The Use of Technology to Increase Access to USHE:

1. The Use of Technology to Increase Access to USHE: Leveling the Playing Field, or Widening the Socio-economic Chasm? Week 2Assignment: DRAFT 1 Initial Dissertation Prospectus HEOC 803: Dissertation Seminar Benedictine University John Smith-Coppes 7/8/2012

2. Presentation Agenda • Introduction • Narrative Hook, Issue & Topic • Research Problem that Reflects the Issue/Topic • Evidence • Justification of the Research Problem • Support of Assumptions • Purpose of the Research • Purpose Statement/Intent • Research Questions • Targeted Audience • Bibliography to-date • Literature Matrix – Initial Draft

3. Introduction “We found that access to American higher education is unduly limited by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about college opportunities, and persistent financial barriers.” (Spellings, p.1)

4. Introduction • Narrative Hook Although many questions have been raised regarding the impact of technology on the actual processes surrounding the student life, learning framework, economic impact, and educational outcomes “on the campus,” relatively little has been addressed regarding the actual impact of technological access vehicles being utilized by USHE (specifically, colleges and universities across the nation) for increasing real vs. perceived access to disparate bodies of student populations. Technology is rapidly reshaping the landscape of higher education. (Altbach, et al, 2005) Although USHE has focused collectively on the exploration of the utilization of technological applications for improving access, affordability, graduation rates, economies of scale, and learning outcomes in today’s higher education realm, the issue of equitably increasing transparent accessibility for the college-bound student has yet to be demonstrated; contrary to popular belief, technological advances and utilization of certain communication and information systems may be causing a greater social divide between geographically and economically disparate college-bound families, rather than actually bridging the information gap between families of varied socio-economic standards.

5. Introduction • Issue/Topic The purpose of this study isto understand and uncover whether or not technological advances and specific use of technology in USHE, including but not limited to the utilization of certain communication and information systems, is creating a perceived barrier to entry for economically disparate college-bound families, rather than actually bridging the information gap between families of varied socio-economic standards, as initially expected.

6. Research Problemsthat Reflect the Issue/Topic “The recent emphasis on widening participation and access to higher education assumes a uniformly positive process, yet the reality, particularly for working-class students, is often confusing and fraught with difficulties.” (Reay, 2003)

7. Research Problems • Distinct Research Question: • “How is the utilization of technology for college-bound students perceived by twelve low-socioeconomic families, and did the access improve or hinder their attempts at researching and applying to the college and university of choice?” This qualitative research will show that although information is more readily-available and “accessible” to the general public than ever before in American history, we may actually be increasing the gap between those college-bound students that are able to find the information and those who are not.

8. Evidence “Findings suggest that low-income students do have access to computers but lack the knowledge and support needed to navigate the financial aid resources available online.” (Venegas, 2006)

9. Evidence • Justification of the Research Problem • Prior research would suggest that an increasing and broadening chasm in regards to access would be activated through socio-economic factors. (Reay, 2003) • “Findings suggest that low-income students do have access to computers but lack the knowledge and support needed to navigate the financial aid resources available online.” (Venegas, 2006) • “The recent emphasis on widening participation and access to higher education assumes a uniformly positive process, yet the reality, particularly for working-class students, is often confusing and fraught with difficulties.” (Reay, 2003) • “We found that access to American higher education is unduly limited by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about college opportunities, and persistent financial barriers.” (Spellings, p.1)

10. Evidence • Support of Assumptions • As recognized by Elinor Madigan in the research article, The Influence of Family Income and Parents Education on Digital Access: Implications for First-Year College Students, “There is an ongoing digital divide in the United States. Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey of 57,000 households containing 134,000 persons, the U.S. Department of Commerce found that the proportion of U.S. households with computers reached 61.8 percent in 2003, and 87.6 percent of those households used their computers to access the Internet. 54.6 percent of U.S. households had Internet connections (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004, p. 7).” (Madigan, 2005) • As Joanna Goode stated in her article Mind the Gap: The Digital Dimension of College Access, “Early digital divide discussions focused almost exclusively on the technical component of the equity gap, including computer hardware, software, and more recently, broadband Internet access. This access divide still has not been bridged, and in many ways, has widened. Although some high schools do provide technologically and academically rich learning experiences for their students, others do not. In fact, students in some schools have minimal opportunities to simply use computers and go online.” (Goode, 2010)

11. Evidence • Support of Assumptions, cont. • “In the 1990s, the use of Internet technologies in college admission and financial aid was heralded as the wave of the future (Frazier, 2003; Gladieux & Swail 1999a, 1999b; Hartman 1998; Shelley, 1989). Colleges and universities exhibited an increasing reliance on the Internet for admission, financial aid, housing, and registration processes. Parents and students could ‘virtually visit’ colleges from the convenience of their own home. (Hartman, 1998) At the same time, advocates for low-income students and students of color warned of the potential for Internet resources to become “engines of inequality” if they were not made available to all students (Gladieux & Swail, 1999a). (Venegas, 2006) • The question herein drives towards whether this warning has played out in contemporary times.

12. Purpose of the Research Prior research would suggest that an increasing and broadening chasm in regards to access would be activated through socio-economic factors. (Reay, 2003)

13. Purpose of the Research • Purpose Statement/Intent: • Using a qualitative approach, the purpose is to: • Interview a number of specifically-identified families that fit the parameters of a specific, low-income demographic, and • Research and document their opinions and/or perceptions regarding the utilization of technology in gaining access to USHE • Ultimately, I want to know if increased web access and institutional web-focus on admissions processes are creating a dynamic of equitable access or disparate enrollments for incoming USHE students .

14. Purpose of the Research • Research Questions: • How is the utilization of technology for college-bound students perceived by twelve low-socioeconomic families? • Is there a direct or indirect correlation between the use of technology in exploring USHE opportunities, and the eventual outcomes of college-bound students from low-income neighborhoods and families? • Did the (existent or nonexistent) technological access improve or hinder the college-bound students’ attempts at researching and applying to the college and university of choice? • If the defined results and opinions of the research sample point to a perceived lack of access, does this perception vary from other socio-economic groups, and what changes can be made to overcome this obstacle (either real or perceived)?

15. Targeted Audience “How will the current wave of information and communication technologies affect the future of higher education? Will technological advances allow universities to provide a higher quality education to more people? Or will advances result in a net decrease in educational quality and accentuate the divide between the haves and have-nots? (Altbach, 2005)

16. Targeted Audience • Statement: • Through a deliberate qualitative study of a specific low-income sample of students, we can better understand the barriers that have arisen through increased technological availability, either real or perceived, that ultimately hinder these specific students from gaining full access and obtaining complete information regarding the realities of USHE opportunities available to them, and can thus begin to develop strategies to minimize the effects of this gap. • Audience Benefiting from this Research: • High School Guidance Counselors • USHE Admissions personnel • Enrollment Management Administration • Low Socio-economic Student Populations • Foundations dedicated to increasing equitable access to USHE (such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bremer Foundation, etc…)

17. Targeted Audience • Expected Outcomes for the Audience: • Based upon the discovery of this research, it is anticipated that the perceptions of low-income college-bound students and their families will have demonstrated that a lack of technological access (either real or perceived) will have, in some manner, shaped and restricted the ultimate choice, decision, and/or direction in pursuing a post-secondary degree. • This research should provide a base for additional qualitative and quantitative study regarding methods in which institutions of USHE should continue to pursue the utilization of technology in attempts to increase access to USHE that are non-discriminatory and fully-inclusive by nature and practice.

18. Bibliography to-date “Although access does not guarantee understanding, access must come first before literacy can be addressed. Further research is needed in order to better understand the role played by parents in preparing their children for the digital age.” (Madigan, 2005)

19. Bibliography Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (2005). American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.  (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall (Chapter 11, “Experimental designs”). Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks. Eun-Ok, B., & Freehling, S. (2007). Using Internet Communication Technologies by Low-Incomes High School Students in Completing Educational Tasks Inside and Outside the School Setting. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 33-55. doi:10.1300/J025v24n01̱04 Goode, J. (2010). Mind the Gap: The Digital Dimension of College Access. Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 583-618. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

20. Bibliography, cont. Kennamer, M. A., Katsinas, S. G., Hardy, D. E., & Roessler, B. (2010). Closing Doors of Opportunity? Trends in Enrollment, College Costs, and Direct Grant Aid at Community Colleges in the United States, 2000-2001 to 2005-2006. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 34(1/2), 7-24. doi:10.1080/10668920903388115 Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512-1520. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005 Madigan, E., and Goodfellow, M. (2005). The Influence of Family Income and Parents Education on Digital Access: Implications for First-Year College Students. Sociological Viewpoints, 2153-62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. McPherson, M., and Schapiro, M.O. (2007). The Spelling Commission Report, One Year Later.Forum for the Future of Higher Education. 2008. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp ?id=HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1

21. Bibliography, cont. Reay, D. (2003). A Risky Business? Mature Working-class Women Students and Access to Higher Education. Gender & Education, 15(3), 301-317. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). (2005). Accountability for better results: A national imperative for higher education. Report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp?id= HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1 United States Department of Commerce. (2000, October). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. United States Department of Commerce. (2004, September). A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp?id= HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1 Venegas, K.M. (2006).Internet Inequalities: Financial Aid, the Internet, and Low-Income Students. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (12), pp. 1652-1669.

22. Literature Matrix “It has been documented that colleges and universities are likely to increase the proportion of students recruited from low-income households. Given these demographic trends in the current higher education pipeline (all births that occurred 18 years prior) (Mortenson, 2003), colleges and universities must be sensitive to the persistence of digital access inequalities among future cohorts of first-year students.” (Madigan, 2005)

23. Literature Matrix, to-date