AARL

Virtual equality? Equity and the use of information technology in higher education

Jo Barraket and Geoff Scott

Abstract: This article details key findings of recent empirical research conducted at the University of Technology, Sydney. The research was commissioned by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) to investigate students' experiences of the use of information and communications technologies (ICT) in the university's learning programs, in order to determine differences in reported experience of students from targeted equity groups and a control group. The implications of the research findings for university libraries are discussed.

In an environment characterised by increasing budget constraint and competition, Australia's universities face significant challenges. These are informed by changes in the operating environment of higher education, especially the pressures for change generated by the so called 'information age' and calls for the development of 'lifelong learning skills' and a 'learning society'.[1] Increasingly, educational uses of ICT are becoming a key focus of universities' flexible learning strategies, while students and employers view the development of technological competence as an important graduate outcome. University libraries are playing an increasingly pivotal role in facilitating the development of students' abilities to use ICT to locate high quality information specifically relevant to their course and research needs.

The growing use of ICT to support learning and research in higher education offers both new possibilities and new challenges for facilitating access and equity for all students. The most commonly cited advantages of online learning technologies, for example, are that they overcome the tyranny of distance by providing remotely accessible learning opportunities and new ways of interacting with fellow students and staff, and the tyranny of fixed class times by providing greater opportunities for students to 'learn in their own time'. However, a key concern is the growing division between the information rich and information poor - the so-called 'digital divide'- which has the potential to create disadvantage that mirrors traditional social inequalities.[2] As universities respond to competitive pressures and societal expectations using flexible delivery approaches which involve ICT, they must ensure that their access and equity initiatives keep pace with the changes taking place. Equity measures are most effective where they are viewed not as 'add ons' to mainstream learning programs and services, but as an integral function of quality educational delivery.

This article details key findings of recent empirical research conducted at the University of Technology, Sydney.[3] The research was commissioned by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) to investigate students' experiences of the use of information and communications technologies (ICT) in the university's learning programs, in order to determine significant differences in reported experience for students from targeted equity groups and a control group. While the research explored students' use of both 'old' and 'new' technologies, respondents focused overwhelmingly on their experiences of online learning and information access, and it is these experiences which this article concentrates upon. The study's findings have particularly important implications for the role of university libraries in supporting the effective and equitable use of ICT by diverse student bodies.

Methodology

The research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a series of focus groups was conducted, in which students from all equity groups and a control group were represented. Student equity groups, as defined by DETYA are: students of low socio-economic status; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; students with a disability; students from non-English speaking backgrounds; rural and isolated students; and women in non-traditional areas of study. The control group comprised students who were not part of any equity group.

Twenty seven students participated in the focus group phase. The information from the focus group study was used to develop an effective survey instrument for phase two, and to provide detailed 'snapshot' information on the ICT experiences of a small number of students.

In phase two, a detailed survey was administered to students in 44 classes, representing all faculties and levels of study. A total of 1323 completed questionnaires were returned, with an overall response rate of 78 percent. Of the total respondents, 825 were from the control group, 36 were rural and isolated students, 39 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, 103 were from a non-English speaking background, 118 were of low socio-economic status, 74 were students with a disability, and 128 were women in non-traditional areas of study. The sampling method used did not ensure representation of every group as a proportion of the UTS student population.

The analysis of the quantitative survey results was based on an interpretation of the descriptive statistics, and unpaired t-tests to determine significant differences between students from equity groups and the control group. Qualitative results were subjected to thematic analysis. Synergies and contradictions between the qualitative and quantitative results were considered.

Access, Use and Support

As with traditional teaching and learning methods, successful learning using online technologies is contingent on a range of factors which operate in complex interaction with each other. On the basis of the existing literature on ICT use for learning, and current understandings of what characterises high quality learning programs in higher education,[4] the research team developed a conceptual framework which predicted that effective ICT use for learning requires the efficient interaction of three elements: ready access to 'front end' infrastructure; appropriate use of ICT as part of a broader learning design; and effective support for these uses by the general staff, systems, infrastructure and procedures of the institution. The research findings discussed below supported the validity of this conceptual framework, indicating that access, use and support are all significant, and interdependent, determinants of the quality of students' online learning experiences.

Within the UTS setting, the library serves an important support function, through the provision of training in library software packages and broader information literacy skills and by facilitating easy access to quality assured digital materials . It also acts as a key ICT access point, through the provision of over 40 computers for student use. In addition, the UTS library is the primary access point for adaptive technology, and support for the use of this technology, for students with particular disabilities.

Infrastructure and Beyond: Factors affecting Access

The research identified a range of physical, experiential, social, economic, and institutional influences on respondents' access to online learning. The findings indicated that, compared with the control group, students from some equity groups are disadvantaged in their access to ICT for use in their learning programs. Some of the key access issues identified by respondents as impacting upon them were: a need for reliable access to on-campus facilities, particularly for students with no other access options; a lack of adaptive technology and modified equipment in mainstream campus facilities for students with particular disabilities; the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and upgrading equipment for students of low socio-economic status; the high costs of Internet service providers and dial-up fees for rural and isolated students. It was also found that poor levels of information literacy led to a lack of confidence to access available resources by women, older students, students of low socio-economic status, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and rural and isolated students. The issue of information literacy is discussed in further detail in a later section of this article.

The economic costs of maintaining personal ICT equipment with online capabilities remain considerable in the current Australian context. Our findings that cost was a significant barrier to ICT access and use for students from some equity groups - particularly students of low socio-economic status - are supported by the limited body of empirical work in this area.[5] Costs are also magnified for students with particular disabilities, due to the added expense of purchasing modified hardware and/or adaptive software. Fichten et al's[6] comprehensive study of the ICT needs for post secondary students with a disability in Canada found that:

Regardless of what question was asked or how it was formulated, the high cost of acquiring and maintaining computer technologies was the single most important and common issue noted by computer users and non-users alike.

Proponents of ICT as a means of expanding educational access for students from traditionally disadvantaged groups have tended to skate over this issue, regarding it simply as a small problem to be overcome, rather than a significant access constraint which disproportionately affects students from some equity groups.[7]

A significant methodogical finding of the research described here was that low socio-economic status was most effectively measured as those students who were first in their families to attend university, and who were on a federal government recognised low income. The disadvantages reported by these students were significantly greater than those students who conformed to the measure of socio-economic disadvantage used by DETYA (that is, a measure of regional disadvantage via postcode). While this has particular implications for the way in which this equity group is defined by policy makers and researchers, it also illuminates the intergenerational disadvantage faced by students who have limited family and social networks experienced in higher education. For many of these students, reliance upon the services and staff of the university is crucial to educational success, as they lack access to experiential knowledge through their family and social support networks.

Anecdotal information from equity practitioners indicates that Australian universities have sought to respond to the cost barriers to personal ICT use through negotiations with financial institutions to offer low interest student loans, and computer companies to offer long term lease or repayment schemes. UTS has an in-house interest free loan scheme specifically available to students from equity groups for the purchase of computer equipment. However, the low uptake of this scheme suggests that, for those most economically disadvantaged, even interest free long term loans are not feasible. In the words of one survey respondent, 'My family lives on government benefits at the moment and it is a real chore just to provide our basic needs such as home, food, clothing, etc' (26-40 year old male Aboriginal student of low socio-economic status with a disability).

The issue of equipment costs has significant implications for institutions, as well as the individuals studying within them. It is clear that, currently, the provision and maintenance of ICT is a necessary and spiralling infrastructure cost to universities. Despite ongoing debates about the potential of 'online universities' to expand educational access while dramatically reducing physical participation at university campuses, students are not vacating campuses in droves, and traditional infrastructure requirements remain. Further, the anticipated savings of online learning in terms of teaching costs have not been uniformly realised.[8] Many Australian institutions have introduced ICT based flexible learning options without weighing up the full cost implications, including the skills development required to accommodate shifting roles for academic and general staff, and the real benefits to students.[9]

In Australia, policy makers have acknowledged, but not systematically responded to, the increased costs associated with the effective use of ICT in education,10 and universities have yet to take a unified stand with government on this issue. Our research indicates that, on the ground, lack of reliable and sufficient 'front end' infrastructure is most likely to disadvantage students who need it the most - that is, students with limited or no other access options. Given the rapid advances of ICT, and associated societal expectations of taking up new ICT options, it is unlikely that these inequities will be resolved without the implementation of deliberate and appropriately resourced policy responses.

While economic cost remains a key barrier to equitable ICT access, it is important to note that the cost of home based technology alone does not determine students' preferences with regard to where they access ICT. Another important issue raised by students from some equity groups - particularly students of low socio-economic status and students with a disability - was the quality of home study conditions. Qualitatively, several students from these groups clarified their responses by explaining that they found university facilities, including the library, more productive study spaces as they did not need to contend with cramped study conditions and/or household demands. For some students with disabilities, the university facilities provided access to adaptive technologies not available in their homes.

A significant implication of the research for university libraries is that those students most disadvantaged in relation to ICT are also most reliant on common facilities and support services. Students from equity groups - particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students of low socio-economic status - also reported significantly greater reliance on public library ICT facilities than the control group. However, these students reported a range of problems with this access option, including high costs of printing in public libraries, insufficient time allocations for computer use, and the need to book computer time days in advance. Qualitatively, these students indicated a greater preference for use of university library facilities, where available and reliable. For Indigenous students who were on block release study programs and lived in communities remote from the university, regular physical access to the university library was simply not possible.

The responsiveness of library services and staff to diverse student needs clearly plays an important role in determining students' access to ICT and their experiences of its use. There is little doubt that university libraries are well positioned to provide online access to and search facilities for a wide range of quality assured digital materials. In fact it can be argued that doing this may become one of the fundamental distinguishing factors between universities and the rapidly growing number of commercial online learning providers. However, without concurrent, active steps to assist equity groups, particularly those with limited access options, universities may well find themselves contributing to the digital divide and further marginalising the disadvantaged.

Information Literacy: Issues of Use and Support

While access to front end infrastructure was identified as a significant issue in itself, another key factor affecting students' use of ICT for educational purposes was levels of information literacy. George and Luke11 have defined information literacy as an awareness of the 'kinds of information available, possible sources of this information, and the means of locating and retrieving it' linked to a deeper understanding of the information required in relation to existing knowledge. They point out that information literacy is an important enabler, essential to the pursuit of knowledge, both within and outside formal educational spheres, in the information age. In this sense, the traditional role of librarian as information specialist has shifted, with librarians increasingly being required to teach users their craft12 in order to facilitate the development of information literacy.

Our research found that students from some equity groups were significantly more likely than other students to enter university with highly limited information literacy skills, and that this lack of information literacy acts as both a deterrent to accessing available ICT resources and a limitation on ICT use. These students reported variously that their experiences of ICT had been constrained by educational disadvantage prior to entering university, by limited exposure to such technologies in their family or social networks and/or by time spent out of the educational system and labour market, where day-to-day exposure to these technologies is not common.

A number of respondents, particularly older students and women students, and some students of low socio-economic status, commented that they did not use available facilities due to lack of confidence. These students indicated a number of concerns about accessing common ICT facilities, including those housed within the library. These concerns included: embarrassment about having to ask for technical assistance from staff; negative experiences of asking technical and support staff for help; and concern about tying up resources needed by other students for long periods while trying to improve skills. It is clear that poor information literacy limits students' motivations and capacity to access available resources. This creates a 'catch 22' dilemma, as students are deterred from using ICT due to poor information literacy skills, and cannot improve those skills without regular use of ICT or access to training on it.

University libraries often play key roles in developing information literacy through the provision of general training to students in the use of library software applications and information search and retrieval skills. In the case of UTS, the library was found to be oriented towards providing training on library software packages to students of all levels of experience, whereas faculty and course based training generally presumed basic information literacy.

There was considerable evidence in the study's results that flexible learning mechanisms, such as 'just-in-time', 'just-for-me' technical training, were crucial in determining students' experiences of online education. However, students from some equity groups noted barriers to taking advantage of the current types of support made available in this area. For example, students with family responsibilities and Indigenous students who study on 'block release' programs noted the difficulties of accessing training at times appropriate to their study schedules. The experiences of Indigenous students on block release programs, in particular, illustrated the need for effective integration between course provision and library services for students who are studying in non-traditional modes. Some of these students reported particular concerns about using common computing facilities after hours, which was the only time available to them due to the 'nine to five' intensive nature of their classes. These students were particularly concerned about personal safety issues; particularly, having to negotiate an unfamiliar city environment at night.

Another specific issue raised by students from non-English speaking backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students was the lack of culturally appropriate training available to them. While not the dominant trend in the research findings, several students from these groups commented qualitatively on negative experiences of culturally insensitive training, which had deterred them from seeking further support. While there are support units within this university targeted at meeting the specific needs of these two groups, there is no systematic ICT training offered through these units. To the extent that the library is a key provider of such training, and the target units are the source of expertise on culturally appropriate educational support, it is clear that an integrated service model coordinated by these areas could enhance the ICT experiences of some students from these groups.

Knowledge of Existing Services

As discussed above, the effective use of ICT is predicated upon students having adequate access to ICT infrastructure and appropriate levels of information literacy to use the tools available. A related factor which emerged in the research is that there appears to be a correlation between those who are 'information literacy poor' and those who are information poor, generally. That is, students who identified poor information literacy as a barrier to ICT use were also less likely to be aware of the resources available to them within the university or how to access them. This particularly affected students with a disability and Indigenous students. One explanation for this is that students with particular disabilities are proportionately more likely to be studying on a part time basis, while the majority of Indigenous students at this university study on block release programs, which involve 'campus intensives', rather than day to day interaction with the university. These factors negatively impact on students' exposure to informal information networks and university 'information loops'.

The relationship between equity status and lack of knowledge of existing services is not unique to this study. Indeed, effective marketing of services to students from equity groups is an ongoing issue for equity practitioners. The finding does, however, reinforce the need for all support units to address student diversity when marketing their services. A 'trickle up' approach which is targeted at the needs of those most disadvantaged is likely to be the most effective strategy in achieving equitable access for all students.

Conclusion

In a policy analysis of the equity implications of a virtual university in the United States, Gladieux and Swail[13] conclude that:

there is evidence that the students with the greatest need get the least access (and that)... the most advantaged are most able to benefit from cutting edge technology. Advantage magnifies advantage.

Our research aligns with this conclusion. The research findings suggest that it is essential for active steps to be taken to ensure that those who can most benefit from higher education are not further marginalised as they seek to access, use and receive support for ICT-enabled learning in universities. University libraries, in collaboration with course providers and other support services, have a key role to play in ensuring the effective marketing and delivery of integrated services to support the development of ICT competencies in all university graduates. As the digital age unfolds, the central challenge for Australian higher education is to develop the total intellectual, cultural and creative capital of the country. A crucial element of this challenge is to ensure that technology based flexible delivery serves the diversity of our university communities, so that all may benefit from the opportunities of the information age.

Notes

1. R West Learning for Life: Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service 1998
2. National Office for the Information Economy Digital Divide at http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/access/community/digitaldivide/Digitaldivide.htm Last updated 10 September 2001
3. J Barraket, A M Payne and G Scott, with L Cameron Equity and the Use of Communications and Information Technology in Higher Education: A UTS Case Study DETYA Evaluations and Investigations Program (00/7) Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service 2000
4. See S Alexander and D Blight 'Technology in International Education' International Education Conference Adelaide October 1996; S Alexander and J McKenzie An Evaluation of Information Technology Projects for University Learning Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development and DETYA Canberra 1998; and G Scott Change Matters: Making a Difference in Adult Education and Training Sydney Allen and Unwin 1999
5. See L Cameron Access, Equity and Flexible Learning: The Impact of Flexible Learning Initiatives on Equity Groups at UTS unpublished report Sydney, University of Technology 1998 and C S Fichten, M Barile and V A Jennison Learning Technologies: Students with Disabilities in Post-secondary Education Office of Learning Technologies at http://www.olt-bta.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/download/Dawson79160.pdf 1999
6. Fichten, Barile and Jennison 1999
7. See R West 1998; D McCann, P Nicholson, and J Stuparich Educational Technology in Higher Education DETYA Occasional Papers Series, Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service 1998
8. G Scott and S Alexander 'Online Learning: Rhetoric or Reality' Online Opinion http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/Feb00/scott.htm February 2000
9. Scott and Alexander 2000
10. See R West, 1998
11. R George and R Luke 'The Critical Place of Information Literacy in the Trend towards Flexible Delivery in Higher Education Contexts' Learning for Life Conference Adelaide Nov-Dec 1995 at: http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/flex.learning/rigmor_content.htm$delivery
12. F Nesta quoted in L A Clyde and J E Klobas 'Internet Training: Implications of an International Study' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 31 no 1
13. L E Gladieux and W S Swail The Virtual University Educational Opportunity: Issues of Equity and Access for the Next Generation Washington DC, The College Board at: http://www.collegeboard.org 1999

Dr Jo Barraket, research fellow, Australian Centre for Co-operative Research and Development, University of Technology, Sydney. E-mail: jo.barraket@uts.edu.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).

Geoff Scott, Professor of Education and Director of Quality Development, University of Technology, Sydney. E-mail: geoff.scott@uts.edu.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).