Spring 1999
Vol 7 Issue 2

IN THIS ISSUE...

Multiplied or Divided by Technology

Information Access at MCC

Access to Technology

Diversity and Technology

Unity Within Diversity

LEE: A Valuable Addition to Language Learning

Bag of URLs

Changing Face of Distance Learning Students

SEE ALSO...
The Forum

Assidere

Discussion

Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction

Diversity and Technology
Karen Schwalm, GCC

As we invest more heavily in our technology infrastructure and integrate computing more fully into the learning activities of our institutions, it behooves us to check periodically that we are building an equitable learning environment which serves all our students. This is especially important as we attempt to recruit a more diverse student population. We want to make sure that we do not add technology as a barrier to education with other exisiting barriers to education, and that we do not just assume that barriers to technology no longer exist because technological talk seems so common in our everyday conversations. I am not arguing that technology in education is inevitable, but rather that as its use becomes more widespread, we pay close attention to those who may be displaced by its use. We must institute policies and practices to redress those inequities, and increase the comfort all students have in the high-tech environment in which they study, work and live.

I am not suggesting that any of our institutions intentionally create barriers to technology use by specific groups of students, but until we build mechanisms to analyze the use of our networks and computing facilities, it is dangerous to assume that de facto inequities aren't appearing. These mechanisms need be neither intrusive nor expensive. Basically, I am arguing that we establish the capability to answer a single baseline quantitative question: Are there any statistically significant differences in age, ethnicity, and gender that appear in conjunction with access to and general use of our computing facilities? We all believe and hope that the answer to this question is "no," but I contend it is dangerous to make that assumption without corroborating data.

Obviously, people use technology in different ways, for different purposes, and at different frequencies. Colleges and departments certainly vary in their commitment to and emphasis upon the use of computing. For example, we might expect to see differences in technology use according to academic discipline, or between students in transfer and occupational programs, or according to learning style or number of hours enrolled. Looking at institution-wide technology use, however, we could expect these differences to spread themselves equally across our student population, especially at colleges with large enrollments, significant technology installations, varied programs, and diverse populations. If they don't, we ought to investigate further. The results of such investigations may lead to changes in budgeting decisions, computing policies or instructional practices that may produce increases in our institutional effectiveness.

Why is this question important?

Researchers have identified a number of social and economic reasons why minority students and girls leave the secondary schools with less computer experience than non-minority students and boys. Issues of access dominate. Students build their expertise by spending regular and extensive time on computers, so the ratio of students to computers is critical. While many schools have inadequate numbers of classroom computers, minority students and girls are less likely to have alternative access points, either at home or in public libraries where they can supplement the computer time provided at school. In schools, more aggressive students are likely to monopolize computer use, especially as they outstrip other students in demonstrating their computer competence. Sophisticated computer use, especially of wide-area networks like the Internet, is often reserved for those students who get better grades, who are more resourceful, more independent, and more affluent. Because minorities are over-represented among those with lower socio-economic status, the ability to purchase computers for sustained personal use at home is not equitably distributed across society.

A number of cultural issues affect students' ability to develop extensive computer expertise. In the past, instruction in computing has frequently been linked to math and science instruction; if minority students and girls proceed more slowly in these content areas, they will also proceed more slowly in developing computer skills. In fact, the kinds of computing activities available in the past for students have fallen into a restricted range, one tied more closely to majority culture than to the interests of members of minority groups. In addition, in most computer labs, few mentors and role models exist for minority students and for girls. Finally, many teachers view computing hierarchically, reserving it for those students who have mastered other skills perceived as more "basic." Consequently, minority students especially, over their secondary school careers, may not develop equivalent levels of computer competence as their non-minority peers, and girls may be assumed to have achieved computer competence when they have really only demonstrated keyboarding skills.

When minority students and women enter college with less computer experience (whether they are coming directly from the secondary schools or from the workforce), they can feel the effects almost immediately. Any perceived inadequacy, whether it is in preparation, experience, or skill level, contributes to the ease with which students are willing to drop out.

Differing levels of computer experience have measurable effects on students' ability to complete assigned work in a timely and efficient manner. Students with well-developed computer skills know how to use various productivity tools like spreadsheets, databases, and word processors, and recognize their benefits. In addition, they may know how to use the Internet to retrieve up-to-date or obscure information. Students who neither have access to the tools nor have prior experience using them may spend their available time doing mechanical tasks manually, running out of time (and energy) before they get to more intellectually rewarding activities. Lack of computer experience, especially with networked resources, may close off opportunities for developing improved literacy skills, and lack of familiarity with computer environments may hamper minority students and women when they encounter technologically-rich educational activities like simulations. In addition to inhibiting students' academic success, lack of computer experience can close off opportunities for career development, and thus restrict minority students' and women's chances of long-term economic success.

What can we do?

All institutions of higher education, but especially community colleges, have the responsibilities for fostering increased educational access and for ensuring opportunities for success for all students. In part, we can do this by encouraging students to increase their level of computer expertise. First, we must provide extensive computing facilities and a variety of user environments so that all students can gain easy access to technology and learn in a hospitable and safe climate. Second, computing activities must be linked with activities across instructional levels and throughout the curriculum, so that lack of progress in one academic area does not preclude the development of computing expertise. In addition, providing different kinds of computer-mediated environments may privilege different kinds of learning skills demonstrated by students with a variety of cultural backgrounds. Colleges must provide a variety of computer-mediated communication opportunities, especially ones that take into account backgrounds in oral culture, so that students can enhance their own literacy skills by reading and writing on topics that relate to their own interests and heritage. Finally, colleges must seek out minority and female teachers, tutors, and assistants to work in computer environments where they are visible and accessible to all students.

How can we measure our progress?

As we become interested in questions of this nature, and consider shifts in our policies and practices, we ought to have some way of measuring the impact of changes we might implement. To this end, Glendale Community College, in conjunction with the re-design of our academic network, has developed a number of quantitative measures that are helping us examine student use of our network; this regular analysis continues to remind us that we should be concerned about any differences in network use we encounter. Here are the initial questions we are asking each semester:

1. Does the demographic makeup of students who have computer accounts match the demographic makeup of the college as a whole? To take into account the fact that there may be correlations between gender, ethnicity, age and full or part-time status, we are currently comparing the duplicated enrollment (number of students x number of courses they are taking) with a duplicated number of accounts (number of students x number of courses for which network accounts were created).

For example, during Spring, 1998, the first semester for which we have data, only 17% of our students had computer access to our new network linked to the courses in which they were enrolled. American Indians represented 2% of the enrollments in our courses, and this group accounted for 2% of our network accounts. However, Asian students represented 5% of the enrollments and 7% of our network accounts. Ideally, demographics of access to the network should match the demographics of our enrollment.

http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/Palette/Diversity/Spring1998.htm

This should also be true with to respect to gender. However, in Spring, 1998, women made up 54% of our course enrollments, but they represented only 47% of our network accounts. Men accounted for 42% of our enrollment, but they represented 51% of our network accounts. Given the small proportion of students with access to our network, this discrepancy was cause for concern.

http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/Palette/Diversity/Spring1998.htm

In Fall, 1998, these numbers changed. The number of students with access to the new network almost doubled to 31% of the course enrollments. American Indians still represented 2% of the enrollments and 2% of our network accounts. However, Asian and Black students each represented 4% of our enrollments and 5% of our accounts.

http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/Palette/Diversity/Fall1998.htm

With respect to gender, a significant shift occurred during the Fall. Women represented 55% of our enrollments but accounted for 59% of our network accounts. Men represented 44% of course enrollments but only 40% of network accounts.

http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/Palette/Diversity/Fall1998.htm

At the moment, not all GCC students actually have computer accounts, so this measure is important. It probably reflects as much the diversity of the programs that have made the move to our new network as it does anything else. However, when we institute universal access beginning with Summer, 1999, this measure will become moot. At that time, all students will have computer accounts by virtue of their enrollment at the college, and there will be no difference between enrollment in the college and access to computing. Other measures will then come into play.

2. Does the proportion of students who use their computer accounts match the proportion of students who have them?

For example, during Spring, 1998, 57% of all students who had computer accounts actually used them. This means they logged in at least once, a very minimalist measure of "use" to be sure. In Fall, 1998, these numbers changed. Approximately 61% of all GCC students who had network accounts used them.

However, these numbers varied by ethnicity. Spring semester, more than 69% of Asian students used their accounts, yet only 48% of Black students did so. During Fall, 1998, the numbers still varied according to ethnicity, but not nearly as much as they did the previous semester. For example, 69% of Asian students used their accounts, and the percent of Black students using theirs had climbed to 65%. Obviously, if we want to integrate technology use into instruction effectively, we need to know how many of our students actually access their accounts, and then whether they access them on a regular basis.

With respect to gender, during Spring, 1998, 57% of all women who had accounts used them; 58% of men did so. However, only 48% of Black women used their accounts while 58% of Black men did so. This was the first indication that technology use may differ by gender and ethnicity.

During the following semester (Fall, 1998), among all ethnic groups, men continued to be more likely to use their computer accounts than women. For example, among Blacks, 57% of the women who had accounts used them, but 74% of the men had used theirs. This trend is disturbing.

With respect to gender, the discrepancy between those who had access to our network and those who actually used it widened in Fall semester. For instance, 57% of women who had accounts actually logged into them at least once, while the same was true for 66% of men. When we segregate the figures, the gap grows. For instance, among Asian students, 64% of the women accessed their accounts; 74% of the men did so. Among Blacks, 57% of the women used their accounts while 74% of the men did. We will know more after the 45th day data are in this semester to see if this disturbing trend continues.

Meaningful access goes further than just providing accounts for students; what matters first is if they use the accounts, then how regularly, and finally to what ends. There is much more analysis that can be done here. Last semester we looked for the first time at the ethnicity and gender of those students who used our on-campus computing facilities, and this year we will look at the demographics of those who access from off-site. It may be that we should develop strategies to encourage those with connections from home to use them in order to free up on-campus resources for those who do not have alternative access.

3. Mentoring is an important element in developing comfort with technology. While in its more active definition, mentoring implies a close and continuing series of interactions between students and teachers or employers, a more casual and distant relationship can have equivalent power. We must pay close attention to the hiring practices in our labs, making sure that we have both women and men among our employees, that they come to computing with a wide range of technology experiences (not just computer science, programming, or science) and that they reflect the ethnic and age diversity of our campuses. At GCC we have tracked a change in the demographics of our employees that parallels a change in the kinds of technology applications available in our campus computing facilities. Our employees now resemble more closely the demographics of our student population than they did in the past.

Continuing Research

This preliminary look at the data has revealed one important finding. If we conflate ethnicity and gender, we may mask some important differences in technology use. It is critical to look at these two dimensions separately. It seems that gender may be a more persistent barrier to technology use than ethnicity. At GCC we haven't looked closely at age as a factor in technology use; such differences, if they appear, may suggest changes in campus recruitment strategies, orientation programs, and instructional strategies.

This data will have a significant effect on advice we offer instructors: about how much they can rely on electronic means for communicating with students; about the interval they might need to allow for networked assignments; about developing strategies for encouraging women and minorities to become comfortable using technology.