in particular, traditionally under-
served in US higher education, are often ignored in the ongoing conversa-
tion about technology and education. Yet they represent a large and
growing undergraduate population in the US and are most likely to be
profoundly impacted by access to digital technology. As Pew surveys have
revealed, in recent years these populations “exhibited a sharp increase in
‘smartphone-only’ adoption” which has serious implications for students:
they do not have access to computing at rates comparable to students with
more privileged backgrounds or at private, residential colleges (Horrigan
and Duggan 2015, 2). Time is another barrier for low-income students in
making the best use of the digital technology available to them. Flexibility
and control over use of time correlates with household income level, and
inequality—including unemployment—can exacerbate these differences
(Wajcman 2015, 65). We found that our CUNY students are working
hard to get to the resources they need for their coursework, and digital
technology has in many ways made things more complicated and time-
consuming for them. Concerns about technology access and digital lit-
eracy are imperative for these students, a question of social justice in
higher education and beyond.
The experience of students at CUNY is not unique; it stands for the
present and future of US undergraduates more broadly. Most critically, a
small but persistent number of students do not have solid options for
access to digital technology or the internet off campus. At the time of
writing, the most recent CUNY Student Experience Survey results date
from 2014, when total undergraduate enrollment was 245,646 (CUNY
OIRA 2016). At that time, 3% of respondents reported that they had no

regular access to the internet off campus (Fig. 2.1). While this is a small
percentage overall, CUNY’s large enrollment means that at least 7,369
students—or on average 1 student in each class of 30—could not consis-
tently use internet-enabled digital technology for their academic work off
campus. This is not only a concern for urban students as reliable access to
digital technology that can effectively support academic work is increas-
ingly problematic for lower-income individuals in rural and suburban areas
as well (Skallerup Bessette 2012; West 2016).
AN IDEAL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY LANDSCAPE FOR STUDENTS

What configuration of digital technology—both fixed and mobile—would
best support the success of our CUNY students? While the ideal may not
be achievable given both institutional bureaucracies and the economic
realities faced by students, their families, and colleges and universities,
our research can inform a description of the ideal technology landscape
for students and provide goals to consider in technology planning.
It seems clear that most undergraduates are committed to owning a
smartphone with a data plan. Students would also benefit from owning a
recently manufactured, lightweight laptop computer and broadband inter-
net access in their homes. Some institutions require students (or their
families) to purchase a laptop when they enroll in college; it may be
possible for institutions to use bulk purchasing to reduce the cost of a
laptop for students or to repurpose some or all of any technology fees paid
by students to offset the cost of a laptop. Broadband access may be more
challenging for low-income students, especially as it represents a continu-
ing, monthly fee. Government or corporate-subsidized access plans for
low-income households could help reduce those costs.
Students also need the basic word processing software and other com-
monly used applications for their coursework to be installed and available
on their laptop computers. Availability of technical support for students is
critical and should ideally be available at all hours—even when the college
is closed—and via email, text, phone, and in person. Adequate technical
support should include troubleshooting software malfunctions and help-
ing to install updates, so that students would not incur repair expenses if
their computer got a virus, for example. Students can also complete basic
training in the applications they are required to use for their academic
work, including learning management systems.
If all students had their own lightweight laptop computers, a college or

university could reconsider the allocation of campus computing resources,
especially the configuration of general-purpose computing labs. Specialized
software and computing equipment, like large-scale printers and scanners,
could continue to be offered in computer labs on campus for use by
students whose programs require them. A robust wireless network on
campus would allow students to use their laptops across campus, and
dedicated wireless printing stations could be offered in multiple locations
for students to use to print their assignments. Faculty could also consider
allowing electronic submission of assignments where appropriate to reduce
the need for printing. Adoption of open educational resources in lieu of
expensive textbooks would both save students money and reduce their need
to photocopy or take pictures of the textbook to read while they commute.
Finally, it would be ideal for students—not just institutional technology
staff—to be trained in the details of learning analytics and to be given the
opportunity to make an informed decision to opt in or out of automated
data collection by institutional systems. For many students, the benefits of
assignment deadline reminders or early intervention warnings are attrac-
tive and may help them better manage their time to increase their success
in college. However, students must be informed of the specific kinds of
data that each institutional system collects and have the chance to give full
consideration to the privacy implications of this data collection.
SUPPORTING STUDENTS’ ACCESS TO DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGY
In the absence of the full range of resources to create the ideal digital
technology landscape we described, how can we help students—especially
the commuter and nontraditional students who make up the majority of
US undergraduates—take advantage of the affordances of digital technol-
ogy and remove the barriers? What institutional support can we offer?
Have we in the college or university as a whole provided and encouraged
the kind of tools and work that make sense for our students? Our research
suggests strategies that might be implemented by faculty, staff, and admin-
istrators at colleges and universities, especially those that serve significant
numbers of commuter and nontraditional students.
At the top of the digital technology wish list for the students we met was
better campus wifi: faster, more reliable, and easier to access. This desire is a
result of an increasing reliance on wifi networks for a wide range of com-

puting needs and an expectation for ubiquitous wifi for students who bring
multiple devices of their own to campus (Kelly 2015, 5). In national
surveys, students have reported that they are using mobile devices in their
classes more often (NSSE 2015). Yet we know that many campus wifi
networks are not adequate to the needs of students (Delcore et al. 2014).
The Center for Digital Education (CDE 2015) recently reported that only
8% of respondents to a survey of IT professionals in higher education “said
their network was prepared to handle 4 or more devices per student/faculty
member, even though some sources say college students bring 6 or more
networked devices to campus” (2). It seems safe to assume that wifi needs
will only increase over time.
Colleges and universities would do well to increase opportunities for
wifi access on campus. We acknowledge that on many campuses this is a
nontrivial undertaking that may require costly upgrades to buildings,
especially their electrical wiring. Making a significant investment in the
wired infrastructure that undergirds campus wifi networks may mean
rethinking priorities, and making hard decisions about which digital tech-
nologies are funded and supported. Understanding actual student use can
ensure informed decision-making. In the future, it may be possible for
students to take advantage of free municipal wifi access to supplement
campus wifi and students’ home internet access. Wifi provided by munici-
palities could reduce or eliminate the need for individual residents to
purchase broadband access, which would be advantageous for the many
CUNY and other students who may be substituting their smartphone data
plan for broadband home access. This experiment is already underway in
New York City, where the first of a planned 7,500 free wifi kiosks were
unveiled in Manhattan in July 2016 (McGeehan 2016). It is important to
note, however, that freely available wifi is often underwritten by advertis-
ing, and the use of such services may be tracked and monitored.
Predictions that campuses can begin to move away from space and
hardware-heavy computer labs are on the rise, in part in response to the
increase in students who now have access to their own fixed and mobile
digital technology (Brown 2015, 20). Yet the appeal of the potential cost
and space savings may obscure a variety of reasons why students continue
to need access to computer labs on campus. As our research has shown,
even though most students own at least a smartphone, and though many
are eager to use their smartphones for their academic work, a smartphone
is not sufficient as the sole technology for undergraduates to use during
their college careers. Many students cannot afford to purchase a desktop

or laptop computer, printer, and broadband internet access at home in
addition to a smartphone, which would afford them the best opportunities
for academic work off campus. Students still need access to printers and
specialized software that campus computer labs provide, both for conve-
nience and for making the most of their time. Allowing students to print
from any device in any location on campus might ease long lines in the
computer labs.
Our interviews at CUNY, and research at other institutions such as
Drexel University and California State University Fresno, have shown that
students heavily use and request more access to technology on campus,
including “additional electrical outlets, printers, computers, copiers, and
scanners, and better WiFi connections” (Khoo et al. 2012, 61; Delcore
et al. 2014). Colleges and universities may consider device loans in addi-
tion to fixed computer labs as students also express a wish for more access
to mobile devices (Chen and Denoyelles 2013). Laptop, ereader, or tablet
loan programs can give students access to mobile technology when they
need it. There are many models for technology loan programs in college
libraries and computer labs; more recently, laptop loan-vending machines
are becoming more commonplace (e.g., see Domonell 2014, 37–39; Wang
and Arlain 2014, 12–16; Buzzard and Teetor 2011, 1). In the end, the
campus computer lab may represent the best chance for students to access
technology to support their academic work (Delcore et al. 2014), and it
remains true that “eliminating all public computer labs is not in the best
interests of any campus” (Hawkins and Oblinger 2007, 11).
Institutions can also increase resources for more responsive and readily
available technical and instructional technology support for both students
and faculty. While national surveys such as the National Survey of Student
Engagement and Faculty Survey of Student Engagement include multiple
questions about the ways that students and faculty use technology in their
academic endeavors, there are no questions in either survey about support
for technology in education (NSSE 2016; FSSE 2016). Students expect
support with both the fixed technologies they use on campus and their
own mobile devices; they also expect support with a wide range of institu-
tion-provided software applications on and off campus, and sometimes
applications not provided by the institution. A number of studies, includ-
ing our own, have surfaced general complaints about lack of campus
support for technology and wishes for more support (Delcore et al.
2014; Chen and Denoyelles 2013; Chen et al. 2015).
Better access to training is another area of support that colleges and

universities must find ways to offer. Students arrive at college or university
having had widely varying experiences with access to and use of technol-
ogy at home and in their prior schooling, which necessarily means that
they bring varying levels of comfort and skill to the use of technology in
their coursework (Bennett and Maton 2010; Rideout and Katz 2016).
The ECAR survey in 2015 reported that many students acknowledge
that they need additional support with technology and “wish they were
better prepared: 33% to use basic software and applications, 42% to use
institutionally specific technologies such as the LMS” (Dahlstrom et al.
2015, 10).
Faculty also need and want support, for themselves and for their
students, as our own and other research has shown (Chen et al. 2015).
The faculty who participated in our research did seem to accept some
aspects of the trope of the digital native, even if they did not always use
that exact term to describe their students, though they also pointed out its
limitations. This professor in an allied health department at City Tech
shared her suggestions for what could make her students’ experiences
better in teaching online and hybrid courses.
Create more interactive online tutorials for students to take at the beginning
of the year. Issue them small online certificates of completion, which they
can submit for small credit or a low-stakes assignments. We need to put
more of the learning on the student. School is no longer about coming in for
a lecture and going home to do your homework. A lot more technical skills
are needed in the age of rapidly growing technologies, and students have to
gain confidence in using these technologies to advance their scholarship.
As faculty we teach content, but I like to think that we, more-so, facilitate
learning through technology. I can only do this if students have the basic
skills and confidence to navigate a variety of technologies that enhance
teaching.
Clearer understanding of the student experience also suggests ways in

which the affordances of technology can simplify and ease the student
experience. For example, faculty might use digital technology as both
pedagogical innovation and to save students time by adjusting assignments
to accommodate students’ use of smartphones for writing, perhaps
encouraging a greater number of shorter writing assignments, or blogging
and other online writing strategies. To relieve the temporal and financial
costs of students’ experience around printing, faculty might allow students

to submit assignments electronically rather than on paper. Many word
processing and other applications include inline editing and commenting
features that can enable faculty to offer feedback in a document that can be
returned to students electronically. There is no question that this would
require a substantial change in workflow for some faculty members, but at
least one study has shown that faculty may ultimately find this approach
beneficial for students’ learning (McCabe et al. 2011).
Institutions can also provide increased support for applications acces-
sible via a range of mobile and fixed technologies, as our and other
research has suggested (Delcore et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2015).
Increasing cloud-based services is a good start. In spring 2015, the New
York City Council, the Microsoft Corporation, and CUNY announced a
collaboration to provide free cloud-based access to Microsoft Office,
called Microsoft Office 365, to all CUNY students, though it had not
yet been deployed on the campuses where we did our research (CUNY
2015). Google University provides a similar set of services available to
institutions for a fee that add functionality beyond the cost-free offerings
in Google Apps for Education. While the institution only has control over
the systems that it provides for students to use, ensuring that these systems
work on mobile devices—and that students are provided with robust,
time-sensitive support—is a crucial aspect of making these investments
optimally useful. As well, institutions need to inform students of the
privacy implications of sharing data with commercial cloud computing
providers.
We have found that students are very interested in using technology to
extend and manage their time, as have other researchers; in a survey asking
students about their “most useful” technology, “the broad issue of mana-
ging time or time-saving” categorized most students’ responses
(Hendersonet al. 2015, 4). There are a number of ways that technology
can be harnessed to provide support for student time management.
Many CUNY students and faculty told us that automated reminders for
specific tasks such as assignment deadlines or exam dates would be much
appreciated in their quest to gain control over their academic taskscapes
and fit everything into their busy days. On the instructional side, auto-
mated reminders are available in many learning management systems, and
information about how to implement them could be promoted to faculty
and students. Ensuring, too, that students who wish to use a smartphone
to support their learning (and faculty to support their teaching) are aware
of how to configure it to receive college email and other notifications is

another step that institutions could take to support students.
It may also be useful to consider information that can be gleaned from
the systems that students use—learning management systems, especially—
to better support our students. For example, how many students submit
their assignments at 11:59 p.m., a time when robust technical and instruc-
tional support is unlikely to be available? Can technology staff share that
information with faculty, and can both staff and faculty work together to
consider other options that may place students in a better position to
succeed, such as assignment deadlines earlier in the day when they can
access on-time help? Institutions would do well to consider technology
support as part of their overall assessment planning. Generally, the system,
in all its components, will work best for students and faculty if it is
responsive to and accommodates their actual uses of the technology,
even if those uses were not originally anticipated.
At the institutional level, many systems collect and track student data,
including registration, learning management, and campus email. Many
schools already leverage learning analytics data to keep students up to
date on registration, advisement schedules, and progress to graduation. In
recent years, colleges and universities have started to gather and analyze
these and other student learning metrics with the intent to improve both
teaching and learning and academic persistence. Most remarkable has
been the initial success in using these learning analytics to target at-risk
students early, when interventions can make the most difference (Johnson
et al. 2016, 38). Keeping students on track in completing the courses
required for their program of study and keeping their grades up can save
students’ time by ensuring that they are making progress toward
graduation.
Despite the usefulness of learning analytics, it is worth noting concerns
about student data collection and privacy that may accompany their use,
concerns that have not always been adequately addressed (Prinsloo and
Slade 2015). For example, when administrators at the Open University in
England, a mostly online institution, disclosed to students the data they
collect “many of them didn’t realize the extent to which their data was
being collected,” and some were understandably taken aback (Blumenstyk
2016). Where is the line between intervening because a student is failing a
course, sending reminders of assignment deadlines, and surveilling stu-
dents’ academic activities? It is important to remember that many of the
technologies used in higher education are subscribed or licensed products
from corporations such as Blackboard, Microsoft, and Google. Corporate

interests are not identical to those of institutions of higher education, and
it is worth considering whether it is in our best interest for them to collect
student and faculty data (O’Neil 2014; Watters 2016).
EXPLORE LOCAL CONDITIONS TO KEEP THE FOCUS

ON STUDENTS
Gathering current information on the digital technology that students

have access to for their academic work—both fixed and mobile, and in a
range of locations—should include not just device ownership but also
strategies for and challenges related to internet access. Understanding
students’ lived experience of using digital technology must inform policies
and programs across the campus and allow for more dynamic and immedi-
ate responses to issues in student technology use. As others have sug-
gested, every institution is different and will have its own specific
technology needs and constraints (Hawkins and Oblinger 2007, 11;
Delcore et al. 2014; Asher and Duke 2011, 161–162). Even a small-
scale inquiry into student perceptions and experiences can inform deci-
sion-making to better serve student needs and can help correct for the
pervasive focus of the education and news media on the technology
experiences of students at elite residential colleges.
Surveys can provide useful background information about students’
access to digital technology and their use of campus facilities, either infor-
mally at the local level or as part of institutional assessment. It is critical to
ask thoughtful, probing questions about what technologies students own or
have access to, what their experiences are, and where students and faculty
encounter deficits in support. The University of Florida chose to implement
an annual survey about mobile technology use for students, faculty, and staff
“to provide ongoing and potentially longitudinal user feedback” (Johnson
and Means 2013). Their survey solicited not only information on the
current state of mobile technology use at the institution but also “recom-
mendations about what campus services would be most desired for access
from a mobile device” (Johnson and Means 2013).
At the same time, open-ended, in-depth interviews with a smaller subset
of students can provide details about student experiences that surveys do
not reveal. We found widespread student frustration with efficient access to
printers at some CUNY colleges and with campus wifi at all of the colleges
where we interviewed students, though CUNY Student Experience Survey

responses suggest that most students are generally satisfied with those
services on their campus. Other studies remind us that analysis of student
technology practices can be useful in “revealing areas of unhelpful challenge
and delay, and also by providing a more detailed understanding of actual
student practices and sites of struggle” (Gourlay and Oliver 2013, 94).
Other researchers have also found much evidence that qualitative research
into student technology use is a useful complement, and occasionally a
corrective, to quantitative measures (Delcore et al. 2014).
We cannot assume that all students arrive on their college or university
campus with the latest technologies or the skills to use them, or that they
will adapt quickly to new technologies simply because they have grown up
in the “digital age.” At the same time, students have concrete needs and
(sometimes unspoken) expectations about what digital technology can
and should do that they bring with them to their college or university.
Students will be best served when their institution provides the optimal
basic computing and internet infrastructure possible on campus. In this
way, instead of consistently encountering difficulties and frustrations with
digital technology, students will have a fair chance to positively experience
technology and use it to further their academic and lifelong success.
The promise of digital technology in education so often enthusiastically
reported in the media is not misplaced, but neither is it instantaneous or
evenly distributed. Digital technology must be placed at the service of
students and be responsive to their needs and experiences rather than
simply following current trends. Watters (2016) has noted in considering
digital technology in higher education: “We can think about the changes
that must happen to our educational institutions not because technology
compels us but because we want to make these institutions more acces-
sible, more equitable, more just.” As educators our goal continues to be to
provide students with the best environment, tools, and support to engage
them and encourage their success in college and beyond. This considera-
tion of students’ use of digital technology can help students focus less on
logistics and more on their academic work—on being students.
REFERENCES
Asher, Andrew D., and Lynda M. Duke. 2011. “Conclusions and Future Research.”
In College Libraries and Student Culture: What We Now Know, edited by Lynda
M. Duke and Andrew D. Asher, 161–167. Chicago: ALA Editions.
Bennett, Sue, and Karl Maton. 2010. “Beyond the ‘Digital Natives’ Debate:
Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students’ Technology
Experiences.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 321–331.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x.
Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2016. “Same Time, Many Locations: Online Education Goes
Back to Its Origins.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14. http://chroni
cle.com/article/Same-Time-Many-Locations-/236788.
Brown, Malcolm. 2015. “Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher
Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August: 16–28. http://er.educause.
edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1541.pdf.
Buzzard, Pamela C., and Travis S. Teetor. 2011. “Best Practices for a University
Laptop Lending Program.” Code4lib Journal 15. http://journal.code4lib.
org/articles/5876.
CDE (Center for Digital Education). 2015. The Role of the Network in Enabling
Innovation and Advancing Learning in Higher Education. Folsom, CA:
Center for Digital Education. http://www.centerdigitaled.com/paper/How-
the-Network-Advances-Learning-in-Higher-Education-1643.html?promo_
code=CDE_web_library_list.
Chen, Baiyun, Ryan Seilhamer, Luke Bennett, and Sue Bauer. 2015. “Students’
Mobile Learning Practices in Higher Education: A Multi-Year Study.”
EDUCAUSE Review, May/June. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/
students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study.
Chen, Baiyun, and Aimee Denoyelles. 2013. “Exploring Students’ Mobile
Learning Practices in Higher Education.” EDUCAUSE Review, September/
October. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/10/exploring-students-
mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education.
CUNY (City University of New York). 2015. “City Council Speaker Strikes Deal
to Provide Microsoft Software to CUNY Students.” City University of New
York. http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2015/04/21/city-council-
speaker-strikes-deal-to-provide-microsoft-software-to-cuny-students/.
CUNY OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). 2016.
Undergraduate Enrollment by Degree/Non-Degree Status, Full-time/Part-
Time Attendance, and College. Fall 2015. New York: City University of New
York. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0002_
DSTAT_FTPT.rpt.pdf.
Dahlstrom, Eden, D., Christopher Brooks, Susan Grajek, and Jamie Reeves. 2015.
ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2015. Louisville, CO:
ECAR. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss15/ers1510ss.pdf.
Delcore, Henry D., Cynthia Teniente-Matson, and James Mullooly. 2014. “The
Continuum of Student IT Use in Campus Spaces: A Qualitative Study.”
EDUCAUSE Review, July/August. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/
continuum-student-it-use-campus-spaces-qualitative-study.
Domonell, Kristen. 2014. “Bridging the Digital Divide: How Institutions Are
Making Tablets and Laptops Accessible to All Students.” University Business 17
(3): 37–39. https://www.universitybusiness.com/article/bridging-digital-divide.
FSSE (National Survey for Faculty Engagement). 2016. “Survey Instrument.”
National Survey for Faculty Engagement. http://fsse.indiana.edu/html/sur
vey_instruments.cfm. Accessed August 20.
Gourlay, Lesley, and Martin Oliver. 2013. “Beyond ‘the Social’: Digital Literacies
as Sociomaterial Practice.” In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical
Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology, ed. Robin Goodfellow
and Mary Rosalind Lea, 79–94. New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, Brian L., and Diana G. Oblinger. 2007. “The Myth About the Need for
Public Computer Labs”. EDUCAUSE Review 42(5): 10–11. http://er.edu
cause.edu/articles/2007/8/the-myth-about-the-need-for-public-computer-labs
Henderson, Michael, Neil Selwyn, and Rachel Aston. 2015. “What Works and
Why? Student Perceptions of ‘Useful’ Digital Technology in University
Teaching and Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 2015: 1–13.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.
Horrigan, John B., and Maeve Duggan. 2015. Home Broadband 2015.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/
2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015.
Johnson, Douglas, and Tawnya Means. 2013. “A State of Flux: Results of a
Mobile Device Survey at the University of Florida.” EDUCAUSE Review,
May/June. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/5/a-state-of-flux-results-
of-a-mobile-device-survey-at-the-university-of-florida.
Johnson, Larry, Samantha Adams Becker, Michele Cummins, Victoria Estrada,
Alex Freeman, and Courtney Hall. 2016. NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.
nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-higher-education-edition/.
Kelly, Rhea. 2015. “9 Ed Tech Trends to Watch in 2015.” Campus Technology,
January 22: 1–6. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/01/22/9-
ed-tech-trends-to-watch-in-2015.aspx.
Khoo, Michael, Lily Rozaklis, and Catherine Hall. 2012. “A Survey of the Use of
Ethnographic Methods in the Study of Libraries and Library Users.” Library &
Information Science Research 34(2): 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.010.
Kim, Joshua. 2016. “3 Principles for Student Devices in the Classroom.” Inside
Higher Ed (blog), January 27. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/tech
nology-and-learning/3-principles-student-devices-classroom.
McCabe, Jennifer, Alicia Doerflinger, and Russell Fox. 2011. “Student and
Faculty Perceptions of E-Feedback.” Teaching of Psychology 38(3): 173–179.
McGeehan, Patrick. 2016. “New Yorkers Greet the Arrival of Wi-Fi Kiosks with
Panic, Skepticism and Relief.” New York Times, July 26. http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/07/27/nyregion/link-nyc-wi-fi-kiosks.html.
NSSE (National Survey for Student Engagement). 2015. 2015 Topical Module:
Learning with Technology: Profile of Participating Institutions and Respondents
and All Bachelor’s-Granting U.S. Institutions and Students. Chicago: NSSE.
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2015_institutional_report/pdf/Modules/NSSE15%
20Module%20Summary-Learning%20with%20Technology.pdf
–––. 2016. “Survey Instrument.” National Survey for Student Engagement.
http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/survey_instruments.cfm.
O’Neil, Megan. 2014. “Confronting the Myth of the Digital Native.” Chronicle of
Higher Education, April 21. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Confronting-
the-Myth-of-the/145949.
Prinsloo, Paul, and Sharon Slade. 2015. “Student Privacy Self-Management:
Implications for Learning Analytics.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 83–92. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723585.
Skallerup Bessette, Lee. 2012. “It’s About Class: Interrogating the Digital
Divide.” Hybrid Pedagogy, July 2. http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/
hybridped/its-about-class-interrogating-the-digital-divide/.
Wajcman, Judy. 2015. Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital
Capitalism. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Wang, Weina, and Mandissa Arlain. 2014. “Laptops to Go.” Computers in
Libraries 34(3): 12–16.
Watters, Audrey. 2016. “Ed-Tech and the Commercialization of School.” Hack
Education (blog), June 14. http://hackeducation.com/2016/06/14/
commercialization.
West, Jessamyn. 2016. “There Are Multiple Digital Divides, Still.” librarian.net
(blog), August 11. http://www.librarian.net/stax/4636/there-are-multiple-
digital-divides-still/.
APPENDIX: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Before beginning each round of our research, we obtained approval from

our Institutional Review Boards as well as from the administration at each
college we visited. Our research was restricted to participants over 18 years
of age, all of whom signed consent forms and remain anonymous in
publications and presentations. Students were provided with a small gift
card as an incentive to participate. In keeping with CUNY policy, faculty
members were not compensated for participating in this project.
During the 2009–2011 academic years, we collected visual and inter-
view data from a total of 178 students and 63 faculty members at six
CUNY colleges: Brooklyn College, City College, Hunter College, City
Tech, BMCC, and Bronx CC. Students were recruited by posting fliers on
campus. We identified potential faculty participants by consulting with our
colleagues at each college’s library and contacted faculty via email who
assign information-based research in their courses. We began by using
photo surveys and mapping diaries to learn about the contours of a typical
school day for CUNY undergraduates. For the photo surveys, we recruited
approximately ten students at each campus, giving each a list of 20 objects
and locations related to academic work and scholarly habits to photo-
graph, for example, “a place at school where you study.” Students used
either a disposable camera or their own digital camera, most often on their
phone, to take the photographs. Each student also participated in a brief
interview in order to describe the content of the photographs in detail and
offer further comments.

Barrier in Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7
90 APPENDIX: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
For the mapping diaries, we asked approximately ten students per

campus to log and sketch all of their activities, including locations and
times, over the course of a day that included at least one class on campus.
Once students finished their maps, we engaged each in a brief interview to
describe the mapped day and add any details not represented in the logs or
sketches. During the pilot phase of our study at Brooklyn College and City
Tech, we gave students maps of the New York City public transportation
system and their college campus and asked them to trace their routes on
the maps. At the suggestion of a colleague, for the remainder of the study
we asked students to draw their own maps. The photographs and maps
students gave us were full of visual details reflecting the individuality and
the personal experiences of each of the students with whom we spoke.
While we obtained a broad picture of each of our CUNY students’
academic experiences from the photo surveys and mapping diaries, as
academic librarians we are also interested in student work on research
assignments. We conducted open-ended interviews with approximately
ten faculty members at each college to explore their assumptions about
and standards for their students’ research-based work, and their experi-
ences working with students on these assignments. We also interviewed
approximately ten students at each college; each student was asked to
describe in detail how she worked on a research assignment from the
time she received the assignment to the moment she submitted it to her
professor. Each student was encouraged to draw or sketch her process
while she described it, while our open-ended interview questions surfaced
each student’s struggles and successes as she reflected on her work.
During the 2015–2016 academic year, we implemented a follow-up
study of CUNY students’ use of technology for their academic work. We
collected data from a total of 565 students and 77 faculty at Brooklyn
College, City Tech, and BMCC. Students were recruited via fliers posted
on campus for our text messaging mapping study or as they walked by a
table on campus for our brief technology interviews. For our student and
faculty questionnaires, we consulted the college schedule to identify faculty
teaching hybrid and online courses, and emailed all faculty teaching those
courses to ask that they and their students complete our questionnaires.
For the text messaging mapping study, each student’s mobile telephone
number was entered into the Qualtrics survey software, which generated
and sent text messages to the participants at 75-minute intervals on the
selected day. Text message prompts included “describe where you are”
and “describe what you are doing.” Students responded to the prompts
APPENDIX: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 91
via text message and their answers were recorded by Qualtrics in a spread-
sheet. Subsequently, we geocoded the locations using Google Maps to
create a map of all locations students visited throughout the day they
participated in the study. We brought the maps to a debriefing interview
with each student, in which we asked students to elaborate on their
movements and activities during the academic day recorded.
We also conducted brief interviews with between 10 and 15 students on
each campus to learn more about their technology ownership, access, and
use for their academic work. For these interviews, we set up a table in
heavily trafficked area of campus, and provided a snack and a drink as
incentives for students to participate. Interview questions allowed us to
gain insight into the digital technology that students use for coursework at
home, on campus, and elsewhere.
Finally, we asked students taking and faculty teaching hybrid and online
courses to complete an online questionnaire focused on their experiences
with technology in those courses. Students were asked to identify which
digital technologies they used for their coursework and in what locations.
We also asked them what they found successful and in what ways they
encountered difficulties in using technology for their hybrid and online
schoolwork. To provide us with the course context in which students are
using technology, faculty were asked which digital technology they use in
their classes, and to identify successes and challenges in the use of digital
technology in hybrid and online courses.
All student and faculty interviews were recorded using digital voice recor-
ders, and we hired research assistants to transcribe them to text. We then
coded and cross-checked all interview text and questionnaire responses using
qualitative analysis software, ATLAS.ti during our first round of research,
and Dedoose during the second round. We analyzed the resulting textual
data along with student maps, drawings, and photographs to focus on
predominant themes that emerged during student and faculty interviews.
INTERVIEW AND SURVEY PROTOCOLS

2009–2011 RESEARCH CYCLE
CUNY College Research Sites
Borough of Manhattan Community College, Brooklyn College, Bronx
Community College, City College of New York, Hunter College, New
York City College of Technology.
Student Mapping Diaries

Ten students at each college were asked to record and sketch their activ-
ities, including location and time, over the course of a typical school day,
and each student was interviewed individually by the researchers to explain
and comment on the maps and sketches. While the interviews were open-
ended, prompts included:
• Please let us know your age, how many semesters you’ve completed
at your college, your major/program, and degree.
• Reviewing the time log and map with the student, ask questions to
clarify as necessary, for example:
• Why did you go to that location?
• What class did you go to?
• Did you eat lunch?
• What did you do after you got home?
• How different is this day from other school days? Was this a typical
school day for you?
• What was the best part of this day?
• What was the most frustrating part of this school day?
• Is there anything you’d like to add that’s not represented here?
Student Photo Surveys

Ten students at each college were given a disposable camera/asked to use
their own camera or phone and a list of 20 objects and locations related to
student scholarly habits to photograph, then each student was interviewed
individually to explain the content of the pictures and offer comments.
The photo prompts were:
• All the stuff you take to class

• Something you would call high-tech
• Something weird
• One picture of the library to show to a new student
• Your favorite place to study
• The place you keep your books and school materials
• A place in the library that you don’t like
• One person, any person
• A place at school where you hang out

• The things you always carry with you
• Your favorite person or people to study with
• A place at school where you study
• Your communication devices
• How you manage your time or keep track of your work
• A place at home where you study
• Your favorite part of the day
• The tools you use for research assignments
• Something you can’t live without
• A place at school that you don’t like
• The night before a big assignment is due
Faculty Interviews
Ten faculty members at each college were interviewed to explore faculty
expectations for and experiences with their students’ work on research-
based assignments. Interview questions included:
• Can you please tell us your discipline, the number of years you’ve
been teaching, how long you’ve taught at the college, and the kinds
of undergraduate courses that you teach?
• What kinds of research-based assignments do you give to your
students?
• Could you share a copy of a typical research-based assignment that
you give to your students with us?
• Why do you give these types of assignments to your students?
• What are your expectations for student work on research-based
assignments?
• How are students expected (or required) to locate sources to use
when completing research-based assignments?
• What prior knowledge of research do your students seem to have?
• What are the characteristics of good student work on research-based
assignments?
• What weaknesses do you see in student work on research-based
assignments?
• Are students expected or required to solicit assistance in completing
research-based assignments?
• What do you think are the obstacles (if any) to good student work on
research-based assignments?
• What can librarians do to help students with their work on research-
based assignments?
Student Research Process Interviews

Ten students at each college were asked to describe in detail how they
completed a research assignment from start to finish, and encouraged to
draw or sketch the process while describing it. Interview questions
included:
• Please let us know your age, how many semesters you’ve completed
at your college, your major/program, and degree.
• In this study, we are interested in what students really do when they
write their papers.
• How many research papers did you write last semester?
• We’ll be talking about one paper: the one you wrote for [pick a
course]. I’d like you to draw a picture of the writing of this paper
while we talk. Stick figures are absolutely fine!
• Describe the assignment. What were the requirements? (page length,
paper type, etc.)
• Did you understand the requirements for this assignment? If not, did
you try to get more information about it?
• When was this assignment due?
• When did you start your research for this assignment?
• Where did you start your research for this assignment? Why?
• What sources did you use for this assignment?
• Did you ever have a point where you felt stuck in your research for
this assignment? If so, what did you do?
• When did you start writing the paper or putting together the pre-
sentation for this assignment?
• Did you ask anyone for help during your work on this assignment?
Why? Who?
• Was there anything about your research for this assignment that you
found frustrating? Why?
• Were there parts of your work on this assignment that were easy for
you? Why?
• How much did you care about your work on this assignment? Why?
• Did you enjoy working on this assignment?

• How much total time did you spend on this assignment?
• How well did you do on this assignment? Was it as you expected?
• Thinking back on it now, is there anything you would do differently
to complete this assignment? Or that you would do differently next
time?
• Are there any resources/services that the college could provide that
would be helpful with assignments like this one?
• Is there anything you’d like to add that’s not represented here?
2015–2016 RESEARCH CYCLE

CUNY College Research Sites
Borough of Manhattan Community College, Brooklyn College, New
York City College of Technology
Student SMS Survey

Twenty students at each college were asked to chart their movements
during one academic day by replying via their cellphones to text message
prompts sent every 75 minutes. Prompts included:
• Where are you? Please be specific.

• What are you doing? (studying, working, etc.)
• How are you feeling? (Likert scale for happiness/sadness)
The research team geocoded the data to create a map of each participant’s
day, then the student was interviewed and asked to narrate the events of
the day while examining the map with the researcher. While the interviews
were open-ended, prompts included:
• Please let us know your age, your race/ethnicity, whether you are a
part-time or full-time student, whether you work for pay in addition
to attending school, and how many semesters you’ve completed at
your college, your major/program, and degree.
• Reviewing the time log and map with the student, ask questions to
clarify as necessary, similar to the questions asked in 2009–2011.
Student In-Person Survey

Between 10 and 15 students at each college participated in a brief inter-
view about their technology ownership, access, and use for their academic
work. Researchers set up a table in high-traffic areas on campus and
recruited students as they walked by the table. Questions included:
• What kinds of mobile technology do you own or have access to?

• Do you use any of that technology for your schoolwork? In what ways?
• What kinds of college-provided technology do you use on campus?
And where?
• What kinds of technology do you have access to at home?
• Do you use any of that technology for your schoolwork? In what ways?
• Do you have access to the internet at home?
• Do you have access to technology in a private space, or a shared
space?
• What frustrates you most about the technology you use for your
schoolwork?
• If you could wave a magic wand to make your technology better,
what would it be?
• Is there anything else you’d like to share with us about how you use
technology for your schoolwork?
• And finally, we have a few questions about you:
• What’s your program of study/major?
• How many semesters have you been in college?
• Are you going to school full time or part time?
• How old are you?
• Gender
• Ethnicity
Student Online Questionnaire

Students in hybrid and online courses were asked to complete an online
questionnaire on their technology access and use, focusing on the tech-
nologies they use to participate in these courses. Questions included:
• What kinds of technology do you use for academic work in your

hybrid/online classes? Where and how often?
• At home
• Desktop—often—sometimes—rarely—never—don’t own or have
access to one
• Laptop—often—sometimes—rarely—never
• Smartphone—often—sometimes—rarely—never
• Tablet—often—sometimes—rarely—never
• Ereader—often—sometimes—rarely—never
• Other?
• On campus
• Desktop—often—sometimes—rarely—never
• Other?
• On the commute
• Other?
• Please use this space to share any additional information about how
you use technology to support your academic work in hybrid/online
classes, especially for locations other than at home, on campus, or the
commute.
• Which technology contributes most to making it all work for you in
your hybrid/online classes?
• What is most frustrating in terms of technology and academic work
for your hybrid/online classes?
• If you could wave a magic technology wand, what would happen or
appear to make your hybrid/online class experience better?
• And finally, we have a few questions about you:
• What’s your program of study/major?
• How many semesters have you been in college?
• Are you going to school full time or part time?
• How old are you?
• What is your gender identity?
• What is/are your ethnicit(ies)?
Faculty Online Questionnaire

Faculty teaching hybrid and online courses were recruited to complete a
questionnaire about their and their students’ experiences with technology
in their hybrid and online courses. Questions included:
• What is your discipline?

• Do you teach:
• Fully online [often—sometimes—rarely—never]
• Hybrid [often—sometimes—rarely—never]
• In person but use technology for teaching and learning [often—
sometimes—rarely—never]
• Which technology do you use (or have you used) in your teaching?
Please give us specifics:
• Content delivery platforms (e.g., Blackboard, Sakai, OpenLab,
WordPress, CUNY Academic Commons, Facebook, Libguides,
OERs)
• Online collaboration tools (e.g., discussion boards, blogs, wikis,
peer review, share research and writing, Voicethread)
• Presentation software/apps (e.g., PowerPoint, Prezi)
• Data manipulation/presentation software/apps (e.g., mapping,
timelines, statistical packages)
• Lecture-capture and screencast tools (e.g., Camtasia, Swivl,
Kaltura, Jing)
• Streaming media (e.g., YouTube, Kanopy, Vimeo)
• Feedback tools (e.g., clickers and smartphones, quizzes, portfolios)
• Other (please specify)
• Which technologies work best to support student learning in your
classes?
• Which technologies have not worked or have created barriers to
learning in your classes?
• If you could wave a magic technology wand, what would happen or
appear to make the hybrid/online class experience better for you and
your students?
• Please use this space to make any additional comments you have.
INDEX
A lack of ownership as, 33

Access to digital technology lack of privacy as, 32, 36
City University of New York lack of technology as, 32
students, 25, 26, 43, 76 loud environment as, 35
U.S. adults over age 18, 25, 43 personal computer as, 28
Accessibility, see Software accessibility requirement for
Affordance of digital charging as, 52
technology, 31, 54 shared space as, 36, 37, 66, 67
campus computer lab as, 33, 77, 79 waiting in line as, 34, 64
computer keyboard as, 27 wasting students' time as, 64,
definition of, 13 65, 67
internet access as, 46 wifi availability, 53, 63, 66
mobile device as, 46, 50, 74 Borough of Manhattan Community
personal computer as, 28, 60 College, 11, 26, 29, 35, 44, 45,
printer as, 29 46, 53, 60, 65, 67, 69
privacy as, 50, 51 Bronx Community College, 11, 67
shared space as, 37 Brooklyn College, 11, 26, 44, 47,
for time management, 47, 59 63, 76
B C
Barrier of digital technology, 31, Campus computer lab, 25, 70
52, 74 affordances of, 33, 35, 78
campus computer lab as, 34 barriers of, 34, 35, 59
data plan as, 31 See also Student study locations
definition of, 14 Cellphone
lack of broadband internet ownership, 43
access as, 31 See also Smartphone

Barrier in Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48908-7
100 INDEX
City College of New York, 11, 34, 51 Digital literacy, 5, 6, 75, 80

City Tech, see New York City Digital native, 5, 75, 84
College of Technology
City University of New York, 8,
10, 29 E
student demographics, 10, 11, 12 EDUCAUSE Center for Education
Student Experience and Analysis (ECAR), 5, 80
Survey, 12, 25, 26, Email, 49
34, 43, 75 Ereader, 48
Cloud computing, 81 affordances of, 48
affordances of, 32, 50 barriers of, 48
barriers of, 32 ownership, 43
definition of, 32
Community college, 8, 10,
11, 26
F
Commuter students
Faculty, 29, 64, 68, 79, 80
characteristics of, 8, 9
File storage and transport, 49
time constraints of, 9, 58
via cloud computing, 50
Commuting, 12
via email, 50
activities, 51
via USB drive, 50
travel time, 12, 58
Fixed technology, see Desktop
use of public transportation, 9, 61
computer; Personal
See also Student study locations
computer; Photocopier;
Cost of digital technology, 26, 28,
Printer; Scanner
30, 31, 34, 36, 45, 49,
Flash drive, see USB drive
53, 76, 79
Course assignments, 29, 49, 51,
61, 77
Course format G
hybrid, 26, 35, 43, 65, 80 Gibson, James J., 13, 14
online, 26, 35, 43, 65, 80
Course materials, 29, 46, 49,
51, 61, 62, 63, 77 H
Higher education
actual use of digital technology in, 7,
D 26, 30, 44, 83
De Certeau, Michel, 14 enthusiasm for digital technology
Desktop computer, 24 in, 3, 4, 6, 84
affordances of, 27 strategic planning for, 5, 77
barriers of, 28, 67 use of digital technology in, 24
ownership, 25 Home, see Student study locations
Digital divide, 6, 7, 33, 75 Hunter College, 11, 33, 62, 63
INDEX 101
I Mobile phone, see Cellphone;

Ingold, Tim, 14 Smartphone
Institution Mobile technology, see Cellphone;
facilities, 77, 78 Ereader; Laptop computer;
technology infrastructure, 77, 78 Smartphone; Tablet computer
Internet access, 26, 42, 48, 53 Multitasking, 60
broadband, 42 combining academic and leisure
on campus, 43, 53, 68, 78 activities, 61, 64
cellular only, 31, 44, 48, 75 on the commute, 61
at home, 28, 31, 44, 76 with a mobile device, 60, 61
municipal wifi, 78 with a personal computer, 60
in support of learning, 63 at work, 60
wifi hotspot, 63
wireless (wifi), 42, 43,
48, 53 N
National Center for Education
Statistics, 8, 58
L National Survey of Student
Laptop computer, 44 Engagement, 9, 12, 78, 79
affordances of, 27, 28, 44, 76 New York City College of
barriers of, 28, 45, 53 Technology, 11, 26, 27, 28,
ownership, 25 29, 35, 44, 45, 47, 54, 60, 62,
Learning analytics, 4, 59, 77, 82 63, 65, 66, 68
Learning management system, 3, 29, Nontraditional students, 8
32, 64, 68, 82 characteristics of, 8, 32
Lefebvre, Henri, 37, 51 time constraints of, 9, 58
M P
Maintenance, 28, 29, 45 Pedagogy, 80
computer viruses, 28 Personal computer, 27
hardware repair, 28 ownership, 25
software updates, 28 See also Desktop computer;
Methods, research Laptop computer
qualitative, 13, 15, 16, 83 Pew Research Center, 4, 25, 43, 75
surveys, 4, 83 (See also City Photocopier, 29, 30
University of New York, Student Place, 14
Experience Survey; EDUCAUSE Printer, 29
Center for Education affordances of, 29
and Analysis; National Survey barriers of, 30, 34, 59,
of Student Engagement; 61, 64
Pew Research Center) ownership, 30
102 INDEX
Printing, 69 public transportation, 51

on campus, 30, 34, 49, 59 workplace, 36
at home, 30, 59 Student success, 9, 37, 54, 74
at public libraries, 30, 36, 70 Support
Privacy, 32, 50, 77, 78, 81, 82 academic, 65, 79
for faculty, 68, 80
institutional, 68–69, 79, 81
R online, 76
Reading, student preferences for, 29, for students, 65, 76, 77
46, 48, 62 technical, 65, 76, 78
Repair, see Maintenance
Residential students, 8
Resistance to technology, 63 T
Tablet computer, 47
affordances of, 48
S barriers of, 48
Scanner, 29, 30 ownership, 43
Selwyn, Neil, 6, 7 Taskscape, 60
Smartphone, 46 academic, 15, 53, 57, 66, 74, 81
affordances of, 46, 51, 61, 64 definition of, 14
barriers of, 47 place and, 15, 32, 37, 50, 55, 74
ownership, 4, 43 time and, 15, 57, 59, 69, 74
Social justice, 7, 75, 84 Textbooks, see Course materials
Software Time management, 9, 58, 60, 61,
presentation, 31 62, 63, 68, 69, 70,
for specialized academic use, 34, 47 75, 80, 81
spreadsheet, 31
word processing, 31, 35, 52
Software accessibility U
on mobile devices, 47 Ubiquitous computing, 24, 42
on personal computers, 28 USB drive, 50
Space, 14
Student experience, 74, 83
Student study locations, 37, 52, 66 W
academic library, 14, 29, 35, Watters, Audrey, 7, 84
51, 62 Wifi, see Internet access
campus, 25, 33, 35, 51, 63 Wireless internet, see Internet access
home, 31, 32, 50, 66, 67 Workplace, see Student
public library, 36, 49, 70 study locations

Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education by Maura A. Smale, Mariana Regalado (Auth.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Technology As Affordance and Barrier in Higher Education by Maura A. Smale, Mariana Regalado (Auth.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Technology as Affordance

and Barrier in Higher Education

ISBN 978-3-319-48907-0 ISBN 978-3-319-48908-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016957751

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover illustration: Cover pattern © Harvey Loake

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

We are indebted to the 743 students and 140 faculty we interviewed or

anonymous peer reviewers who provided us with thoughtful feedback for

1 Situating College Students and Technology 1

2 College Students and Fixed Technology 23

3 College Students and Mobile Technology 41

4 College Students, Technology, and Time 57

5 Recommendations for Technology in Higher Education 73

Appendix: Research Methodology 89

Fig. 2.1 Off-campus internet access for CUNY undergraduates, 2010

Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus (CUNY OIRA

Situating College Students and Technology

Abstract All US college students use digital technologies in their aca-

Keywords Undergraduates Commuter students Nontraditional

Chandni1 is an 18-year-old sophomore at New York City College of

© The Author(s) 2017 1

time, commuting to her classes at City Tech in Brooklyn 4 days a week.

As we see in Chandni’s story, access to and use of digital technology is an

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

technology to provide a more customized experience for students—“a

do acknowledge some of the constraints of digital technology in higher

THE TROPE OF THE DIGITAL NATIVE

found that undergraduates expressed a desire to increase both their basic

THE PROBLEM OF POSITIVITY IN DISCUSSIONS

the beneﬁts of digital technology for education, including “assumptions

Media attention to digital technology in higher education is especially

NONTRADITIONAL AND COMMUTER STUDENTS IN THE USA

In 2011–2012, fully 74% of US undergraduates “had at least one non-

About 85% of US students commute to college (Dugan et al. 2008,

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: THE CITY UNIVERSITY

Student demographics at CUNY reﬂect the university’s mission to provide

Undergraduates at CUNY mirror the extraordinary diversity of New

to a baccalaureate college, as well as a range of pre-professional associate

Table 1.1 CUNY students’ commute time to campus

RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

We have found it useful to differentiate between digital technology that

meaningful spaces in the same place, creating the possibility of conﬂict

interviews with faculty members at each college to explore their expecta-

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

Digital technology—mobile or ﬁxed—can be used by students to create

De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of

Kelly, Rhea. 2015a. “9 Ed Tech Trends to Watch in 2015.” Campus Technology,

College Students and Fixed Technology

Abstract The immobile nature of ﬁxed digital technology—including

Keywords Commuter students Nontraditional students Personal com-

Undergraduates’ academic use of digital technology is dependent on

© The Author(s) 2017 23

including personal computers and printers—which may be located in

STUDENTS’ USE OF FIXED TECHNOLOGY

grown in popularity in recent years, especially as their size and weight

Table 2.1 US personal computer ownership, adults

Table 2.2 Student use of personal computers, questionnaire responses from

In our own questionnaire for students in hybrid or online courses at

I have a computer at home, it’s annoying though because, not to derail a

The course management platforms require students to run system checks on

PRINTERS, PHOTOCOPIERS, AND SCANNERS