This study investigates how college students’ current levels of technology use might be affected by digital divide issues. Survey data were collected from 130 students in colleges of education at two midwestern universities. Factor analysis yielded that students’ uses of technology can be described using three broad categories: entertainment, communication, and construction. Each is important to consider, in that high levels of use across categories indicate a broad base of technology skills. Multiple regression results indicate that male students from higher family income levels who had access to a computer at home before age 10 show significantly higher levels of full-spectrum technology use than other demographic groups. Students’ age of first encounter with computers at school had no significant impact on their full-spectrum technology use. These results have implications for how we address digital divide issues, and the article discusses what may be critical differences between home and school access.
American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. New York: Marlow and Company.
2.
Becker, H. (1987). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 289-311.
3.
Borsook, P. (2000). Cyberselfish: A critical romp through the terrible libertarian culture of high-tech. New York: Public Affairs.
4.
Consortium for School Networking. (2003). Advancing K-12 technology leadership. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org
5.
Cooper, J. (1996). Gender, computer assisted learning and anxiety: With a little help from a friend. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 19-27.
6.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Garland, V. E. (1999). Improving computer skills in colleges of education. Educational Technology Systems, 28, 59-66.
8.
Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 57-65.
9.
Hasan, B. (2003). The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 443-450.
10.
Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1998, April). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280, 390-391.
11.
James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2001). Raising minority academic achievement: A compendium of education programs and practices. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
12.
Kahle, J., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 542-557). New York: Macmillan.
13.
Kirkpatrick, H., & Cuban, L. (1998). Should we be worried? What the research says about gender differences in access, use, attitudes, and achievement with computers. Educational Technology, 38(4), 56-60.
14.
Martin, D., & Heller, R. (1994). Bringing young minority women to computers and science: Developing intervention programmes that work. Gates, 1, 4-13.
15.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Advanced telecommunications in US public elementary schools. Available from http://www.ed.gov/NCES
16.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/factsheets/rural.htm
17.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf
18.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
19.
Postman, N. (1996). The end of education. New York: Random House.
20.
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html
21.
Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1998). The computer clubhouse: Technological fluency in the inner city. In D. Schon, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities (pp. 266-286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2001). The American freshman:National norms for fall of 2000. Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
23.
Sax, L. J., Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2003). The American freshman: National norms for fall of 2002. Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
24.
Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender differences in computer experience and its influences on computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 347-367.
25.
Spotts, T. H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. Educational Technology, 2, 92-97.
26.
Spotts, T. H., Bowman, M. A., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34, 421-436.
27.
Sutton, R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 475-503.
28.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Trend, D. (2001). Welcome to cyberschool: Education at the crossroads of the information age. New York: Routledge.
30.
Wilder, G. (1985). Gender and computers: Two surveys of computer related attitudes. Sex Roles, 13, 215-228.
31.
Woodrow, J. (1994). Development of computer related attitudes of secondary students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 307-338.
