The Internet as a Research and/or Communication Tool to Support Classroom-Based Instruction: Usage, Value, and Utility for Post-Secondary Students

Author Hogan, Bernard Michael

Published 2004

Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate)

School School of Film, Media and Cultural Studies

DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/587

Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/366273

Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The Internet as a Research and/or Communication Tool to Support Classroom-Based Instruction: Usage, Value and Utility for Post-Secondary Students

Bernard Michael Hogan, BA, MA

School of Film, Media and Cultural Studies Faculty of Arts Griffith University

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

January 20, 2004 Abstract

Recent research indicates that the Internet (or Net) is currently being used at many post-secondary institutions in support of traditional, classroom-based instruction. From 1994 to 2002, the percentage of post-secondary classes using the Web as a research tool and E-mail as a method of communication has increased almost ten fold. An extensive literature on the evaluation of the Internet as an educational technology has developed in recent years; however, there are some gaps that need to be filled to provide a more complete understanding of the Internet and its use by post-secondary students. First, most of the studies focus primarily on student usage of the Net, and less so on the value (or the advantages and disadvantages) and the utility (or usefulness) associated with that usage. Second, many of these studies make a distinction between the research and communication functions of the Internet. While I argue that this is an appropriate distinction, many examine one function or the other only – and not both simultaneously. The central research problem that this study addresses is helping to fill those two gaps in the evaluation literature by examining in detail student usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction.

Drawing upon work from the fields of media studies, learning theory, and theories of communication, I establish a “Net as Tool” framework and adopt a uses and gratifications approach to examine student use of the Net. The three main inter-related concepts of usage, value and utility are used as organizing themes for the study, and I designed and developed a survey instrument to gather original quantitative data from post-secondary students in both Canada and Australia to fully examine those concepts. Two focus group sessions were designed to supplement this quantitative data with qualitative findings (and to generate more in-depth insights into student usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool).

The results presented in this study have both theoretical and practical importance. In regards to the theoretical side, I have identified the underlying dimensions of usage, value, and utility, and highlighted what makes the Net valuable and useful as a research and/or communication tool. Additionally, I have identified the factors which are related to usage, value, and utility, and explored the inter-related nature of those three concepts. I concluded my study with an outline of the importance of the skill of digital literacy so that students can cope effectively with the online environment. These findings are significant because they help to fill some specific gaps in the evaluation knowledge of the Net in post-secondary education.

In addition, I have developed a practical strategy which suggests how the Net could be used most effectively by students as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom based instruction. The areas addressed by the strategy include access, infrastructure, technical support, training, integration into the curriculum, and appropriate use of the tool. The overall strategy is important because it contributes to our understanding of the Net as an educational tool, and it outlines ways to address the issue of the digital divide within post-secondary education. It is hoped the strategy will be useful to training staff, post-secondary administrators, instructors, and students.

i Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Michael Meadows (Ph.D.) and Cathie Sherwood, for their guidance and their patience. Their insight into this subject helped shape a much more flimsy idea into the finished product presented here.

I would like to acknowledge the support of my colleagues at Griffith University, especially Gordon Fletcher and Anita Greenhill, and my colleagues at the Department of Government at the University of Queensland – Martin Leet, Rachel Parker, Krista Singleton-Cambagge, Amanda Roan, and Anita Gowers – who tested the original surveys for me, and who provided food for thought as to the drawbacks associated with using the Internet. I would also like to thank Carl Chala for sending the E-mail message that initiated this thesis.

Others who provided direction, support and advice included: Carlyle Hogan; Dr. David Kinloch; Ben McDonald and Jake Burles; Janet Pound; David MacDonald, Cynthia Carr, Anthony Leamon and Andy Langford at the Department of Health and Social Services; David Stewart and Jeff Barichello at the NWT Bureau of Statistics; the staff at the Yellowknife Public Library (especially Debra, Shad and Eileen); and the staff at the Legislative Branch Library (especially Bev and Marnie)

I would also like to thank my family and friends for all of their support. A special thank-you goes to my wife, Jean, for her support and patience – and her red pen! – all of which were needed for the duration of the thesis.

ii Statement of Originality of Work

I hereby certify that this work is original. This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

______Bernard Michael Hogan Dated:

iii Foreword

Before I begin, two personal experiences – both of which were instrumental to the development of this thesis – must be mentioned.

The first occurred on September 25, 1995. I was enrolled as a post-graduate student at the University of Queensland, and I had just begun to research my proposed topic – AThe Effect of Information Technology on Rural and Remote Areas@ – when a friend of mine from Inuvik, Canada, E-mailed me the address for a paper he thought I might find useful (Chala 1995).

I was able to start up my Web browser, type in the address, and electronically retrieve the full 200+ page document at the same time as the paper version was being released by the Government of Canada in Ottawa – despite being thousands of kilometres away in Brisbane. It took approximately two minutes to download, did not involve any searching, and it was free. I was suitably impressed!

However, the more I began to experiment with the Net, the more I found that using it wasn=t always as easy as the above experience.... it became quickly apparent that there were drawbacks as well as benefits.

But it wasn=t until the second experience – which occurred on April 4, 1996 – that this view became crystalized. On that date, I was assisting Ms. Di Zetlin and Mr. Tony Bunney in delivering a seminar for the post-graduate students of the Department of Government at the University of Queensland (entitled APolitics on the Net: Resources for Post-Graduates@). At this seminar, many other students expressed the same ideas I had regarding the Adown@ sides to using the Net: technical problems, its time intensive nature, information overload, a lack of the proper skills to use the Net effectively, to name but a few. The general consensus at that seminar was that while there were advantages to using the Net for research and communication, these were not without their drawbacks.

Hence this quest to identify those benefits and drawbacks, and explore the implications of using the Net from the student=s perspective.

iv Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acknowledgments ...... ii Statement of Originality of Work ...... iii Foreword ...... iv List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Research Problem ...... 3 1.3 Thesis Argument ...... 7 1.4 Assumptions ...... 8 1.5 Limitations of the Study ...... 10 1.6 Thesis Structure ...... 15 1.7 Summary ...... 16 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: The Net as a Research and/or Communication Tool ...... 18 2.1 Introduction ...... 18 2.2 The Internet ...... 20 2.3 The Net as a Tool ...... 22 2.4 The Net as a Research and/or Communication Tool ...... 25 2.5 Using the Net as a Research Tool ...... 39 2.6 Using the Net as a Communication Tool ...... 44 2.7 Usage, Value and Utility ...... 49 2.7.1 Usage ...... 50 2.7.2 Value ...... 51 2.7.3 Utility ...... 68 2.8 Summary ...... 69 Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 72 3.1 Introduction ...... 72 3.2 Survey Research ...... 72 3.2.1 Sample Selection ...... 73 3.2.2 The Survey Instrument ...... 76 3.2.3 Dependent Variables ...... 79 3.2.4 Independent Variables ...... 95 3.2.5 Validity and Reliability ...... 96 3.3 Focus Group Research ...... 98 3.4 Summary ...... 100 Chapter 4: Results ...... 102 4.1 Introduction ...... 102 4.2 User Profile ...... 103 4.3 Usage of the Net for Research and/or Communication ...... 110 4.4 The Value of the Net for Research and/or Communication ...... 115 4.5 The Utility of the Net for Research and/or Communication ...... 134 4.6 Skills Needed by Students for Net Research and/or Communication .... 142 4.7 Summary ...... 145

v Chapter 5: Analysis ...... 149 5.1 Introduction ...... 149 5.2 Net Usage (USE) ...... 153

5.2.1 USE-R1 ...... 153

5.2.2 USE-R2 ...... 158 5.2.3 USE-C1 ...... 163 5.2.4 USE-C2 ...... 167 5.2.5 Overall Usage ...... 170 5.3 Net Value (ADV and DIS) ...... 172 5.3.1 ADV-R ...... 172 5.3.2 DIS-R ...... 177 5.3.3 ADV-C ...... 180 5.5.4 DIS-C ...... 183 5.5.5 Overall Value ...... 186 5.4 Net Utility (UTIL) ...... 188

5.4.1 UTIL-R1 ...... 189 5.4.2 UTIL-R2 ...... 193 5.4.3 UTIL-C1 ...... 196 5.4.4 UTIL-C2 ...... 199 5.4.5 Overall Utility ...... 201 5.5 Inter-relationships between Usage, Value and Utility ...... 202 5.6 Summary ...... 206 Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 214 6.1 Introduction ...... 214 6.2 The Contribution to Knowledge ...... 214 6.2.1 The Significance of Usage ...... 215 6.2.2 The Significance of Value ...... 219 6.2.3 The Significance of Utility ...... 223 6.2.4 Other Significant Findings ...... 226 6.2.5 The Importance of the Skill of Digital Literacy ...... 229 6.3 Recommendations ...... 231 6.3.1 Sufficient Access ...... 233 6.3.2 Appropriate Infrastructure ...... 234 6.3.3 Adequate Technical Support ...... 237 6.3.4 Suitable Skills and Training ...... 238 6.3.5 Integration Into the Curriculum ...... 240 6.3.6 Appropriate Use ...... 240 6.4 Conclusions and Areas For Further Research ...... 242 Bibliography ...... 244 Appendix A: Survey – Student Usage of the Internet ...... A-1 Appendix B: Coding Framework ...... B-1 Appendix C: Focus Group Questions ...... C-1 Appendix D: Node Summary ...... D-1 Appendix E: Additional Statistical Analysis Tables ...... E-1

vi List of Figures

Figure 2.1.1: Literature Used to Develop the Theoretical Framework ...... 19 Figure 2.4.1: The Broadcast Model of Mass Communication ...... 26 Figure 2.7.2.1: Web Address Errors ...... 60 Figure 3.2.1.1: Aurora College Campuses ...... 74 Figure 3.2.1.2: Griffith University Campuses ...... 75

vii List of Tables

Table 1.1.1: Increase in Net Use in Post-Secondary Education (1994-2002) ...... 2 Table 2.7.2.1: Server Location (by Country) – January 2003 ...... 63

Table 3.2.3.1: Scoring of USE-R1 ...... 81 Table 3.2.3.2: Scoring of USE-R2 ...... 82 Table 3.2.3.3: Scoring of USE-C1 ...... 83 Table 3.2.3.4: Scoring of USE-C2 ...... 84 Table 3.2.3.5: Scoring of ADV-R ...... 85 Table 3.2.3.6: Scoring of DIS-R ...... 86 Table 3.2.3.7: Scoring of ADV-C ...... 87 Table 3.2.3.8: Scoring of DIS-C ...... 89

Table 3.2.3.9: Scoring of UTIL-R1 ...... 90 Table 3.2.3.10: Scoring of UTIL-R2 ...... 91

Table 3.2.3.11: Scoring of UTIL-C1 ...... 93 Table 3.2.3.12: Scoring of UTIL-C2 ...... 94 Table 4.2.1: Age ...... 104 Table 4.2.2: First Language ...... 105 Table 4.2.3: Birthplace ...... 105 Table 4.2.4: Descent ...... 105 Table 4.2.5: How Long Using the Net ...... 107 Table 4.2.6: Hours Online Per Week ...... 107 Table 4.2.7: Comfort Level ...... 108 Table 4.3.1 Usage of Research Services ...... 111 Table 4.3.2: Usage of Web Research Methods ...... 112 Table 4.3.3: Usage of Communication Services ...... 114 Table 4.3.4: Usage of E-mail Discussion Lists ...... 115 Table 4.4.1: Advantages for Research ...... 117 Table 4.4.2: Disadvantages for Research ...... 120 Table 4.4.3: Advantages for Communication ...... 126 Table 4.4.4: Disadvantages for Communication ...... 131 Table 4.5.1: Utility of Research Services ...... 136 Table 4.5.2: Utility of Web Research Methods ...... 137 Table 4.5.3: Overall Utility of the Net for Research ...... 138 Table 4.5.4: Utility of Communication Services ...... 140 Table 4.5.5: Utility of E-mail Discussion Lists ...... 141 Table 4.5.6: Overall Utility of the Net for Communication ...... 142 Table 5.1.1: Multicollinearity of Location and Student Level ...... 150 Table 5.1.2: Multicollinearity – Where, Type and Pay For Access ...... E-1 Table 5.1.3: Non-Multicollinearity – Age and Gender ...... E-1

Table 5.2.1.1: USE-R1 Reliability Analysis ...... E-2 Table 5.2.1.2: USE-R1 Means ...... 154 Table 5.2.1.3: USE-R1 Correlations ...... 155 Table 5.2.1.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the USE-R1 Scale ...... E-3

Table 5.2.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – USE-R1 ...... 158 Table 5.2.2.1: USE-R2 Reliability Analysis ...... E-6 Table 5.2.2.2: USE-R2 Means ...... 159 Table 5.2.2.3: USE-R2 Correlations ...... 160

Table 5.2.2.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the USE-R2 Scale ...... E-7 Table 5.2.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – USE-R2 ...... 162

viii Table 5.2.3.1: USE-C1 Reliability Analysis ...... E-9 Table 5.2.3.2: USE-C1 Means ...... 163 Table 5.2.3.3: USE-C1 Correlations ...... 164 Table 5.2.3.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the USE-C1 Scale ...... E-10

Table 5.2.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – USE-C1 ...... 167 Table 5.2.4.1: USE-C2 Correlations ...... 168 Table 5.2.4.2: Multiple Regression Analysis – USE-C2 ...... 170 Table 5.2.5.1: Usage Means ...... 171 Table 5.2.5.2: Inter-correlations of the Usage Scales ...... 172 Table 5.3.1.1: ADV-R Reliability Analysis ...... E-12 Table 5.3.1.2: ADV-R Means ...... 173 Table 5.3.1.3: ADV-R Correlations ...... 174 Table 5.3.1.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the ADV-R Scale ...... E-13 Table 5.3.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – ADV-R ...... 176 Table 5.3.2.1: DIS-R Reliability Analysis ...... E-16 Table 5.3.2.2: DIS-R Means ...... 177 Table 5.3.2.3: DIS-R Correlations ...... 178 Table 5.3.2.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the DIS-R Scale ...... E-17 Table 5.3.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – DIS-R ...... 179 Table 5.3.3.1: ADV-C Reliability Analysis ...... E-19 Table 5.3.3.2: ADV-C Means ...... 180 Table 5.3.3.3: ADV-C Correlations ...... 181 Table 5.3.3.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the ADV-C Scale ...... E-20 Table 5.3.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – ADV-C ...... 183 Table 5.3.4.1: DIS-C Reliability Analysis ...... E-21 Table 5.3.4.2: DIS-C Means ...... 184 Table 5.3.4.3: DIS-C Correlations ...... 185 Table 5.3.4.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the DIS-C Scale ...... E-22 Table 5.3.4.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – DIS-C ...... 186 Table 5.3.5.1: Value Means ...... 187 Table 5.3.5.2: Inter-correlations of the Value Scales ...... 188

Table 5.4.1.1: UTIL-R1 Reliability Analysis ...... E-25 Table 5.4.1.2: UTIL-R1 Means ...... 189 Table 5.4.1.3: UTIL-R1 Correlations ...... 190 Table 5.4.1.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the UTIL-R1 Scale ...... E-26 Table 5.4.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – UTIL-R1 ...... 192 Table 5.4.2.1: UTIL-R2 Reliability Analysis ...... E-28 Table 5.4.2.2: UTIL-R2 Means ...... 193 Table 5.4.2.3: UTIL-R2 Correlations ...... 194 Table 5.4.2.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the UTIL-R2 Scale ...... E-29 Table 5.4.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – UTIL-R2 ...... 196 Table 5.4.3.1: UTIL-C1 Reliability Analysis ...... E-31 Table 5.4.3.2: UTIL-C1 Means ...... 197 Table 5.4.3.3: UTIL-C1 Correlations ...... 198

Table 5.4.3.4: Correlations – Individual Components of the UTIL-C1 Scale ...... E-32 Table 5.4.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – UTIL-C1 ...... 199 Table 5.4.4.1: UTIL-C2 Correlations ...... 200 Table 5.4.4.2: Multiple Regression Analysis – UTIL-C2 ...... 200 Table 5.4.5.1: Utility Means ...... 201 Table 5.4.5.2: Inter-correlations of the Utility Scales ...... 202

ix Table 5.5.1: Correlations – Usage, Value and Utility Scales ...... 203 Table 5.6.1: Summary of Factors Related to the Usage Scales ...... 208 Table 5.6.2: Summary of Factors Related to the Value Scales ...... 210 Table 5.6.3: Summary of Factors Related to the Utility Scales ...... 212 Table 6.2.4.1: Reasons Why Students Did Not Use the Net ...... E-33 Table 6.3.3.1: Correlations – Comfort Level and Technical Support ...... E-34 Table 6.3.4.1: Correlations – Comfort Level and Training ...... E-34

x Chapter 1: Introduction

"As a college student, I can hardly remember life before I was born into the world of E-mail. I use electronic mail and the World Wide Web to communicate with family and friends ..., to ask questions of professors, to gather information about current events and to learn about topics ranging from Shakespeare to strawberry Pop-Tarts.”

- Duke undergraduate student writing about the Internet, Spring, 1997 (Lubans 1998).

1.1 Introduction Whether because of an attempt to reduce costs and improve efficiency in an era of reduced funding to post-secondary education (Cohen 1993; Meredyth & Thomas 1996; Dearing 1997), whether being technologically driven (Rifkin 1995; Moore 2000a), or whether to improve learning outcomes (Fayter 1998; Berge 1999; Twigg 2003), information and communication technologies (ICT) are transforming the landscape in post-secondary/higher education.

One such ICT is the Internet. Recent research indicates that the Internet (or Net) is currently being used at many post-secondary institutions in support of traditional, classroom-based instruction (Boling & Robinson 1999; Edwards, et al. 2000; Eastmond, et al. 2000; Saeta 2002; Saunders & Klemming 2003). Post-secondary students are using the Net in a variety of ways, including: communicating with their instructors and with each other (Lasarenko 1997; Tapscott 1998b; Fox 2001), and performing research and finding information on a variety of subjects from around the globe (Serim & Koch 1996; Robin, et al. 1997; Graham & McNeil 1999; Newman & Scurry 2001).

The National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education, which is based on survey responses from officials at over 600 two and four year colleges and universities in the United States, notes that: 69.5% of classes now use E-mail; 50.3% of classes are tapping into Internet resources as part of the syllabus; and 34.8% of all college courses have their own Web page (Green 2002).

1 The JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services in the United Kingdom noted that 68.5% of undergraduates used search engines in their information retrieval processes and 63.8% used E-mail in 2001 (Armstrong, et al. 2001). In the United States, the percentage of students using the Web and E-mail in 2002 was 86% and 72%, respectively (Jones 2002). Other surveys have reported similar results (The National Survey of Student Engagement 2003; Daigle & Kim 2002; Lubans 2000a).

Research also indicates that this is no “flash in the pan” anomaly – as there has been a trend towards increased usage of the Internet within post-secondary education since the mid-1990s (The National Survey of Student Engagement 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; Daigle & Kim 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002; Lubans 1998; 1999a; 1999b; 2000a; 2000b). Table 1.1.1 shows this increase as reported by the Campus Computing Project (Green 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002).

Table 1.1.1: Increase in Net Use in Post-Secondary Education (1994-2002) Year % Classes Using % Classes Using Net % Classes having Own E-mail as Part of Syllabus Web Page

2002 69.5 50.3 34.8

2001 64.1 47.4 35.2

2000 59.3 42.7 30.7

1999 54 38.9 28.1

1998 44.4 33.1 22.5

1997 32.8 24.8 15

1996 25 15.3 8.4

1995 20 11 6

1994 8 N/A 4

From 1994 to 2002, the percentage of post-secondary classes using E-mail as a method of communication increased from 8% to almost 70%. Similarly, the percentage of classes using the Net as part of the course syllabus increased from 11% in 1995 to over 50% in 2002. And the percentage of classes having their own Web pages increased from 6% to just under 35% during the same timeframe.

2 1.2 Research Problem Within this context of increased use of the Net in post-secondary education, the debate over this use has intensified. Proponents of the Net argue that it will revolutionize education – eliminating distance, knocking down barriers, and creating one huge virtual classroom. Opponents of the Net disagree, and feel that the educational benefits of the Net are over-hyped and unproven. As Hatfield and Erbeck note:

Two schools of thought have emerged. One school views the Internet as a fundamental, analytical tool that is no less important for professionals than the analytical tools used in the study of biology, chemistry, or physics. These proponents emphasize the need for a paradigm shift in how we view our profession. While acknowledging the assorted flaws of the Internet, this school views criticisms of the technology as an agenda for future development.

The opposing school of thought views the Internet as primarily a fad, not yet worthy of academic or professional study. While acknowledging the importance of Internet developments as a supportive function, this view emphasizes that few (if any) understand its true potential in the classroom. This school argues that the benefits are often vaguely defined, while the true costs of such applications are often glossed over. For example, it cites time commitments as one of the largest costs of having course materials online. These commitments include the time required to create and update documents, and time required to learn about the Internet and associated tools. This school points out that proponents often ignore such costs (Hatfield & Erbeck 1997: 19).

The need for a thorough evaluation of the Internet as an educational technology is more than apparent. As noted by EvNet, the Network for the Evaluation of Education and Training Technologies:

The quality of Canadian education and training is being undermined by the improper use of instructional technologies. E-mail, teleconferencing, interactive educational TV, the World Wide Web, INTERNET newsgroups, and online chat rooms are being used with little evaluation of their effectiveness in learning and training. In some cases, education has become more costly and ineffective because of the improper use of computers (EvNet: Network for the Evaluation of Training and Technology 1996a).

3 The literature on the evaluation of the Internet as an educational technology is extensive: Laurillard & Taylor 1994; Laurillard, et al. 1994; Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA) 1995a; Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA) 1995b; EvNet: Network for the Evaluation of Training and Technology 1996b; Laurillard 1996; Newman, et al. 1996; Watson 1998; Windschitl 1998; Bruce 1999; Ehrmann 1999; Chugh, et al. 2001; Cuneo, et al. 2002.

However, there are a some gaps in the current evaluation literature which need to be filled so that we have a more complete understanding of the Internet and its use by post-secondary students.

First, most of the studies focus primarily on student usage of the Net, and less so on the value (or the advantages and disadvantages) and the utility (or usefulness) associated with that usage. For example, the National Survey of Student Engagement reports on freshman and senior students use of E-mail to communicate with instructors and their use of the Web to complete assignments (National Survey of Student Engagement 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). However, students were not asked how useful those functions were in helping to complete their courses, nor were they asked to outline the advantages and disadvantages associated with use of the Net. Similarly, other studies are strong on examining student demographics, access issues, hours online, the programs that student use, and the skills students need to use the technology, but neglect to examine the value and utility of the Net from the student’s perspective (Lubans 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b; Armstrong et al 2000, 2001; GVU’s WWW User Survey 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b). This study fills such a niche, and provides an in-depth examination of all three inter-related concepts B usage, value and utility B with various groups of post- secondary students.

Second, many of these studies make a distinction between the research and communication functions of the Internet. While I argue that this is an appropriate distinction, many examine one function or the other only – and not both simultaneously. For example, some studies examine Web usage in general, and information retrieval in particular – but exclude E-mail use (Shippensburg University 2000; Anderson 2003; Franklin & Stubbings 2003). Others examine usage and utility

4 of E-mail and the Internet in general terms – but not specifically the Web as a research/information retrieval tool (Daigle & Kim 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002; Jones 2002; Campbell 2002). This study fill that gap, and examines both functions – research and communication – in equal measure, with the same sample of post-secondary students.

Generally, this study contributes to the field of evaluation knowledge of the Net and how it is used in post-secondary education. Specifically, the central research problem that this study addresses is helping to fill those two gaps in the evaluation literature by examining in detail usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction. Given the current high levels of student usage of the Net, and the near ubiquitousness of the Net in post-secondary education, it seems reasonable to investigate why some students use more of the research and/or communication tools of the Net, why they find those tools more valuable, and why they find those tools more useful than do other students. Other researchers have advocated for an approach that examines both value (Hara & Kling 1999; Lindsay 2000) and utility (Frey, et al 2003; Carpi & Mikhailova 2003) in conjunction with usage. Specifically, they have called for more attention to be paid both to student needs and attitudes in their use of the Internet. This is especially crucial due to the apparent disconnection they have noted between students and academics in the perceived benefits of the use of the technology (Williams 2002; Wiebe, et al 2003). And those students needs and attitudes are wide- ranging: as Orton-Johnson (2003) has suggested: “it is not just issues of access that is at the heart of understanding how students can benefit from the implementation of technology in higher education. Rather research needs to gain an understanding of how different groups of students may utilize technology in different ways according to their development and identity as students.” This study will help shed light on how those different groups of students use the Net, and what they view as valuable and useful about that usage.

The following questions and sub-questions serve as a guide for the enquiry:

5 RQ1. Usage: How are post-secondary students using the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction? (i) Which programs do they use the most for research? (ii) Which methods do they use the most for finding information on the Web? (iii) Which programs do they use the most for communication? (iv) Are they using E-mail discussion lists for communication? (v) Which factors are related to usage of the various research services and the different methods of finding information on the Web? (vi) Which factors are related to usage of the various communication services and usage of E-mail discussion lists? (vii) Overall, which programs (research or communication) do they use the most?

RQ2. Value: What is valuable about the Net as a research and/or communications tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction? (i) What are the most important advantages to using the Net for research? (ii) What are the most important disadvantages to using the Net for research? (iii) What are the most important advantages to using the Net for communication? (iv) What are the most important disadvantages to using the Net for communication? (v) What factors are related to the advantages and disadvantages of the Net as a research tool? (vi) What factors are related to the advantages and disadvantages of the Net as a communication tool? (vii) Overall, what is the value of the Net as a research and/or communication tool?

RQ3. Utility: What is useful about the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction? (i) What are the most useful research programs? (ii) What are the most useful methods of finding information on the Web? (iii) What are the most useful communication programs? (iv) Are E-mail discussion lists useful for communication? 6 (v) Which factors are related to the utility of the various research services and the different methods of finding information on the Web? (vi) Which factors are related to the utility of the various communication services and E-mail discussion lists? (vii) Overall, which programs (research or communication) are the most useful?

RQ4. Implications: How can the concepts of usage, value and utility inform both practice and policy? (I) What skills do students need to conduct research via the Net? (ii) What skills do students need to communicate via the Net? (iii) What strategies should be developed to allow for the proper utilization of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students?

1.3 Thesis Argument Neil Postman writes:

Thamus= error is in his believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden. For all his wisdom, he fails to imagine what writing=s benefits might be, which, as we know, have been considerable. We may learn from this that it is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one sided effect. Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that (Postman 1992: 4-5).

My argument – similar to the one made by Postman in the above quotation – is that the Net is a valuable and useful tool for some students, in some situations: but it is not the most appropriate tool for all students, in all situations (Graham 1983; Maddux 1994; O'Neil 1995; Stoll 1995; Oppenheimer 1997; Kearsley 1998). The Net is not a panacea for all of the ills of post-secondary education; there are both promises and perils with the use of the technology (Landauer 1995; Mosbacker 1995; Rauch 1995; Talbott 1995; Postman 1996; Kaufman 1998; Berge 1998a; Page 1999; Berge and Muilenburg 2000). Ultimately, much depends on how the tool is used.

7 I take this position because the technology of the Net is still in its infancy. Though the Net has been around since 1969, the most popular part of the new media – the World Wide Web (or Web) – has only existed since 1993, and is still experiencing Agrowing pains@. As such, the advantages offered by the Net (such as instant access to information, ease of communication, convenience, low cost, etc.) must be weighed against the disadvantages of using the Net in its present form (such as the time- intensive nature of browsing/surfing, the questionable quality of some of the information, large amounts of information from the United States (US) and lower amounts of Aother@ content, etc.) to determine value and utility. Only once the value and the utility of the technology has been determined can the Net then be used to its fullest potential by students.

In order to make this argument, I first develop a ANet as a Tool@ framework by relying on the work of Postman (1992), Taylor (1980), and Frizler (1995). Then, I adopt a uses and gratifications approach to examine student use of the Net, and build on the work of such authors as Katz, et. al (1974), Palmgreen (1983), Newhagen and Rafaeli (1996), and Rosengren (1974). I highlight two specific educational uses of the Net: the first is research (or information retrieval) and the second is communication, as outlined by Rheingold 1995; Jones 1995; Stoll 1995; McLaughlin, et. al 1995; and December 1996. This framework is more fully developed later in Chapter Two.

1.4 Assumptions I make the following assumptions during the course of this thesis: the Net is to be viewed as a research (or information retrieval) and/or communication Atool@; that it is supplementary to existing tools and is not a replacement for them (it supports traditional, classroom-based instruction); and it will continued to be used and will continue to have an impact on post-secondary education.

Drawing upon the work from the fields of media studies, learning theory, and theories of communication, I adopt a ANet as a Tool@ framework for this thesis. I extend the argument that ATechnology is a Tool@, and that the AComputer is a Tool@ to support this position. Specific uses to be made of the tool include research (that is, information retrieval) and/or communication. I develop this framework more fully later in the thesis (see Chapter Two). 8 Additionally, I view the Net as a supplement to existing research and/or communication tools – not as a replacement for them – within the context of traditional, classroom-based instruction. This includes both the use of electronic and non-electronic educational tools, as well as Awhere@ these tools are used. Regarding the former, as Berge and Collins have noted:

However, as the chapters in this volume make clear, we cannot deny its (the Net) value as a teaching tool. We simply need to remember that responsible use of CMC (Computer Mediated Communication sic.) means using it in addition to other media, not as a replacement (Berge & Collins 1995a: 5).

Other authors, similarly, have noted the complementary nature of the Net for both research and communication (Butler 1995; Noam 1995; Anderson 1996; Davis 1997; Morantz 1998; Beller & Or 1998). Regarding the use of communication tools, D'Souza (1991) noted that students using E-mail as a supplement to their classroom instruction scored higher on their assignments, exams, and projects than did students who relied solely on classroom activities. Regarding the use of research/information retrieval tools, Abrahamson has stated that:

Medill (School of Journalism, Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois) arms graduate students with a marketable knowledge of that curious tool called the Internet, a necessary complement to the fundamental skills of fine journalists (Abrahamson 1997).

Others (Metz 1995) have noted that the paper medium and the online environment will co-exist for the foreseeable future:

For at least the next few decades, both print journals and electronic journals will coexist; commercial providers will compete with libraries by selling information directly to end users; standards for electronic publishing will evolve, computers will become easier to use, and protocols and search tools will be simplified – but there are too many types of information to be displayed (poetry, case law, chemical formulas) for one unified solution to emerge (Robin 1995).

Regarding the latter, I take exception to Peter Drucker=s famous quote about post- secondary education: he stated that Athirty years from now, the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won=t survive@ (Lenzner & Johnson 1997: 127). I assume that the traditional classroom of brick and mortar will continue to coexist 9 with online education for at least the foreseeable future (Anderson 2000a; Anderson 2000b).

Additionally, the push by many academic institutions towards the development of Avirtual@ libraries forces students to adopt these digital technologies (Hafner 1995; Beckman 1996; Lesk 1997; Marcus 1997; Kleiner & Hamaker 1997; Jones 1997). Digital production of information can be cheaper than their printed counterparts, and as partnerships are developed to share costs, more information becomes available in digital format (Franks 1993; King & Taylor 1993; Jog 1995; Ketcham & Born 1996; West 1994; Foster 1996; West 1996; 1997). In light of this, and in light of the trend towards increased use of the Net in higher education noted earlier in this chapter, I assume that the skills needed to cope with the electronic world (for research and/or communication) will continue to be important in the near and foreseeable future.

1.5 Limitations of the Study The study has several limitations which must be noted. These limitations flow from the assumptions under which the study was undertaken, the necessity to restrict the enquiry to a manageable level, and the desire to focus on answering the research problem and questions. These limitations include: the Net is viewed solely as a research (or information retrieval) and/or communication tool; the impacts of the Net on two others uses of ICT – Distance Education and Virtual or Managed Learning Environments – are not considered; the study is based on a limited sample of students (both from the survey and the focus groups); the study has a student-centred focus; and the pace of change of technology.

As the Net is viewed as a research and/or communication tool for the purposes of this thesis, other aspects (such as the social or entertainment aspects) were not considered. For example, there is an extensive literature on the “social”, non-classroom based aspects of learning in higher education (Pascarella 1980, 1984, 1985; Chapman & Pascarella 1983; Iverson, et al. 1984; Pascarella & Terenzini 1981; Pascarella, et al. 1983, 1993, 1994a, 1994b; Terenzini et al. 1982, 1994, 1996; Kuh, et al. 1991a, 1991b, 1994a, 1994b, 2003; Kuh 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000), as well as a well- developed literature on the link between the social aspects of technology use and learning outcomes (Flowers, et al. 2000; Kuh & Vesper 2001; DiMaggio, et al. 2001; 10 Kuh & Hu 2001a; Hu & Kuh 2001). Because of the volume of literature associated with both of those enquiries, the focus on the Net as a tool was chosen so as to keep the thesis at a manageable level. As well, other ways the tool is being used – such as for collaboration between distributed workgroups (Anderson & Kanuka 1997; Hailes & Hazemi 1998; Cuneo, et al. 2000) – are likewise not addressed. This is because the institutions which were surveyed had only recently granted student access to the Net when the study was carried out. Usage (by many undergraduates) was at the beginner or intermediate level, and using the Net for collaborative purposes was not being undertaken by those groups.

The impacts of the Net on ADistance Education@ – which are considerable – also lie outside the scope of this investigation. The literature on Distance Education (also known as AOpen@ or Flexible@ learning) is voluminous (Clark & Neave 1992; Taylor 1995; Watson 1996; Webb 1997; Laws 1998; Moore 1998; Moore 1999; Moore 2000b; Distance Education and Training Council 2000; American Distance Education Consortium 2001; Collis & Moonen 2001; Distance Education Clearinghouse 2001; The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 2002; British Columbia Open University 2002; Open Learning Agency 2002; Open Learning Australia 2002; The Open University 2002; University of South Australia Flexible Learning Centre 2002; Flexible Learning Australasia 2002; Australian National Training Authority 2002; The Macquarrie University Centre for Flexible Learning 2002).

Additionally, one strand of this literature – delivering education via the computer (also called the “online” or “virtual” university) – is likewise massive (Lander & Walta 1995; Jacobson 1995; McIntosh 1996; Lynch 1996; McLuskie 1996; Weiner 1996; Shoalts 1997a; Bates 1995; Bates 1997a; Bates 1997b; Porter 1997). This includes what has been referred to as virtual or managed learning environments within a traditional university setting. Generally, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) include “the components in which learners and tutors participate in ‘on-line’ interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning” (JISC 2000). Specifically, VLEs provide an integrated collection of features, including:

11 1. Creation and management of learning materials online, such as course handouts and simple tests, even for those with no experience of writing for the Web; 2. Communication tools, such as E-mail, bulletin boards and Chat; 3. Assessment tools, such as multiple choice questions and quizzes (most VLEs should be able to track student submissions, and some can mark and give feedback on quizzes, though it is not possible to automatically mark prose responses); 4. Management tools, including tracking of students' progress through online materials, and controlled access to resources, enabling tutors to modify a course and provision of resources to meet students' needs; 5. It may be possible to set up access to digital resources provided by other parts of the institution, such as online journals and digital collections managed by one's library, within a VLE; and 6. Institutions may also be able to link student records and other administrative information to the VLE, creating a Managed Learning Environment (MLE) (Ask Aster 2001).

Likewise, the literature on VLEs and MLEs is extensive: Saunders, et al. 1999; Aberson, et al. 2000; Barker & Pilkington 2000; Heines 2000; Saunders 2000; Weigel 2000; Chohan & Nichols 2001; Deepwell 2001; Ellis 2001; Hughes & King 2001; Lewis 2001; MacColl 2001; Harrison, et al. 2002; Greenwood 2002; Jacobsen & Kremer 2000; Stubley 2002; Blackboard Inc. 2003; JISC 2003a; JISC 2003b; WebCT 2003. To make this a manageable study, the scope of enquiry on the use of Net by post-secondary students had to be limited to use of the Net as a tool to supplement traditional research and/or communication practices.

From a methodological perspective, another limitation flows from the sample selected for examination (in that the study encompasses students at only two institutions). The two institutions selected are not representative of all institutions of higher education worldwide. However, the results do provide a glimpse of what is taking place at institutions which fit the same general parameters of Net access offered to students described here (Bouma 1996). Additionally, the students who were surveyed at those institutions reflect the changing demographic nature of post-secondary students in 12 general in the developed world – that there are more female students, more older students, more students of non-white backgrounds, etc. (Scoffield 1999).

Most educational institutions differ in terms of what they offer students with regard to issues such as access, technical support, training programs, newness of hardware and software, etc. For example, students from Aurora College (AC) had unlimited hours online available to them each week, while students from Griffith University (GU) were limited to five hours of online time per week with their university accounts. Students at both institutions differed in terms of types of access: the AC students were restricted to online use during lab and library hours; the GU students could access the Net though their labs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Similarly, GU students were offered training (in the form of an AIntroduction to the Net@ course, which formed part of the Library orientation when one becomes a student there), while there were no such training provisions for the AC students when the surveys were conducted. Though statistically all correlations using this sample are robust, there is inevitably some percentage of sampling error within any survey research study (Minium, et al. 1993). Caution should be used in generalizing any conclusions to all students enrolled in higher education programs.

Another methodological limitation which must be noted is that of the possible response bias of the focus group participants. The focus group participants were post- graduate students who were invited by E-mail, and who were from the Faculty of Arts. This in and of itself limits the sample of possible focus group participants to those self- selected students that use E-mail, and those from the Faculty of Arts. To combat this possible bias in response, posters were put up around the Nathan Campus (in other computer labs, bulletin boards, etc.) to entice post-graduate students from outside the Faculty of Arts to participate in the study. However, as only one student from outside the Faculty of Arts attended the focus group sessions (from the Faulty of Business Administration), the issue of response bias must be considered. Therefore caution should be used when generalizing the results of those sessions.

The study is also written – for the most part – from the student=s perspective only, and does not incorporate instructor=s views on the use of the technology. Instructors views on the use of technology are important because they are the gatekeepers who control 13 the adoption and diffusion of technology into post-secondary classrooms. Again, this was undertaken so as to make the study feasible and to focus on filling the gaps in the evaluation literature of the Internet and its use in higher education from the student’s perspective.

Finally, the fieldwork data for this study is of the snapshot variety (or one moment in time), with that moment being the Net as it existed in 1997 and 1998. The fast pace of change of the technology of the Net could make the research findings obsolete in short order (Schofield 1997). In relation to changes in computer hardware Robert Taylor (1980: 1), writing about the computer as a tool in 1980, noted that Atechnical innovation has come so fast in computing that even the expert can barely keep up with it.@ Additionally, Moore=s Law (so named after Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel) – which states that the capacity of computer processors doubles every 18 months – has held true since its inception in 1964 and continues to hold true to this day. The fast pace of change is equally as evident on the Net, where a Net Ayear@ can sometimes equal six months or less (Brown 1997).

The pace of change in software development has been equally as impressive. One of the earlier Net services – Gopher – has been replaced by the Web (even though Gopher was developed in the early 1990s, it only lasted as Athe@ killer Net service until the Web really took off in the mid-1990s); and one of the most popular stand-alone E-mail programs of the mid-1990s (Eudora) was soon supplanted by other Web-based E-mail programs (Hotmail, Netscape Mail, Yahoo Mail) after only a year or so.

Overall, the limitations noted above should not be regarded as a complete deterrent to the significance of the study. I argue that even though the data is somewhat dated – and there have been many changes since the survey was undertaken (such as Internet Explorer now being the main browser used by most Net users, rather than Netscape, which was the case for the students in this study) – the results are still relevant because many of the problems associated with usage of the Net from that time period are still present today (Wiebe, et al 2003). Additionally, there are still gaps in the literature regarding the value and utility of that usage (thus the necessity for this study to fill those gaps).

14 1.6 Thesis Structure The thesis is divided into eight chapters. In Chapter One, I introduce the research problem, the research questions, the main argument of the thesis, the assumptions under which the study was undertaken, and the limitations to the study.

In Chapter Two – the literature review – I set out the context for the study, establish the Net as a research and/or communication tool, and outline the concepts of usage, value and utility as they relate to student use of the Net.

In Chapter Three, I develop the methodology for the thesis, and describe the steps taken to gather the quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group) data.

In Chapter Four, I describe the research findings of the thesis. I report on the findings of the surveys conducted at Aurora College in the NWT, Canada, and at Griffith University Queensland, Australia, as well as detail the findings of the Focus Group sessions conducted at Griffith University.

In Chapter Five, I provide a statistical analysis of the survey data, and examine in detail the concepts of usage, value and utility (and how they are inter-related).

In Chapter Six, I discuss the importance of the research findings (and their original contribution to knowledge), and examine the skills that students must now possess in order to successfully cope with online research and/or communication. Additionally, I develop a strategy which allows for proper utilization of the Net as a research and/or communication tool by post-secondary students to support classroom-based instruction. Finally, I conclude with areas where further research should be undertaken.

I have included the Survey, the Coding Framework, the Focus Group questions, the NVIVO Node Summary Report, and the statistical analysis tables as Appendices to the thesis.

15 1.7 Summary In this chapter, I have set out the main points under investigation in this thesis. The background/context to the thesis is that the Net is being used as a tool by post- secondary students in support of traditional, classroom-based instruction. The main uses of the tool investigated here are research (or information retrieval) and/or communication. The main research problem of the thesis is that there are some gaps in the evaluation literature of the Net and its use in higher education. First, most of the studies within that evaluation literature focus on student usage of the Net, but not on the inter-related concepts of value and utility associated with the technology. Second, many of those studies examine one function of the tool (research and/or communication) or the other, but not both simultaneously. This study fills both such niches.

Four research questions guide the enquiry: how are post-secondary students using the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction?; what is valuable about the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction?; what is useful about the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction?; and how can the concepts of usage, value and utility inform both practice and policy?

My main argument is that the Net is a valuable and useful tool for some students, in some situations, but it is not the most appropriate tool for all students, in all situations; there are both benefits and drawbacks associated with the use of the tool, and that much depends on how the tool is used.

Further, I have established the assumptions under which the study was conducted: that the Net is viewed as a research and/or communication tool; that the tool is supplementary to and not a replacement for existing tools (that is, the tool supports traditional, classroom-based instruction); and that use of the tool will continue.

Finally, I have presented the limitations to the study: that the scope of the study is limited to a ANet as a research and/or communication tool@ perspective, and does not include elements outside of that focus (including the “social aspects” of learning or 16 other uses of the tool, such as student collaboration on projects); that in order to keep the study to a manageable level, the impact on Distance Education and Virtual or Managed Learning Environments are not examined; that there was a limited sample for the study, and that caution should be taken when generalizing the results to the wider population of post-secondary students; that the thesis has a student-centred focus and does not consider instructors views on the use of technology in post-secondary classrooms; and that the fast pace of change in technology could soon make the results obsolete.

I now turn to setting the context within which the study takes place (that is, the literature review).

17 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework – The Net as a Research and/or Communication Tool

2.1 Introduction In this chapter, I outline a framework for viewing the Internet, proposing that it be viewed as a tool – specifically as a research (or information retrieval) and/or communication tool. Additionally, I have undertaken a multi-disciplinary approach to the study – in that I am considering the impact of the Net, as experienced via computers, by students in an educational setting. It follows, then, that the theoretical framework for the study must also be multi-disciplinary in order to reflect these various perspectives. For the development of this framework, I draw on three seemingly distinct bodies of literature: theories of mass media, theories of communication, and theories of learning.

The link which ties together these three disparate fields is the computer – the “first meta-medium” which can “be used to simulate dynamically the details of any other medium. Hooked up to a modem, a home computer can also provide access to videotex services, information banks, and data services, and bulletin boards dealing with all kinds of topics” (Severin & Tankard 1992: 8). Graphically, this is represented in Figure 2.1.1

18 Figure 2.1.1: Literature Used to Develop the Theoretical Framework

Theories of Mass Media

The Computer Theories Theories of of Learning Communication

Though this may be a somewhat unorthodox theoretical approach, I argue that, first, it is necessitated by the multiple uses that can be made of the Net. No one body of literature – or approach – can adequately explain all of these. The Net is more than just a new medium, more than just a research resource, and more than just a communication system. Viewing it solely within any one of those frameworks limits understanding of its true potential. Using a multi-pronged approach, therefore, allows us to develop an understanding of the Net which reflects all of its various aspects.

Additionally, I argue that there is already a considerable amount of overlap between the various bodies of literature: for example, between the educational literature and that of media theory, as can be seen with the Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (1998) and the Journal of Interactive Media in Education (1999); there is a cross-over between the education literature and computer and communication

19 technology, as can be seen with the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (2000) and the Journal of Technology Education (1999); and there is an overlap between the media literature and communication theory, as can be seen with the Electronic Journal of Communication (1998), the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (1999), and the Computer Mediated Communications Magazine (2000). I will synthesize my theoretical overview by drawing on these multi-faceted areas.

In the rest of this chapter, I offer a framework of the Net as a research and/or communication tool. First, I establish the idea of the Net as a tool; then I examine the two major educational uses of the tool – research (or information retrieval) and/or communication. Next, I outline how the Net is used as a tool for research and/or communication. Finally, I explore the inter-related concepts of usage, value and utility. But before I begin to build this framework, I must first define what I mean when I use the term the “Internet”.

2.2 The Internet There are varying definitions of the Internet. One of the more popular nicknames for the Internet – “cyberspace” – was coined by novelist William Gibson in his 1986 novel Neuromancer and then appropriated into the mainstream media:

Cyberspace: A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts...... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the non-space of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding ...... (Gibson 1986: 67).

Another popular catch-phrase used to describe the Internet is the “information highway” or “information superhighway” (Anderson 1995; Emmott 1995). Attributed to then Vice President Al Gore, the term likens the computer and information networks of the Internet to the interconnected highway system for cars and trucks in the United States.

20 Today that speck of light – information – is racing down a pathway that in some fashion is already connected to my home in more than one place. Your home too. And probably your workplace as well. That pathway is now better known as a highway or superhighway, and the stuff that travels on it is information or data. (Goodman 1995: ix-x).

A more technical definition is provided by the Internet Society – a “non-profit, non-governmental, international professional membership organization that brings diverse interests and factions together to hammer out reasonable solutions that generate progress and growth for the Internet. Its more than 100 organizational and 7,000 individual members from more than 150 countries represent a veritable who's who of the Internet community” (The Internet Society 1995):

The Internet is a global network of networks enabling computers of all kinds to directly and transparently communicate and share services throughout much of the world. Starting at the top, each country typically has one or more backbone public internets which are connected to each other through a variety of global arrangements. At the regional and local levels, there are tens of thousands of organizations of every conceivable kind that have built their own enterprise internets and connected them to national backbones. Most of the networks are operated by organizations that either provide Internet access to internal staff or specialize in providing widespread public access to end-users.

There are basically four kinds of access provided: 1) host access – where end-users connect their computers to become part of the Internet, or 2) terminal access – where end users connect to a host computer which is directly connected to the Internet, or 3) network access – where a network of computers become a part of the Internet, or 4) gateway access – where other kinds of computer networks, on-line services, or E-mail services are indirectly interconnected. There are now more than 50,000 networks interconnected by the global Internet – which is literally collectively owned by thousands of private commercial and public organizations (The Internet Society 1995).

In the strictest sense, the Internet does not include networks which do not operate under the TCP/IP or Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol suite, which is a collection of over 100 protocols which are used to connect computers and networks (Hahn & Stout 1994). In recent years, other protocol suites have been incorporated as part of a multiprotocol Internet. Although this development means that "the Internet" is no longer defined solely by the use of the TCP/IP protocols, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of systems that participate in the Internet do so using the

21 traditional TCP/IP protocol suite.

Today, the term "Internet" (with a capital "I") refers to the loosely organized worldwide collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, and the host computers attached to them, that are able to interoperate by virtue of their voluntary adherence to the open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards, particularly the protocols of the TCP/IP protocol suite (Chapin 1992).

However, for the purposes of this thesis, I adopt a broader definition of the Internet – basically one John Quarterman calls “the matrix” – which includes all of the networks and online services which can interconnect for research and communication purposes. Quarterman describes the matrix as “a metanetwork of connected computer networks and conferencing systems that provides unique services that are like, yet unlike, those of telephones, post offices, and libraries” (Quarterman 1990: xxiii). The matrix encompasses the Internet proper (the network of networks which is connected together by the TCP/IP suite of protocols), as well as other networks which don’t run the TCP/IP suite, but which nonetheless interconnect with the Internet (Gilster 1995).

2.3 The Net as a Tool Neil Postman’s Technopoly is a good starting point to explore the idea of the “Net as a Tool” perspective. Postman argues that technology (in general) is a tool – and that the tool is not neutral (there are both positive and negative consequences resulting from its adoption). There will be winners and losers as one technology, or tool, replaces another (Postman 1992). For Postman, one of the tools of the “Age of Electronic Communication” is the computer.

A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything. In the year 1500, fifty years after the printing press was invented, we did not have old Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe. After television, the United States was not America plus television; television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school, to every church, to every industry (Postman 1992: 18).

22 Robert Taylor (1980) refines the “Technology as Tool” argument even further – and puts forth the “Computer as Tool” viewpoint. For Taylor, computers act in one of three modes: as tutor, as tutee, and as tool.

As a tutor, the “computer presents some subject material, the student responds, the computer evaluates the response, and from the results of the evaluation, determines what to present next” (Taylor 1980: 3). The drawback is that this type of mode needs experts to develop the software which will tutor the student. The computer as tutor model is known by various names: Computer Assisted Instruction (Jonassen 1993; Schumacker, et al. 1995), Computer Based Learning (Martindale 1993; Chiou 1995), and “drill and practice” or “drill and skill” programs (Sims 1993).

In the computer as tutee mode, the student “teaches” the computer by programming it to do certain tasks. The idea is that the student learns more deeply than by being tutored by software written by others (Taylor 1980).

In tool mode, for Taylor:

the classroom computer need only have some useful capability programmed into it such as statistical analysis, super calculation, or word processing. Students can then use it to help them in a variety of subjects. For example, they might use it as a calculator in math and various science assignments, as a map- making tool in geography, as a facile, tireless performer in music, or as a text editor and copyist in English....Their use can pay off handsomely in saving time and preserving intellectual energy by transferring necessary but routine clerical tasks of a tedious, mechanical kind to the computer (Taylor 1980: 3).

The use of the tool is limited to what it is programmed for: a computer only having word processing capabilities will not help students solve statistical analysis problems; conversely, a computer with statistical analysis capabilities only will not help a student with their word processing (Liu & Fowler 1996).

23 Moursund (1986), Parker (1986), Turner & Land (1986), Blank & Berlin (1991), Lajoie (1993), Logan (1995), and Dyson (1997a) concur with Taylor’s framework, and support the “Computer as Tool” argument.

Others are more specific, and extend the “Computer as Tool” argument by focussing on the various ways the tool can be used, including: to support the learning process (Jonassen 1992a; Kozma 1992; Papert 1993a); for information processing (Graham 1983); for information management (Olds 1986); for information retrieval (McClelland 1986); for communication (Kommers 1992); for learning – when used by the student to navigate hypertext (Jonassen 1992b; Mayes 1992; Hammond 1992); and to assist in the professional development of teachers (Underwood, et al.1996; Loiselle, et al. 1996).

The work of these authors is important because it lays out the major uses of the tool – many of which are present when a student uses the Net for research (for example, information retrieval, processing and management; or navigating hypertext) and/or communication.

Numerous others, including Frizler (1995), Barlow (1995), Lewington (1997), and Shoalts (1997b) have built on this work and have further extended the “Computer as Tool” argument to a specific “Internet as Tool” perspective. Again, the focus is on the uses that can be made of the tool, and some of these include: research and information gathering (Lander 1997a); enhancing classroom instruction (D'Souza 1991); production and packaging of information for journalists (Abrahamson 1997); resource based learning for engineers (Kwok 1997); conferencing and collaboration (Lander 1997b); communication (Turnbull 1996); and productivity enhancement (Gooderham 1997c).

For the purposes of this investigation, I adopt this extension to the “Net as a Tool” perspective (and to make this a manageable study, I restrict my focus to that view). However, it must be noted that this “Net as a Tool” perspective is merely one valid viewpoint competing among many. Some of these other equally valid views of the Net

24 include those who see the Net as: a huge electronic marketplace (Tapscott & Caston 1993; Tapscott 1995; Nieuwenhuizen 1997; Helms, et al 2002; Sevcik 2002; Ricadela 2002); a space (Negroponte 1995; Fortin & Sanderson 1999; Gilbert & Villeneuve 1999; Ayers 2000; Heffernan 2000; Siegal & Kotkin 2000; Kotkin 2000; Holloway & Valentine 2000; Killoran 2002); an arena for gender struggles (Spender 1995; Furger 1998; Fredrick 1999; Affleck-Asch 2000; Mojab 2000; Sherman, et al. 2000; Muller 2003; Shade 2003); a new form of community (Jones 1995; Baym 1995; Hattori, et al. 1999; Smith 1999; Hung & Chen 2002); a phenomenon which fosters the formation of identity (Lavin 1998; Lam 2000; Lovlie 2002; Valentine & Holloway 2002; Mann 2003); a form of social communication (McCormack 1998; Wolfradt & Doll 2001; Bakx, et al 2002; Smith 2002; Swickert, et al. 2002; Udell 2003); a force for political change (Ayres 1999; Shabazz & Alonso 1999; Melloan 2000; Dillard & Hennard 2002; Robison & Crenshaw 2002); and a divide in society between rich and poor – the so called “digital divide” (Akhter 2003; James 2003; Malecki 2003; Mills & Whitacre 2003; Rice & Katz 2003; Smoyak 2003; Weeks 2003).

In this section I have outlined the “Net as Tool” perspective. In the next section of this chapter, I examine the uses that can be made of the tool. The literature on mass media provides a useful starting point for this investigation.

2.4 The Net as a Research and/or Communication Tool Numerous mass media researchers – McQuail (1989), De Sola Pool (1990), Poster (1995), Perrone, et al. (1996), Napoli (1998), Ihator (2001), Bush & Gilbert (2002), Hannemyr (2003) – have set out why the Net should be considered a mass medium. Various models of mass communication shed light on just what is taking place when people use the Net. A couple of the more important of these models include the Broadcast Model, and the Uses and Gratifications Approach.

25 Warren Weaver’s Model of General Communication Systems is an important starting point within the media studies literature (Weaver 1949); it is also referred to as the basic or broadcast model. This model is depicted in Figure 2.4.1.

Figure 2.4.1: The Broadcast Model of Mass Communication

Information + Transmitter + Signal + Received + Receiver + Destination Source Noise Signal

The information source (or message) is selected by the person wishing the information; this message is then transformed into a signal (via a transmitter) and sent to the person on the receiving end (the destination), where the signal is transformed back into an understandable message (via a receiver). In between, unwanted additives (or signal noise) can make alterations to the signal. Weaver cites the example of talking: “When I talk to you, my brain is the information source, yours the destination; my vocal system is the transmitter, and your ear with the eighth nerve is the receiver” (Weaver 1949: 12).

Issues to be examined in a communication system are concerned with the amount of information, the capacity of the communication channel, the coding process that may be used to change a message into a signal (and vice versa), and the effects of noise (Weaver 1949:12).

This model has the following characteristics: it is directed towards relatively large, heterogeneous, and anonymous audiences; messages are transmitted publicly, often timed to reach the most audience members simultaneously, and are transient in character; and the communicator tends to be, or operate within, a complex organization that may involve great expense (Severin & Tankard 1992:7).

26 The broadcast model is best designed to explain old or traditional media forms such as television, movies, radio, newspapers, and magazines. Where the broadcast model differs in relation to the Internet, is that the older media are usually characterised by a “one to many” system; and while the Internet has that capability, it also has the “many to many” capability of the telephone (Ryder & Wilson 1997). As Morris and Ogan observe:

The Internet plays with the source-message-receiver features of the traditional mass communication model, sometimes putting them into traditional patterns, sometimes putting them into entirely new configurations. Internet communication takes many forms, from World Wide Web pages operated by major news organizations to Usenet groups discussing folk music to E-mail messages among colleagues and friends. The Internet's communication forms can be understood as a continuum. Each point in the traditional model of the communication process can, in fact, vary from one to a few to many on the Internet (Morris & Ogan 1996).

Newer technologies – especially the Internet and other online service – also give the user much more control over the content to be accessed, which is much more fluid and is not just prepackaged or “canned” (McQuail 1994). Communication on an Internet newsgroup is one example of this new user control:

CompuServe also offers a large number of “special interest groups” (SIGs) or forums dealing with specialized topics. These special interest groups allow people who are interested in the same topic – science fiction, poetry writing, an arcane computer language such as FORTH – to communicate with one another. This is a big change from the way communication has taken place in the past. In a SIG on Compuserve, messages are not being chosen for the audience by someone else and imposed on them, but are being shared by people who are more or less equal but have a common interests in a topic (Severin & Tankard 1992: 12).

Additionally, much of the research on mass media looks at “what do media do to its users” type questions. Also referred to as “effects research” (Windahl 1979), theories such as agenda setting (Long 1958; Lang & Engel-Lang 1959), hidden agendas (Rushkoff 1994), interactivity (Rafaeli 1988; Newhagen & Rafaeli 1996), and social presence and media richness theory (Walther 1992), are examples of how this process

27 has been interpreted.

However, one type of mass media theory, Uses and Gratifications Theory, illustrates a new focus: it shies away from the “what do media do to people?” question, and instead asks the “what do people do with the media?” question (McQuail & Gurevitch 1974).

The main question in media uses and gratifications research is not how the media are changing our attitudes and behaviours but how the media are meeting our social and individual needs. Thus the emphasis is on an active audience, deliberately using the media to achieve specific goals (Tan 1986: 233).

“Uses and Gratifications” is an umbrella term used to describe an approach which involves a shift of focus from the purposes of the communicator/originator to the purposes of the receiver; it attempts to determine what functions mass communication is serving for the audience (Rubin & Windahl 1982). The underlying theme is that the audience is not just a “passive mob” waiting to be led, but that it has ideas of its own (goals and ambitions), and select what they want.

The communicator’s audience is not a passive recipient – it cannot be regarded as a lump of clay to be moulded by the master propagandist. Rather, the audience is made up of individuals who demand something from the communication to which they are exposed, and who select those that are likely to be useful to them. In other words, they must get something from the manipulator if he is to get something from them. A bargain is involved (Severin & Tankard 1992: 269).

Uses and Gratifications was first described in the early 1940s and later made prominent in the mid 1970s (Rosengren 1974). The basic thrust of the approach is that different people use mass communication messages for very different purposes. The Uses and Gratifications approach assumes the following: the audience is conceived of as active (that is, an important part of mass media use is assumed to be goal-directed); in the mass communication process, much initiative in linking need gratification and media choice lies with the audience member; the media compete with other sources of need satisfaction; methodologically speaking, many of the goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individual audience members themselves; and value

28 judgements about the cultural significance of mass communication should be suspended while audience orientations are explored on their own terms (Katz, et al. 1973: 510-11).

Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch describe the Uses and Gratifications approach as one concerned with:

(1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs, which generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities) resulting in (6) need gratifications and (7) other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones (Katz, et al. 1974: 20).

Philip Palmgreen (Palmgreen 1983; 1984) further refines the Uses and Gratifications approach. He sets out several strands within the approach, namely: Gratifications and Media Effects; Social and Psychological Origins of Gratifications; Gratifications and Media Consumption; Gratifications Sought and Obtained; Expectancy-Value Theory; and Audience Activity (Palmgreen 1983: 2). Of the strands mentioned, the last four hold promise for developing a framework for students’ usage of the Net. The basic tenet of the first of those strands, Gratifications and Media Consumption, is that “consumption (or use) is motivated by gratifications associated with the consumption experience” (Palmgreen 1983: 9). For a student, positive gratifications from use of the Net will result in continued use; negative gratifications will result in reduced use.

The Gratifications Sought (GS) and Gratifications Obtained (GO) strand notes the relationship between these two elements – basically, what one sets out to do and what one ends up with (Palmgreen 1983). A student, for example, might have research to perform on a particular topic and use the Net to do so. The gratifications sought might be finding sufficient, quality material from the Net; the gratifications obtained, however, could be either finding such material, or not.

29 One concept which is central to most of the Uses and Gratifications approach, and especially to the third of the four strands, is that of expectancy.

Indeed, the concept of audience expectations concerning the characteristics of media and potential gratifications to be obtained is essential to the uses and gratifications assumption of an active audience. If audience members are to select from among various media and non-media alternatives according to their needs, they must have some perception of the alternatives most likely to meet those needs (Palmgreen 1983: 25).

Expectancy-Value theory is generally concerned with the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. Palmgreen has explored the interrelationship amongst beliefs, evaluations, gratifications sought, and media exposure.

Gratifications Sought (GS) are a function of both beliefs and evaluations:

GSi = bi ei where

GSi = the ith gratification sought from some media object, X (some medium, program, content type, etc.)

bi = the belief (subjective probability) that X possesses some particular attribute or that a behaviour related to X will have a particular outcome; and

ei = the affective evaluation of the particular attribute or outcome (Palmgreen 1983: 26-27).

This theory is rooted in a decision-making model – based on the work of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and their Theory of Reasoned Actions – that argues individuals selecting from several alternatives will choose the one with the highest expected utility (Sethuraman 1996). This supports the “Net as Tool” perspective. For example, when students are charged with some task (such as conducting research for an assignment or communicating with a tutor), it is assumed they would choose the most useful way of performing such task.

30 Audience activity concerns the decisions of the user (in this case the student) to use (or not) the media under consideration. Similar to the first strand discussed above, this choice to use or not use will be based on past positive or negative experiences (Palmgreen 1983).

The other two strands set out by Palmgreen are less important in the context of student use of the Net as a Tool. The Social and Psychological Origins of Needs is less a factor in this study because all of the participants are from the same “social group” – post- secondary students. The Gratifications and Media Effects model proposed by Windahl (1979) is also of less importance here – as this investigation focuses on use (and not effects).

The major critiques of the uses and gratifications approach are that: it is non- theoretical (Severin & Tankard 1992); the theory is vague in defining key concepts, such as “needs” (Elliott 1974); it has been called not much more than a data collecting strategy (Severin & Tankard 1992); researchers have focused on the broad centre of Katz et al’s list (that is items 2 to 6), while paying less attention to the endpoints – “social and psychological origins” and “media effects” (Palmgreen 1983); and much of the research on uses and gratifications is based on television watching – which is inappropriate for this context (McQuail 1984).

Though research of mass media use from a Uses and Gratifications perspective has not been prevalent in the communication literature in recent years, it may provide a useful framework from which to examine the Internet. Mass communication researchers John Newhagen and Sheizaf Rafaeli support just such an approach:

Rafaeli: In mass communication research we have a tradition of studying uses and gratifications, that is, why people are engaged in this particular mediated communication or another, and what they get from it. What are the uses and gratifications of Net use? What do we get from such use? The Net and its use are likely to be the venue for a rejuvenation of the uses and gratifications type of study.

31 Newhagen: You mention uses and gratifications. That perspective gained a lot of attention about 20 years ago primarily because it did just that, it thought about how different motivations might lead to selective media exposure. Dusting off that perspective seems to hold some prospect for understanding the Internet because it addresses the problem of its mutability. That is, the Internet offers the user a broad range of communication opportunities: It can be used to visit an art museum, to make friends, or for a host of other activities. In any case, because of the Internet's chameleon-like character, I do agree that Uses and Gratifications offers a vehicle to lay out a taxonomy of just what goes on in cyberspace (Newhagen & Rafaeli 1996).

Similarly, other researchers (Charney 1996; December 1996; Gurak 1996; Sethuraman 1996; Wotring, et al. 1996; Hunter 1997a; Katerattanakul 2002; Kaye & Johnson 2002; Matthews & Schrum 2003; Slater 2003) have recently employed the Uses and Gratifications approach to examine the Internet. Rosengren, another communication researcher who favours the Uses and Gratifications approach, has noted that:

Uses and gratifications are probably functionally related in the sense that uses can lead to gratifications, and gratifications may derive from uses. Consequently any individual researcher may in practice concentrate upon one of the two components and yet be aiming, more or less explicitly, at both of them (Rosengren 1974: 281).

The framework I develop for this thesis follows Rosengren’s advice and aims at both uses and gratifications to explore the Net as a research and/or communication tool. The “uses” element of the approach allows for an examination of how students are actually using the Net (that is, what programs, how often, etc.), while the “gratifications” element allows for an examination of the value and utility of that usage.

I discuss the uses of the Net first. As the Net is very versatile, what one can use it for is subject to much debate. Some researchers (Leigh 1995) see the Net as one huge interactive network – with usage determined by the type of interactivity: asynchronous (non-time or place dependent, such as E-mail or Usenet News); synchronous (electronic real-time, such as IRC, video-conferencing); or served (such as the Web, Gopher, FTP). Other researchers (Galbreath 1997; Newhagen & Rafaeli 1996) view the Net exclusively as one huge communication tool. Still others (Kawamoto 1994;

32 Owen, et al. 1995; Owston 1997) see it instead as a gigantic information resource. Still other writers (Sudweeks, et al. 1995; Turnbull 1996; Windschitl 1998; Hodgson & McConnell 1992; Kearsley, et al. 1995; Sunal, et al. 1998; Woodson 2002) refer to the Net as a combination of the latter two views – as an information source (through services such as the Web, FTP, Telnet, Archie, Gopher, and WAIS) and as a communication medium (through services such as E-mail, Usenet Newsgroups, IRC, and Talk). Others (Murphy & Cifuentes 1996) using the same two categories – communication and research – divide the latter category into two parts: information retrieval (resource location) and information publication (resource creation).

Net usage has also been divided into three categories by some authors (Berge & Collins 1995b; Harasim, et al. 1995; Donovan 1995; Ward & Tiessen 1997). These categories are computer conferencing (or communication), informatics (information retrieval), and computer assisted instruction (such as project-based collaborative learning). Santoro (1995) uses the same three categories as Berge and Collins – the only difference is that he calls computer conferencing “human-human communication”. Others (Goodman 1995) use a slightly different three category typology: messaging/ communication; information/research; and entertainment. Rheingold (1995), Jones (1995), Stoll (1995), December (1996), and McLaughlin, et al. (1995) combine the first three uses outlined in this section into the following, namely: communication (personal and group); information/research; and interaction/interactivity (including social aspects and community building).

Mark Stefik (1996) and others (Tapscott 1995; Fillmore 1996) expand on the three- fold typology of communication, research and interactivity to include a fourth category – the electronic marketplace (also known as “digital” or “e” commerce).

While these authors may not all agree on exactly what one can do on the Net, the following broad categories emerge as common: research, communication, interactivity, entertainment, and commerce. I will focus on the first two of these – research and communication. For the purposes of this thesis, the last two categories (using the Net for entertainment, and using the Net for commerce) are not addressed

33 for two reasons. First, the acceptable use policies of most universities and colleges allow for student use of the Net for academic purposes only; entertainment and commercial uses are prohibited on those student accounts. For example, the acceptable use policy for students at Griffith University – the Conditions of Use of Computing and Network Resources by Students – were designed to ensure that:

(students) use resources ethically, show restraint in consumption of resources, demonstrate academic integrity, respect intellectual property, respect ownership of data and software and respect other user's rights to privacy, freedom from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance. These conditions complement State, Federal and International laws governing use of computer systems and networks.

(Students) must not:...

8.Use University resources for commercial, political, or private purposes (Griffith University 1995).

Many universities have similar policies regarding student usage of institution information systems. See, for example, The Guidelines for Appropriate Use of MIT’s Campus Wide Information Systems (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1999); ECCE – The Electronic Community Citizenship Examination (University of Delaware 1995); and the Guidelines for Appropriate Use of University of Wisconsin-Madison Information Technology Resources, where it explicitly states that “access to university IT resources is a privilege granted to members of the university community which carries with it the responsibility to use them for university-related activities, exercising common sense and civility” (University of Wisconsin-Madison 2000). While most universities rarely monitor all student network usage, there have been instances where the rights of individual students can be overridden by institutional policy considerations (Basinger 1997; Carnevale 2001).

Additionally, using the Net for entertainment and using the Net for commerce were not considered here in order to keep the scope of the thesis to a manageable level. There is an extensive literature on the “entertainment” aspects of learning, and the merging of learning with entertainment to become “edutainment” (Robertson 1999; Sefton-Green

34 & Parker 2000; Anderson, 2001; Bergen 2001; Berghel 2001; Landt, et al. 2001; Maushak, et al. 2001; McKenzie 2001; Shauf 2001; Duncan & Wallace 2002; Okan 2003). Likewise, the literature on the commercial aspects of the Net is also extensive (Bontis & De Castro 2000; di Giantomasso 2000; Harris 2000; Looney & Lyman 2000; Litan & Rivlin 2001; Curry 2002; Robinson 20002; Sexton, et al. 2002; Yu & Han 2002). Incorporating one or both of these uses of the Net would have expanded the scope of the study to an unmanageable level.

For the purposes of this study, the third category, interactivity, is explored within the research and communication categories. Interactivity is seen to be part of both functions – in terms of the hypertext of the Web and the interactive nature of the communication services of the Net. Interactivity lies at the heart of the both the research and communication uses of the Net, and flows from the work of Chickering and Gamson (1987), and Chickering and Ehrmann (1996). The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson 1987) serves as a model which promotes effective learning. These principles state that good practice encourages student-faculty contact, encourages cooperation among students, encourages active learning, gives prompt feedback, emphasises time on task, communicates high expectations, and respects diverse talents and ways of learning (King 1997).

Good practice in undergraduate education encourages contact between students and faculty. As Codde (1999) argues: “frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement”. The Net facilitates contact between students and faculty through the use of E-mail, where students can ask questions of instructors about their lectures, assignments, etc. (Poling 1994; Robinson 1994; Seibert 1996; Cuneo & Harnish 2001; Cuneo, et al. 2001). The Net also facilitates contact between students and faculty through the use of course- based discussion groups (such as Usenet newsgroups), where various themes relating to the course can be explored in detail (Williams & Merideth 1996; Hiltz & Wellman 1997). Additionally, course-based “Chat sessions” promote student-faculty interaction (Cavaliere 1997b; Rintel & Pittam 1997). A full description of all of the programs

35 which are used for research and communication on the Net is provided later in this chapter.

Good practice in undergraduate education encourages cooperation amongst students. Schneider (1999) concludes: “learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated”. The Net facilitates cooperation amongst students through the sharing of course based resources and materials on the Web (Foss 1997; Martell 1997) and through the sharing of ideas via course based discussion groups (Bernstein 1996; Dron, et al. 1998).

Good practice in undergraduate education also encourages active learning. “Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers” (Honolulu Community College 2000). Active learning is one form of “constructvist learning”. The constructivist approach to learning is actually an umbrella term for a number of theories and models of education. Based on the work of Vygotsky (Vygotsky 1962; Vygotsky 1978; Vygotsky & Luria 1994), constructivist theories were adapted by Bruner (Bruner 1966; Bruner 1973), made popular by Piaget (Piaget 1969; Piaget 1970), Papert (Papert 1980; Papert 1993a) and others (Jonassen 1991; Duffy & Jonassen 1992; Cooper 1993; Brown 1994; Collis & Anderson 1994; Jones 1995; Gruender 1996; Nicaise & Barnes 1996), and might be summarised as follows:

A major theme in the (constructivist) theoretical framework ... is that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive structure (i.e. schema, mental models) provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to go “beyond the information given” (Kearsley 1994).

36 Papert uses the proverb “if a man is hungry you can give him a fish and feed him for a day, or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime”, and he elaborates:

Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do best by “fishing” for themselves the specific knowledge they need; organised or informal education can help most by making sure they’re supported morally, psychologically, materially and intellectually in their efforts. The kind of knowledge children most need is the knowledge that will help them get more knowledge (Papert 1993a: 139).

The Constructivist approach is particularly appropriate for understanding what takes place when students are performing research on the Net. As Brandt has noted:

A model for teaching information retrieval starts by looking at the mental models of students. Studies have shown that while students possess many of the basic skills needed for information retrieval – abilities to define a topic, formulate a search, and collect information – they usually do not possess a mental model of information retrieval as a process. Often information retrieval is seen merely as a means to an end, such as finding a book, a journal article citation, or a phone number. So-called bibliographic instruction, as taught by librarians, has progressed far beyond using the library to teaching information literacy to develop models for interacting with and controlling information systems as part of a larger research process (Brandt 1997: 115).

Other authors have adopted a constructivist framework when examining the Net: when practising information retrieval skills (Brandt 1997); in potential uses of the World Wide Web for education (Flake 1996); when using the Net within an introductory course for preservice teachers (Pankratius & Young 1995); in promoting constructivist uses of the Net over drill and practice uses (Schuster 1994); when examining student group-interactions on the development of WWW documents (Gay, et al. 1999); and in exploring computer conferencing (E-mail, Newsgroups) within university courses (Murphy, et al. 1997).

Good practice in undergraduate education gives prompt feedback. The University of Kansas (2000) advises that: “knowing what you know and don’t know focuses learning. Students need appropriate feedback on performance to benefit from courses”. The Net facilitates prompt feedback though the use of E-mail, where assignments can be mailed in from students and feedback given quickly from faculty (McComb 1994;

37 Gregor & Cuskelly 1994).

Good practice in undergraduate education encourages time on task. As Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) conclude: “time plus energy equals learning. There is no substitute for time on task. Allocating realistic amounts of time means effective learning for students and effective teaching for faculty”. The Net facilitates “time on task” through the easy access to a variety of information sources for students only a mouse-click away (Hilvert 1996; Ingram 1997). Additionally, E-mail access also provides benefits as students are able to engage specialists in various fields of endeavour, and ask them questions (Garton & Wellman 1995; D'Souza 1992).

Good practice in undergraduate education communicates high expectations. As Winona State University (2000) outlines: “expect more and you will get it. High expectations are important for everyone – for the poorly prepared, for those unwilling to exert themselves, and for the bright and well motivated”. The Net facilitates high expectations through access to a wealth of information (both via the Web and E-mail) so as to allow students to produce quality work (Walsh 1996), and through the ability to access, often, the most current information on a particular subject (Harmon 1997; Johnson 1997).

Finally, good practice in undergraduate education respects diverse talents and ways of learning. As Schneider (1999) concludes: “There are many roads to learning...Brilliant students in the seminar room may be all thumbs in the lab or art studio. Students rich in hands-on experience may not do so well with theory. Students need the opportunity to show their talents and learn in ways that work for them”. The Net facilitates diverse talents and different ways of learning, especially via its communication programs – students too shy to speak up in class may have no hesitation asking questions of instructors (or their peers) via E-mail, Usenet discussion groups, or course-based chat sessions (Velayo 1994; Althaus 1997).

38 Similarly, others have studied how student use of the Internet fosters the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson 1999; Ritter & Lemke 2000; Koeckeritz, et al. 2002; Newlin & Wang 2002; Ehrmann 2003; The TLT Group 2003) and how it fosters interactivity (Ng & Wong 1999; Stainfield, et al. 2000; Tsai 2000; Bunker & Vardi 2001; Gray & Cao 2001; Ohl 2001; Thornam & Phillips 2001; Arsham 2002; Dysthe 2002; Gallini & Barron 2002; MacKinnon 2002; Kling & Callahan 2003). These two themes were not pursued extensively here so as to keep the scope of the thesis to a manageable level and to remain focused on the research and/or communication uses of the Net.

It should also be noted that there are other literatures on the use of the Net in higher education that lie outside the student-centred focus pursued here. These include: the literature on student engagement and interaction, including interaction with faculty (Armstrong 1999; Dillon & Fisher 2000; Hagedorn, et al. 2000; Anaya & Cole 2001; Jackson & Smith 2001; Koljatic & Kuh 2001; Kuh & Hu 2001b; List 2001; Thompson 2001; Whitmire 2001; Cole & Denzine 2002; Gonsalves 2002; Hayek, et al. 2002; Medved & Heisler 2002); the literature on technology planning and policy within higher education (Antolovic 2001; Blitzblau & Hanson 2001; Bowers 2001; Burkhart 2001; Krebs 2001; Lembke & Rudy 2001; Little 2001; Maughan 2001; Maughan, et al. 2001; Pierson 2001; Robertson 2001; Swartz & Orgill 2001; Dugan 2002; Horton & Birmingham 2002; Janes 2002; McArthur 2002); and the literature on instructional design (Reynolds 1998; Julian, et al. 2000; Reushle & McDonald 2000; Culross 2001; Fisher 2001; Hung & Chen 2001; Kang 2001; Barker 2002; Hobbs 2002; Bolan 2003; Chou 2003; Pahl 2003;Witt 2003). Again, these avenues were not pursued here so as to keep the scope of the thesis to a manageable level and to remain focused on the research and/or communication uses of the Net.

2.5 Using the Net as a Research Tool For the purposes of this thesis, “research” means information retrieval (Schantz 1999; Carnie 2001; Carlson 2002; Woodson 2002; Thompson 2003). Traditionally, students relied on the print medium – books, journals, and newspapers – for the bulk of their research activities. A university or college could not really function without a library

39 (or some type of repository of resource materials). Students would go to the library and borrow or read books; or, because of scarcity or the nature of the resource, photocopy the materials which were not loaned out (Rowland & Kinnaman 1995). Other non-print medium materials (videos, music, etc.) were similarly stored at the library, and would include the same procedure for check-out.

Researching via the Internet involves using a computer to connect to other computers hooked up to the Network (Barrett 1997). A couple of the most important differences between traditional research and researching via the Internet are: the research process is now computer mediated (Calashain 1997); and the information is electronic in form – it has been digitized (Negroponte 1995).

As the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) noted in its report The Networked Nation:

People use the networks to interact with colleagues, to perform collaborative research, to disseminate results and publications, and to gain access to remote research facilities such as supercomputers and to information resources such as libraries, experimental data and databases (Australian Science and Technology Council [ASTEC] 1994).

There are more than 100 services available over the Net, though most people use only a few of these (Monahan & Dharm 1995). In this study, I will discuss the most used research and communication services. The major research services of the Net include: the World Wide Web, the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Telnet, Gopher; Wide Area Information Search (WAIS), and specialized Online Databases (Lexus-Nexus; Reuters News, etc.). All but the first of these – the World Wide Web (or Web) – have either fallen into disuse since the mid-1990s, or been consumed by the Web (in that they are now accessed through a Web interface). However, they are included here separately because at the time of the survey they were all still viable, used research services.

The Web is the fastest growing portion of the Internet. The Web is the multimedia portion of the Net, which allows users to access text, graphics, audio and video clips, all at the click of a mouse. The bulk of the Net content is found on the Web (Anderson

40 1995). Developed in Switzerland by the physicists at CERN (Conseil European pour la Recherche Nucleaire) in 1993 to share their work with their colleagues, the Web became popular when a program for accessing it (called a browser) was developed at the National Centre for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in the United States (Berners-Lee 1999). The program, called Mosaic, simplified navigation by allowing point and click access to the hypertext links of the Web (Internet Australasia 1995). Hypertext is a non-linear method of viewing textual information. In a hypertext document, readers choose their own paths through the material. This is done by accessing hyperlinks, an underlined or distinctively coloured word or phrase that, when clicked, displays another document (or different portion of the same document) on screen (Paffenberger 1996). Each link accessed takes one to a new document, or “page”. Due to the non-hierarchical nature of the Internet, and the Web in particular, a new pastime, called Web “surfing”, developed. This refers to the continued browsing of link after link as a means of exploring (Strauss 1996). The Web is important because it incorporates many portions of the Internet that were previously separate. A Web browser can read Web pages (those addresses which begin with “http”), as well as Telnet, FTP, Gopher and WAIS sites. This eliminates the necessity to search all of these portions of the Net using different software programs (Hoffman 1995).

Because of the size of the Web and the mass of content on it, finding the exact information you are looking for has become somewhat of a problem. Simply surfing for information all the time can be too time intensive. In response to this, Web search engines were developed to find files/information based on keyword terms. Some of the more popular search engines include Google (2003), AltaVista (2003), and Ask Jeeves (2003). Specialized directories such as Yahoo (2003), which organise information by subject, can also be helpful to the user (Hawn 1996). A more specialized type of search engine is the Web meta-search engine, which combines the search functions of several popular searchers with one interface and one keyword. Meta-searchers are of two major varieties: those found online, such as Search.Com (2001), MetaCrawler (2000), and Dogpile (2000); and offline software that one can purchase, such as Echosearch, Net Ferret, and Internet FastFind (Carroll & Broadhead 1999a).

41 The benefits to both types of meta-searchers is that a comprehensive search can be performed without having to type in the same keyword at three different search engines – thus saving time. The major benefits of the offline meta-searchers compared to those found online is that while the online variety saves time in searching several engines at once, most do not eliminate the duplicate list of documents (or “hits”) which are brought back. This is one important feature that the offline software provides, and greatly reduces the time spent searching (Carroll & Broadhead 1998a). And because it is the main research/information retrieval tool of the Net, the Web and its use in higher education has been studied extensively over the past few years (Gagnon & Krovi 1999; Kumari 1999; Leasure, et al. 2000; Lemke & Ritter 2000; Taylor 2000; Bazillion & Braun 2001; Pollock & Wilson 2002; Yumuk 2002).

The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) was one of the earliest inventions of the Internet. Its function was to provide users with the ability to transfer files from one computer to another. This was done by allowing one user to connect their local machine to a remote computer, browse through the available files, and download the ones wanted (Pike & Estabrook 1995). Many computers on the Internet allow users to log-in to them and make their files freely available for sharing. The log-in procedure lets the user log in “anonymously”, thus the term “anonymous FTP” is often used (Haywood 1995). Other networks and computers on the Net, however, limit the access to their files/information to those people with specific passwords – those who are part of the organization, or those who have paid a subscription fee (Rovers 1997). FTP sites are one of the principal ways that computer software programs are exchanged over the Internet. Since the FTP portion of the Net is so big, one hazard is finding the site which has the information you are looking for. This has been solved by the development of Archie by computer scientists at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. The Archie program – a play on the word archive, and one which relates to the cartoon character, Archie Andrews – searches directory lists of FTP sites to find the file you are looking for (Simpson 1997a). FTP may be accessed through a stand alone program or through a Web browser.

42 Remote log-in, or Telnet is the ability to connect to a remote computer, log-in, and work with the resources of that machine as if it was the machine right in front of you (Owen, et al. 1995). The desire of the early computer scientists who developed the Net to share their information amongst themselves was the impetus for the development of Telnet. Through this service, a user can log onto a machine and, for example, access an online public library catalogue or database (Notess 1996). The proviso to the Telnet service is the same for many other Internet services – that the host system must be set up to allow outside (remote) access (Guffey & Guffey 2000). Following the sharing of information ethic of the early online community, many institutions (especially governments, universities, and community organizations), have made a large portion of their information freely available to anyone (Howe 1998). However, the size of the Internet can often make finding the right Telnet connection a difficult task. Lists of sites that one can access, such as a list of online library catalogues, are available at selected sites on the Net. As well, a search tool, called Hytelnet, developed at the University of Saskatchewan Library, maintains a listing of all Telnet sites accessible over the Net (Scott 1997).

The Gopher service was developed at the University of Minnesota in 1991 to help sort out the problem of information overload on the Net (Scisco 1995). With so many networks joining, each with their own information management system, finding a particular file or data-set was very difficult. Coined from the nickname of the University of Minnesota sports teams, the Golden Gophers, Gopher organizes online information into menus which can be browsed or, using gopher terminology, “burrowed into” to find what is needed (Espinoza & McKinzie 1996). Gopher was the most popular section of the Net before the Web was invented (Gillmor 1995). Though it has declined in importance since, it can still be a useful application – especially for finding information which was online in the pre-Web days (Ebbs 1995). In keeping with the theme of the Archie Andrews cartoon mentioned earlier, Veronica (Zabinski 1995) and Jughead (Ryder 1996) are both search tools which provide access to information via keyword terms, and reduce the need for browsing (Johnson, et al. 1995). Gopher may be accessed through a stand alone program or through a Web browser.

43 The Wide Area Information Service (WAIS) was originally developed as a project of Thinking Machines, Apple Computers, Dow Jones, and KPMG Peat Marwick (Collins 1994). Whereas many of the search tools on the Net only search for keywords within parts of a file or document, WAIS searches the entire contents of the file (Sturr 1995). Using keyword terms, a list of hits is retrieved and ranked in order of relevance. The user then retrieves each document to see if that is the one they are looking for (Eager, et al.1995; Nassar 1997). WAIS may be accessed through a stand-alone program or through a Web browser. Like Gopher, WAIS has fallen into disuse with the advent of the Web.

Finally, there are many specialized online databases available on the Internet for the user, including both free and fee-based services. Using the Web, students at Griffith University can access services such as ProQuest Direct, Current Contents, Reuters Business Briefing Service, and the Lexus Law Service, enabling them to do much of their research electronically (Dunn 1997). These services are supplied by the university to assist students with their research, and there is no direct charge to the students for their use (though some have access restrictions, such as allowing only post-graduate students to access them for free, etc.). Fee-based services range from access to specialised news, business, financial, and legal information, as well as document delivery services. These services charge fees based on the amount of data downloaded, or on a subscription basis (Young 1997).

2.6 Using the Net as a Communication Tool Communication services are the second major type of program used by students when using the Net. Students have traditionally communicated with their instructors in a number of ways – through person to person communication (also called “face to face” or “FTF”); through telephone conversations; by fax; and by regular mail. The first two of these are based on “oral” communication, while the latter two are based on the printed word (Arnett, et al. 1992).

44 Communicating via the Internet involves using the computer as the medium to convey messages. This can be in various forms – in a “one-to-one” communication, such as a private E-mail message between two people; in a “one-to-many” communication, such as a posting to a Usenet Newsgroup, which anyone with Net access can view

(Cavaliere 1997a); or in a “many-to-many” communication, such as a chat on IRC in an open forum. As with research on the Net, communication is “computer-mediated” – which is also known as “computer-mediate communication”, or CMC (Postmes, et al. 2001; Amaral & Monteiro 2002; Robbins, et al. 2002; Tidwell, 2002; Olaniran 2003).

The major communication applications of the Net include E-mail, Usenet, Newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat, Internet Talk, Internet Phone, and Internet Video Conferencing. Depending upon the application and situation, all can have full or partial aspects of the “one-to-one”, “one-to-many”, or “many-to-many” features of communication (Morris & Ogan 1996). The first three of the Net applications rely on the printed word as the basis for the communication; the latter three are based on the spoken word.

Electronic mail, or E-mail, is one of the most popular features of the Internet. E-mail consists of text-based electronic messages which can be sent between any two (or more) points on the Internet. The first E-mail message was sent in 1972 and was based on the file transfer protocol (FTP). The scientific community immediately saw the opportunity for increased communication amongst dispersed colleagues and workgroups through the use of E-mail (Leiner, et al. 1998). Due to its popularity with the early Internet users, the increasing volume of E-mail caused many problems with the addressing, forwarding and retrieval of mail. A new protocol, SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), was instituted in 1981, and solved many of these problems. SMTP is still in widespread use today (Levine 1997). A newer protocol, the Post Office Protocol (or POP), has allowed graphical E-mail packages such as Netscape E-mail, Microsoft Outlook, Eudora, Pegasus, and Lotus’ cc:Mail to function over the Net, thus simplifying the E-mail process and eliminating the need for users to know the complex Unix programming language (LeBlanc & LeBlanc 1995).

45 The popularity of E-mail is also a testament to its flexibility, in that it can do much more than just send “notes”. Through attachments to the E-mail message, one can also send files – such as graphics, text, video or audio clips, or computer programs (Reichard 1996). Through mailing lists, which are discussion groups organized around particular topics, people can participate in discussions with other like-minded individuals and specialists without leaving their home communities (Walsh 1995).

Though there are a multitude of E-mail programs and platforms, the mail – for the most part – flows seamlessly through. Finding someone’s E-mail address, however, can be a difficult task. There is no one central listing where you can turn for directory assistance. To some extent this has been solved by the development of directories of E-mail listings for organizations, such as a staff and student directories for universities (Cipher 1998) or online “Whitepages” listings (Bee 1996), and the development of search tools, such as Finger, for finding names via keyword terms (Paffenberger 1996). Some of these are free services, while others charge the user for access. One of the drawbacks to some of these types of services is that the onus is on the user to register their E-mail address with the directory; if one does not register, they are not listed. And because of its popularity as one of the most used communication services, E-mail use within post-secondary education has been studied extensively over the past few years (Livingstone 1997; Marttunen 1998; Shermis & Lombard 1999; Lorraine 2001; Roach 2001; Hartman, et al. 2002; Keil & Johnson 2002; Spence 2002; Woods 2002).

Usenet newsgroups are not part of the Internet proper, but they communicate over the Internet (Hardy 1993). The Usenet, or Users Network, is a separate organization:

Usenet is a world-wide distributed discussion system. It consists of a set of "newsgroups" with names that are classified hierarchically by subject. "Articles" or "messages" are "posted" to these news-groups by people on computers with the appropriate software – these articles are then broadcast to other interconnected computer systems via a wide variety of networks. Some newsgroups are "moderated"; in these newsgroups, the articles are first sent to a moderator for approval before appearing in the newsgroup. Usenet is available on a wide variety of computer systems and networks, but the bulk of modern Usenet traffic is transported over either the Internet or UUCP (Moraes

46 1998).

The topics on the newsgroup structure are broken down into several main categories: comp. (computer hardware and software); misc. (miscellaneous groups that don’t fit into anywhere else); news. (Usenet related discussions); rec. (entertainment, sports, and hobbies); sci. (science and technology); soc. (society, culture and politics); and talk. (debates over politics and culture). There are also a large number of groups within the alt. hierarchy (covering alternative newsgroups that don’t fit into the main seven), and a number of specialized hierarchies, such as biz. (which covers company product announcements and advertising) (McFedries 1995). Usenet grew out of the desire of non-ARPANET users (ARPANet was one of the founding backbones of the early Internet) to be able to exchange information with ARPANET users. A program called UUCP (or Unix to Unix Copy) was developed in 1976 at Bell laboratories to facilitate this (Salus 1995). Later, a new protocol, NNTP (or Network News Transport Protocol) was developed to allow the transmission of graphics via the Usenet network (Peters & Sikorski 1997), and with this protocol came the graphical front-end newsreader applications such as WINVN, NXNews, and TrumpetNews. Because the number of newsgroups is so large, finding the right one is sometimes a problem. Searchable lists, by keyword, have been developed and are found on various spots on the Net to assist users (Berge 1994). Newsgroup usage as a form of Net communication has been studied extensively over the past few years (Dolin, et al. 1998; Gregson 1998; Osborne 1998; Fredrick 1999; Hearit 1999; Gueldenzoph, et al. 2000; Mustapha 2000; Mabrito 2000; Wallace & Wallace 2001).

Internet Relay Chat (IRC), or Chat, is a program on the Internet which allows multiple users to “talk” to one another, by text, in real-time. It is different from E-mail in that there is virtually no delay in sending and receiving information. If E-mail is the electronic equivalent of a letter, then using IRC is the equivalent of carrying on a conversation over the phone, minus the long distance charges (Pyra 1995). Chat was developed by Jarkko Oikarinen in Finland, in 1988. When IRC first came online that year, the number of users was approximately ten or so per day. Currently, some Chat servers have thousands of users per day (Harvey 1996). Chat is different from Talk

47 (discussed below) in that most “chats” are open and publicly accessible, whereas “talks” are usually private between users (Mirashi 1995). Discussions are set along “channels”, each with their own topic, and are moderated by a channel operator (Akst 1995). Topics cover a wide range – from entertainment, to sports, to politics, to religion, etc. Chat has become one of the more popular communication features of the Net, and it has been extensively studied over the past few years (Simpson 2000; Knuckey, et al. 2001; McCreary, et al. 2001; Rintel, et al. 2001; Dietz-Uhler & Bishop-Clark 2001; Freiermuth 2002; Wang & Ross 2002; Sherer & Shea 2002).

The “InternetTalk” feature allows users to connect to have real-time computer mediated talks. As with the Chat facility, the “talks” are text-based (New York University 1997). This is done by using a split screen approach: the top half of the screen is where one see’s what the person or persons you are connected to have written, while the bottom half is where you type your response (Plant 2000). As with Chat, it is different from E-mail in that there is virtually no delay in sending and receiving information. Similar to the Chat system, Talk can also be equated with a conversation over the phone. The drawback is that both parties have to be logged on to their computers at the same time; if not, there can be no real-time connection (Electronic Frontier Foundation 2000). Also, some system administrators may have disabled the talk facility, as some users find it very distracting to be interrupted. Internet Talk is the only one of the six communication features of the Net (outlined above) which is not in widespread use today. This is because it has been subsumed under the “Chat” service (it is now possible to “chat” privately between users, as well as publicly on moderated and unmoderated channels). Talk is presented here because at the time of the survey, it was a viable, separate communication service.

Voice communication over the Net – called Internet Phone or VoIP – is now possible, providing both users have the proper hardware: a microphone, a sound-card and speakers. This allows users to communicate without the long distance charges (Girard 1996). Different programs allow for this communication – IVC (Internet Voice Chat) and I-Phone – are examples of such programs (Pyra 1995). Internet Phone has been studied extensively in the past few years (Zubey, et al. 2002; Coffman 2001; Ghita, et

48 al. 2001; Varshney, et al. 2002; Allred, et al. 2002; Teich, et al. 2000; Rutkowski, et al. 2002; Elliott 2002). However, because of the specialized equipment needed, its use is not yet as widespread as other Net applications (Beatty 1996). As with other computer mediated communication programs used over the Net, the drawback is that both parties have to be logged on to their computers at the same time; if not, there can be no conversation (Sandlund 1997).

Finally, video conferencing is provided through programs such as Netscape Conferencing, Microsoft NetMeeting, or CU-SeeMe (Savitz 1995). As well as providing live audio and video conferencing, these program also provide specialty features such as shared whiteboards and/or joint Internet browsing (Hodges 1996). The usefulness of video conferencing over the Internet is hindered by major technical requirements. Users on both the sending and receiving ends need specialised equipment (microphones, sound-cards and video cameras on their computers). Additionally, a fair amount of bandwidth is needed during the connection. If the connection does not have adequate bandwidth, the video portion of the communication is slow and jerky (Arnaut 1997). Internet Video Conferencing has been studied extensively in the past few years (Feenberg 1999; Gonick 2002; Shim, et al. 2003; Wallace 2003; Hobbs, et al. 2002; Pachnowski 2002; Mitchell & Reed 2001; Seng & Al Hawamdeh 2001; Box- Steffensmeier, et al. 2000; Ewing 2000). Again, because of the specialized equipment needed, its use is not yet as widespread as other Net applications (Pinto 1996).

2.7 Usage, Value and Utility As noted above, three inter-related concepts are important to broadening our understanding of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of class-room based instruction. These include usage, value, and utility.

49 2.7.1 Usage The first concept in my investigation – usage – is based upon Rogers’ (2003) work on “innovation adoption”. He theorizes that the issues that affect the rate of adoption of any innovation include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers 2003: 265-266). All five aspects are important, and relate to the use of a particular innovation (in this case, the Internet).

Relative advantage refers to “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it superceded” (Rogers 2003: 265). For example, students who need to perform some research for a course would have to decide whether to use the Net for that research or go to the library to obtain the material. Compatibility is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters” (Rogers 2003: 266). Students who may be too shy to speak up in class may find it easier to ask questions of their instructors via E-mail. Complexity refers to “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and to use” (Rogers 2003: 266). If the Net is too difficult to use, students will not use it as much as they would have were it easier to navigate the Web, use E-mail, etc. (Parker 1997). Trialability is “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis” (Rogers 2003: 266). If it is easy for students to just sit down at a computer and start “surfing the Net”, this may lead to greater use later on. Observability is “the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others” (Rogers 2003: 266). Students who receive quick responses via E-mail from their instructors may see observable benefits to the use of the technology.

While Rogers (2003) refers to the adoption and diffusion of innovations in general – from “water boiling in a Peruvian village” to the “snowmobile revolution in the Arctic” – William Geoghegan (1994) is more specific, and focuses on the adoption and diffusion of instructional technology. He profiles five groups of faculty within this adoption/diffusion process: the innovators (2-3% of the faculty), who are the first to latch on to a new technology; the early adopters (10-15%), who will take risks, but want to see a useful application of the technology; the early majority (30-35%), who –

50 as pragmatists – will adapt as they see their landscape change; the late majority (30- 35%), who – as conservatives – will adapt when they are forced to; and the laggards (15%), who have no interest in change whatsoever (Geoghegan 1997).

Although Geoghegan’s work focuses on faculty adoption and diffusion of instructional technology (and I limit my focus to student adoption), his work is important because, as previously noted, instructors play an important role in the use of the Internet in post-secondary class-rooms. Additionally, many studies have used the approaches of both Geoghegan and Rogers to outline adoption and use of the Internet in general (Rogers & Allbritton 1995; Rogers, et al. 1996; Harris 1997; Jacobs & Clements 1999), and specifically its adoption and use in higher education (Wells & Anderson 1997; Jacobsen 1998; Wilson 1999; Jacobsen 2000; Gaudet 2001; Hansen & Salter 2001; Macchiusi & Trinidad 2001; Sutherland 2003).

“Usage” is also based on the work of Chiero (1997), Mitra (1998) and others (Reed & Oughton 1997; Cuneo, et al. 1999), where the researchers sought to find out how students used computers. They examined what programs were used, how often each program was used, and what each program was used for. In the context of this study, this “use of computers” is extended to “the use of the Internet”. Therefore, I explore which programs are being used when students go online for research and/or communication, how often they use each program, and what specifically each program is used for. I operationalize usage later in the thesis (see section 3.2.3).

2.7.2 Value The concept of value supports Postman’s argument in that there are both advantages and disadvantages to using the Net as a tool. The terms I use to describe value in this thesis – advantages and disadvantages – are derived from JJ Gibson (1979) and his Theory of Affordances. “Affordances” are synonymous with “advantages”, while “constraints” are synonymous with “disadvantages” (Ryder & Wilson 1997; Snow 1997; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy 1999; Curasi 2001; Tuthill & Klemm 2002; al Bataineh & Brooks 2003). I operationalize value later in the thesis (see section 3.2.3), though I discuss the advantages and disadvantages which must be weighed by the

51 student to determine value in the following section.

The Internet offers many advantages for the student – in the ways to conduct research and in the ways of communicating with instructors and other students. I have identified several such advantages, which include: increased speed and productivity when performing research and when communicating; access to a wide range of people and information; ease of use; low cost; convenience; the ability to access current information; and the fact that E-mail enables direct communication (thus bypassing secretaries and other intermediaries).

One of the major benefits of using the Net for research and communication is that the technology provides a very fast way to “conduct business”. Electronic research may be different from manually looking information up in a book or magazine, but the potential for decreasing the amount of time spent performing research tasks is apparent (Gibson & Oberg 1997). Increased speed and productivity can also be realised with the communication features of the Net. For example, sending one E-mail message to a group of students (say, to organize a discussion group on a particular topic) is quicker than making a number of phone-calls (Smith 1997).

Perhaps the biggest advantage of the Internet is that it gives anyone with a connection the ability to access information and people from all over the globe; research materials are no longer restricted to the holdings of a student’s particular library. Before the advent of electronic communication and research, retrieving materials from other libraries was slow, cumbersome, and costly. With distance no longer a factor, this process is fast, easy, and cheap (Alaton 1996). This is especially true for students in isolated or rural areas who may not have access to the same resources as students at an urban institutions would have (Creer 1996). One can now tap into the vast online resources held by distant libraries (Ingvarson 1995), other universities (Chidley 1996), governments (Barbagallo 1995; Stueck 1997), medical (Zgodzinski 1996; Hart 1996), legal (Hilvert 1996) and financial information (Retkwa 1996; Yoshitake & Arar 1996), online newspapers (Gooderham 1996), magazines (McLeans 1999), and academic journals (Brandao 1996). Thanks to widening communication with the online

52 community, experts in many given fields are only an E-mail message away (Provan 1997). The vast array of resources available over the Net are truly staggering (Starr & Milheim 1996).

The technology of the Internet has come a long way since its inception in 1969. The complex commands of the Unix language have been replaced by the friendly point and click Graphical User Interfaces (called GUI’s, but pronounced “goo-ee’s”) of the Windows and Mac operating environments. The spectacular rise of first Mosaic, and then Netscape, as the leading Web browsers, and the similar growth of graphical E- mail packages has reduced the need to learn the complexities of Unix (McCabe 1996). Instead of rigorous study to learn Unix, new users of the Net can sit down and begin surfing once they know how to point and click with their mouse. These developments have moved the Internet out of the exclusive domain of the computer literate and into the hands of the everyday student (Ernst 1995).

At many academic institutions, students are provided with access to the Internet (Clemente 1998). This can range from full unlimited access, to restrictions on hours of use per week, to accessing the Net only during library or lab hours, to having access to all Net services (Web, News, talk, E-mail, etc.), to only a limited number of such services. What services and what type of access provided varies at each institution, often depending on what type of student is involved (undergraduate or post-graduate) (Finnane 1998). One common theme at many institutions is that the students are not charged directly for their use: there is no pay per use of the technology. Though the students may (in the end) be paying for access to the technology in the form of higher fees, there is no direct cost each time they use the Net. At those institutions where charges do apply, arrangements have often been worked out by the university or college to have the students access the Net at subsidized rates (Coorey 1996).

However, this “full free use” situation is changing. As universities and colleges initially signed on to the Net and allowed their students access, costs were not that significant – and the number of users was low. With the explosion of Net use (especially Web and E-mail), many institutions have had to rethink their initial position, and modify it due to

53 rising costs (Maddux 1994).

Another advantage to using the Net for research and communication is convenience. This is similar to the advantage of increased access to information and people discussed above – though with a slight twist. Rather than just access to information, it also encapsulates a major benefit of the Net: being able to do your research and communicating from home (or your office or wherever you have access to the Net). One doesn’t have to travel to the library or to campus – the information comes to you (Ryder & Wilson 1995). Students who can access the Net from home are particularly appreciative of this feature. For example, the student who is writing a term paper the night before it is due, and who uses the Net to find information can still do so even if the library is closed (Deemer 1994). In the pre-Net days, the student would have been much harder pressed to come up with usable research materials.

A further advantage to using the Net for research is that the most up to date information can often be found there (Pierce, et al. 1995). Because of the length of time it takes for scholarly journals to be printed (months of waiting for peer reviews, editing, and finally printing), the Internet offers a much quicker turn around time. Preprints of journal articles (and their electronic versions – the “E-prints”) make it to the Net much quicker. Turnaround times have decreased from being measured in months to now being measured in weeks. Additionally, E-prints can afford a truly “open” peer review process for all new research – with the general online public being allowed to comment on the work-in-progress article (Harnad 1990). Examples of open-peer reviewed online journals include: CogPrints – the Cognitive Sciences E-print Archive; The International Journal of Human Computer Studies; and Psycoloquy – the online journal of the American Psychological Association.

Electronic journals have sprung up on the Web to house this current information. Some of these journals are available strictly online, while others are available in both electronic and print format. An example of the former type includes the Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, while an example of the latter type includes the

Canadian Journal of Communication. With the proliferation of electronic journals,

54 their acceptance into part of the regular scholarly research process has begun – especially those journals which are edited by leaders in their fields and which the articles are peer reviewed (AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication 1996).

Finally, one of the benefits of E-mail is its capacity to promote direct communication. Often, senior officials (in governments, universities, etc.) answer and reply to their own E-mail – thus bypassing the secretary who acts as the proverbial watchdog, and who often “screens” calls for their boss (Crosariol 1997). Having to bypass this screening process via traditional methods of communication (phone, fax, letters, or in-person) can slow up or discourage the communication process. E-mail can help to alleviate this (Thach 1995).

Despite all of the advantages to use of the Net as a research and communication tool, there are still many disadvantages with the use of the technology as it exists today. I have identified numerous disadvantages, which include: the fact that it can be very time consuming to find anything of value; that there is often a lack of proper access; the Net is not as easy to use as many experts have indicated; the Net costs too much to use; there are many technical problems which hamper effective use; information overload can result from using the Net; there is an abundance of US oriented material, but not as much “other” (or non-US) content; the reliability of some of the content is questionable; people can be slow to reply to their E-mail messages; there are security concerns with the Net; and it can often be very difficult to find someone’s E-mail address.

One of the greatest strengths of the Net – its democratic nature and not being owned or controlled by any one corporation or government – also leads to one of its greatest weaknesses: disorganization (The Economist 1996). The disorganized nature of the information on the Web means there is no one main starting point or central listing or directory from which to begin searching. Therefore, it can take a long time to find what you are looking for (Mazereeuw 1997). As Vicki Casey, Public Service Librarian at the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library has noted:

55 The problem is that the library and Internet paradigms are polar opposites. One is finite, the other infinite; one is about standardization and control, the other about serendipity and creativity. Internet resources ... are never finished in the same way as are print resources. An article published in a magazine is a static thing. On the Internet information is changing and dynamic – there one day, gone or different the next. Control of content is at the grassroots level (Casey 1996b: 17).

There are numerous methods of finding information. On the research side of things, Web search engines, meta-search engines and subject directories have been created to help sort out the mass of information available (Basch 1997). Search engines search huge databases of Uniform Resource Locators – or URLs, which are the locations of each individual resource on the Net – and keyword terms to find the terms have been entered (Singh & Lidsky 1996). Meta search engines allow the user to search for a keyword or phrase using multiple engines at the same time – thus greatly reducing the time spent searching (Martell 1998). Subject directories are huge repositories of indexed and sorted online material, arranged according to broad subject (education, health, government, etc.), and then divided into subsets (education: K-12; post- secondary, etc.) (Carroll & Broadhead 1997). All search engines, however, are not created equal. Some can be better than others just by the way they gather, and the way they index their information.

Some engines require that you register with their service before your homepage or site is listed; others use computer programs (called “spiders” because they crawl the Web gleaning information from each site visited) to build their searchable databases (Haskin 1997). Additionally, some search engines index the URL only; others index the URL and a few keywords; others still index the URL and first two or three lines of text; others still index the full text of an article (Venditto 1996). These URL/keyword indexes can be either computer generated or manually generated by programmers. There are both pluses and minuses to the varying information gathering and indexing schemes. Search indexes which require personal registration and which are compiled into databases manually generally rate high in terms of relevance for the searcher, but low in terms of comprehensiveness – because it is almost impossible to manually index the breadth of information available online. Conversely, computer-generated indexes,

56 while they score high in terms of comprehensiveness, often score low in terms of relevance, because as Basch points out “they still can’t easily distinguish between Turkey the country and the bird you eat at Thanksgiving” (Basch 1996: 271). Even though most Web search engines incorporate the ability to use “boolean logic” (the connecting words – AND, OR, NOT) to give greater specificity to a key word search term, many search engines still return a great deal of irrelevant information – which is a frustration to the user (Aken & Molinaro 1995). The more irrelevant hits or pages produced on any one search, the longer it takes to sift through the results to find anything useful. These differences in information gathering and in indexing is why entering the same search terms into different search engines can yield widely differing results. To produce meaningful, thorough, research on the Net takes time – and the use of varying search tools and engines to combat the problems of low relevance and low comprehensiveness. Using a variety of search engines – ones that can be customised so that they can search FTP sites, Usenet newsgroups or Gopher sites, rather than just Web pages (as is the default search type of many search engines) – can also improve one’s results (Conte 1996).

Additionally, the sheer size of the Net (and the amount of information available) is another reason why using the Net is time intensive. Users may get “lost” (and/or distracted) while following link after link of hypertext (Burge & Roberts 1998). Using the communication applications of the Net can also be as time consuming. It is much easier to use the phone to find a person’s phone number than it is to look up someone’s E-mail address on the Net (Horey 1996). I explore this particular problem with the Net more fully later.

Another disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool is access to the technology. There are varying degrees of access to the Net, and some of the major factors which limit access include geography, income, and organizational constraints. Regarding geography, in some places the access to the Net that many in the developed world take for granted is not yet a reality (Ruben 1995). The high cost of building infrastructure for remote or isolated places has impeded access to the point where the Net is not yet available in those areas (Gleeson 1997). In some communities

57 in the NWT, in remote Australia, in much of Africa and many parts of south-east Asia, access to the Net is not yet a reality.

Regarding income, students that can afford their own computers and the online connection charges have much greater access than those that cannot (Belford 1996; Graves 1997; Leiter 1997). At some institutions, students are provided full Net access, while at other institutions the access is more limited. Even between campuses of the same institution, access may vary according to the number of students competing for scarce computer resources. Some students must wait in line to access the Net at library terminals or in computer labs – and if use of the Net is not an absolute necessity, those students will most often not wait in line (Casey 1996a). For example, at the time the survey was conducted at Griffith University in 1997, undergraduate student access to the Net was restricted to five hours of online time per week while the post-graduate limit was thirty hours per week – which highlights the inequities in access between the two groups of students (Finnane 1998).

Organizational constraints also impact on access. The rate that a user can access data over the Internet is determined by two things – the user’s hardware (the speed of the computer being used) and the speed of the network to which the user is attached. Network speed depends on the hardware used and the size of the access line, or bandwidth, to the outside world (De Brun 1996). Bandwidth refers to the size of the access line connecting networks. Bigger lines allow for faster transmission rates, while smaller lines offer slower rates. When a network is used heavily, it is not uncommon for a line to become clogged or overloaded – thus resulting in slower transmission times for the users connected at that time (Fist 1996).

The updating of hardware (including computers to run networks, or the updating to gigabit lines from megabit lines) is often done in piecemeal fashion as funds become available. Thus organizations or users unable to afford the upgrade costs often suffer slower access lines. This has an impact on performance, and on the usability of the Net for the individual (Johnston, et al. 1995). Some users give up when the lines are too slow.

58 The trend towards data purchase or subscription services is another organizational constraint which impacts access. Though many organizations – including many educational institutions – offer free and open access to most of their information, some services have come online to sell their information (Carroll & Broadhead 2000). Universities regularly subscribe to such database services – sometimes passing on their fees to students through increased tuition, and sometimes through direct information technology fees (Carnevale 2003; Liverpool & Missen 2003). In some instances, students will have to pay directly for the data they access. While some users will be able to afford these extra fees, others will not (MacDonald 1997).

The degree of difficulty associated with using the technology poses a further disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool. While the graphical interfaces have made the use of Unix obsolete, there is still a learning curve – and there is still a need for training (Gooderham 1997a). One of the primary complaints heard from newcomers to the Net is they “don’t know where they are going or how to get there....You don’t have any signposts; you don’t know where you are. It’s like being on the road without a map” (Gooderham 1997b: C10). This is especially true for the Web, which is built on hypertext links and has no real beginning or ending – just more links – and where it is easy to become “lost in cyberspace” (Staninger 1994).

The complicated Internet addressing scheme does little to improve usability for the average person. Each site on the Net is assigned an address. For example, the Web homepage address for Griffith University is “http://www.gu.edu.au”: “http” signifies that the address utilizes the hypertext transport protocol, the main protocol of the Web; “gu” stands for Griffith University; “edu” denotes an educational institution; and “‘au” is the country code for Australia. One spelling or punctuation mistake when typing in an address into a browser will result with the familiar “The server does not have a DNS entry – unable to locate the server” message being displayed across one’s computer screen (Hahn & Stout 1994). Figure 2.7.2.1 shows just such an error when a comma – rather than a period – was mistakenly inserted within the URL for the Griffith University homepage.

59 Figure 2.7.2.1: Web Address Errors

The variety of filetypes on the Internet also poses a problem to many users. The Web allows communication and dissemination of information from a variety of computer languages and platforms (or operating systems, such as Windows, Unix, and MacIntosh). While this in itself is one of the strengths of the Web, knowing what to do with a file that won’t open once it has been downloaded (or is unreadable in its present format) is another matter altogether (Ernst 1995). Some knowledge of what to do with various file types is needed by the user; without which using the Net can become a frustrating experience (Howard 1995). These addressing schemes and filetype problems of the Web are mirrored within the E-mail system of the Net. Additionally, E-mail often has the added difficulty of size limits on file attachments – prompting users on both ends to have the knowledge of pulling files apart so they can be sent across the network, then having the knowledge of how to put them back together into a readable format (Simpson 1997b). For example, Hotmail, one of the world’s largest free, Web-based E-mail services allows for users to send and receive file attachments with their mail; but because too many large files can cause mail servers to crash, a limit of one megabyte per attachment has been imposed. Knowing how to research and communicate on the Net has been described as “part art, part skill”, which further

60 highlights users needs for training (Time Digital 1996).

Another disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool is cost. Though many would guess that the Net is “free” because they do not pay each time they use it, this is not the case. There are various types of costs associated with Internet usage, including those incurred by the institution and by the individual. Although the Net is not owned by one organization or company – it is a collection of thousands of networks, each owned and maintained by separate institutions (Hoffman 1995) – the institution bear the upkeep and access time costs. Whether institutions decide to pass these costs directly to their users (as ISP’s do), whether they pass these costs indirectly to the user through higher tuition fees (as some universities do), or whether Net access is seen as a necessary tool and the cost is absorbed by the institution itself (as some private educational institutions do), depends on the institution and its view of the Net. Additionally, a typical ISP in Canada may charge anywhere between $20 and $50 per month for access – the more hours online wanted, the higher the fee (SSI Micro 1999). Users in rural or isolated areas often pay even higher fees due to smaller scales of economy and higher infrastructure costs (Goodwin 1996). Students wishing not to have to wait in lines for access to the Net through common use computer labs or library machines must pay for this privilege.

The numerous technical problems associated with the technology pose an additional disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool. Most of these technical problems flow from the infrastructure of the Net: when trying to get online, the network can either be down or busy, so the only sure time to gain access is late at night – say 2:00 am (Weise 1996; Seymour 1997); users can experience slow download times (Caragata 1994; Dyrli 1997; Marshall 1997); they can also experience “host unknown/cannot locate host” error messages – which means either that the address was typed in incorrectly (discussed above) or the host (or document) may have moved or no longer be in existence (Owen, et al.1995; Bell 1999); and there can be delays in receiving E-mail (especially multi-media file attachments) over peak periods, such as holidays (Weil 1998).

61 While most of these problems are often of a temporary nature, they can influence a user’s view of the Net’s usefulness. To the student who is writing a term paper the night before it is due, and who needs the Net to log into the library and check on a reference citation, not having access at that time is extremely critical. The issue of reliable access to the Net is one which must be acknowledged (Ashbury 1997).

Another disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool is information overload. The issue of information overload is one which has become important as the Net has continued to grow (Stein 1997; Shenk 1997). Though the sheer amount of information available online is truly staggering, sorting the “wheat from the chaffe” can now be a very serious problem (Berghel 1997). Anyone who has ever typed a keyword term into a search engine and been rewarded with 10,000 hits will have experienced this. One wouldn’t have time to go through all of those pages anyway, even though many pages would be unrelated to the topic and irrelevant due to the imprecise nature of search engines. Finding meaning and utility in a sea of flotsam can be difficult (McKenzie 1996). Information overload can also be experienced through the communication part of the Net, especially E-mail. Unwanted junk E-mail, or “Spam” can be bothersome (Pappas 1997a). This bulk advertising is often generated either from computer programs gleaning E-mail addresses off the Net, or companies or institutions selling names to electronic marketers (Evans 1997).

Additionally, users subscribing to E-mail lists can also experience information overload. E-mail lists are mass mail outs, organized around specific topics or themes (Barrett 1997). Similar to Usenet newsgroups, the major difference is that one doesn’t have to go anywhere to “get” the information (such as to a newsgroup); the information is sent directly to your mailbox (Cipher 1998). Though signing up for E-mail lists is a voluntary action, some mail lists can generate hundreds of responses each day (Hartman & Nantz 1996). The large volume of mail can turn some users off, especially when they have to wade through nine useless message just to get the one message that they think might be useful to them (Simpson 1997c).

62 The high amount of US content (and the low amount of “other” content) poses a further disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool (Friedman 1997). As Table 2.7.2.1 shows, as of January 2003 just over 60% of the hosts on the Net were based in the United States. Sites in Japan had the next highest presence on the Net, at 7%. Italy, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, Brazil, Taiwan, France and Spain all ranged between 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively (Internet Software Consortium 2003).

Table 2.7.2.1: Server Location (by Country) – January 2003

Country # of Hosts % of Hosts

United States 80016444 61

Japan 9260117 7

Italy 3864315 2.9

Canada 2993982 2.3

Germany 2891407 2.2

United Kingdom 2583753 1.9

Australia 2564399 1.9

Netherlands 2415286 1.8

Brazil 2237527 1.7

Taiwan 2170233 1.6

France 2157628 1.6

Spain 1694601 1.3

All other countries 16233533 12.8

Total 131083225 100

Source: Internet Software Consortium January 2003 Survey, located online at: http://www.isc.org/ds/WWW-200301/dist-bynum.html

Note: The US total was arrived at by combining the hosts in the .us, .edu (US Educational institutions), .net (US networks), .gov (US government organizations), .arpa (ARPA Net organizations) and the .mil (US miliary networks) domains. These totals do not include .com hosts. If it is assumed that the majority of .com’s are located in the United States, this would make the US total percentage on the Net even higher than what is reported here.

63 This overwhelming US presence (and lower percentage of other content) can make it difficult to find information on non-US subjects – such as information relating to communities in northen Canada or remote Australia (Carroll & Broadhead 1998b). While other countries are catching up in terms of the number of sites on the Net, the gap in percentage is still quite large (Cunningham 1996).

Another disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool is the questionable reliability of some of the content found online. Just because a source is available on the Web does not mean it is accurate or even truthful (Hallam 1994; Manes 1999). As Jim Carroll, author of the Canadian Internet Handbook series has noted: “There are lots of sites which have details of the fact that Elvis is alive. That doesn’t make it so” (Chernos 1997: 33). From an educational perspective, quality control of content is a major issue (Miller 1996). Most academic literature (especially journals) is peer-reviewed, thus ensuring an acceptable level of quality (Rohe 1998). Similarly, books and journals are quite expensive to produce (Willis 1996). The Net, however, has no such peer-review/editorial restrictions and only marginal cost restrictions: basically anyone with a website can publish whatever they wish (Ulfelder 1997). One can rent website space on a server for as little as $10 per month (SSI Micro 1999). This is a far cry from the roughly $40,000 it costs to produce an academic book (Bercuson et al, 1997). This has resulted in the fact that everything from the “utterly useless, to the truly amazing” can be found online (Leiter 1997).

Though free websites may be thoroughly reliable labours of love, they are just as apt to be inaccurate, outdated and biased. A major exception is information paid for with public money, like government documents posted on the Internet, and the websites of many universities...Examine sites for clues to their reliability. Who put up the site? Why? When was it last updated? Be profoundly suspicious of any site that makes it hard to tell (Knowlton 1997: C16).

Finding reputable, reliable, quality sites through all of the gigabytes of data is no easy task for the student researcher (Maroney 1997). Believing personal details about people on the Net is even more hazardous. The 7th GVU WWW user survey reported that up to forty percent of respondents had submitted false information to a site within

64 the past year (Jaffray 1997). Even what one would consider a reliable site – the US Department of Justice – can provide inaccurate information, due to an issue discussed later (security). Once hackers got into the site they replaced the US Department of Justice official seal with a Nazi swastika, re-titled the page “The US Department of Injustice”, and substituted their own text over the original. The site remained that way until officials realized what had happened and shut it down (O'Connor 1996).

Slow replies to E-mail messages poses another disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool. Slow replies can be caused by people not responding to their messages in a timely fashion, and E-mail that goes into the black hole of cyberspace. Some people use their E-mail daily and always reply promptly to their messages. Others are not so diligent, and do not read their messages every day; and if they do, may only reply at irregular intervals. This can be very frustrating for those users who use their E-mail daily, especially if it is a message that is time sensitive. Additionally, E-mail may go missing (King 1997). Although most times E- mail is returned to the sender with an “unable to deliver” error message attached (letting the sender know that there is a problem that needs to be addressed before the mail can go through), it is not uncommon that mail falls through the cracks. In that case, the sender never knows if the person received their message or not (Finley 1995).

A further disadvantage to using the Net is related to security (Dyson 1997b; Green 2001). This is becoming a very important issue, and there are several areas where this has become apparent: in the rise of the “hacker” culture, through the spread of viruses over the Net, and the non-secure nature of both E-mail and the Web.

In regards to hackers, to use the “Internet as electronic frontier” analogy, if

the Net is the Wild West, hackers would be the cowboys. They are depicted in user mythology as the macho men of technological prowess who, depending on your perspective, are heroes as protectors of the right to access information freely or villainous bandits who steal copyrighted material from its creators for their own profit (Tapscott 1998a: 182).

65 Hacker break-ins to non-secure sites are a real threat, and can result in altered and misleading information being posted on a website (Hamilton 1999).

Viruses are another important security concern (Tuck, et al. 1999). Though they have been around since at least 1987, they are now spread much quicker with the increase in popularity of the Net; and they can wreak havoc with a user’s hardware, software, and all of the information they have stored on their system. Viruses such as Brain (1987), Jerusalem (1987), Stoned (1989), Form (1990), Michelangelo (1991), Concept (1995) and Laroux (1996) have all caused considerable damage to users worldwide (Lohr 1996). Even the threat of a virus – the popular “virus hoax” (which is just that, an attempt to scare the uninitiated through technical language and creditable sources) – is enough to turn some users off (Pappas 1997b).

The non secure nature of both E-mail and the Web pose an additional security concern for Net users. There are several ways that E-mail can pose a security problem: through the simple sending and receiving of E-mail, security after transmission, and mail bombs.

Simply sending and receiving E-mail can pose a security problem. Aside from the system administrators on the sending and receiving ends of an E-mail message having access to its contents, there are varying points along the route that a message travels that it can be intercepted and read (Tebbutt 1995). Because of the “store and forward” nature of much of the Net, messages may reside on any one system anywhere from minutes to hours (Carroll & Broadhead 1999b). Though encryption protection is improving – with the advent of such security programs as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) – the process is not one which has yet fully taken hold on all E-mail messages sent over the Net. Encrypted mail is mostly used by the banks, the military and the power users on the Net; the majority of E-mail sent over the network is still unsecured (Carroll & Broadhead 1999c).

66 As well as E-mail not being secure during its transmission, it is also not secure after it has been received (Kaplan 1997). The nature of electronic mail is just that – it’s electronic, and can be forwarded, bounced, and shared with the whole online world either mistakenly or maliciously, and with or without one’s knowledge or approval (Rowland & Kinnaman 1995). Good advice seems to be that:

If you aren’t willing to have the E-mail printed in tomorrow’s paper or you wouldn’t make the same comments in public, don’t write them. That includes off-color jokes, sexist or racist language or anything that can be construed as to contributing to a hostile environment. Think before you use the “send” button (Marken 1997: 27).

Finally, mail “bombs” add another dimension to E-mail security (Schlack 1996). Hackers have been known to break into ISP systems to dump hundreds or even thousands of messages into a person’s mailbox in retaliation for some offense (or just for their own amusement). This results in the person’s Internet account being shut down until the messages are removed, and sometimes, bringing the whole ISP system crashing down (Knopper 1998).

There are also major security concerns with the Web, including information willingly submitted online by the user, and information unwillingly gleaned from the user’s computer by others. The security of information willingly submitted online by the user is also called “stealth marketing”. This practice involves the collecting of personal information about the user when they sign up for various products or service via online forms (Schumer Chapman 1997). Examples of the type of personal information submitted includes user E-mail addresses, the companies they work for, where they live, their salaries, their gender and age, the type and number of computers they own, and the type of operating system they prefer. This information may then be used for their own purposes – to better target products for appropriate customers – or they may sell this information to others. Additionally, many sites will freely allow users onto their site: but in return, they want to know something about that person (French 1998). Software programs (commonly referred to as “cookies”) “are tiny files that websites send to your PC – often without your knowledge – to collect information about your

67 online habits” (Grimes 1997: 148). Again, this information may then be used to better target products for appropriate customers, or it may be sold to others.

The final disadvantage to using the Net as a research and communication tool is the difficulty in finding someone’s E-mail address. This can be one of the most frustrating tasks performed on the Net. The problem is more than the general difficulty encountered in just using a program, such as navigating with a mouse or knowing how to send a message (discussed earlier). There are a number of ways E-mail addresses can be found on the Net, including: through online directories, such as 411 (1996) and InfoSpace AccuMail (1996); through Campus Wide Information System (CWIS) servers – the main directory of a university or college, which usually includes “directories of faculty and students, along with information on campus events, class schedules, library information, job information and anything else related to campus life” (Gilster 1996: 301); and through directories provided for that purpose, such as government sites that give access to employees addresses (Government of the Northwest Territories 1999).

All of these sources have problems. Directories such as 411 often work on the same principle as the human generated Web indexing schemes: they rely on the user to register with them. If users don’t register, they aren’t listed, and someone looking for that particular E-mail address will be out of luck. Computer generated lists (such as those used by universities and governments) often may be incomplete or inaccurate – leaving off someone who has recently joined the institution, or leaving on someone who has recently departed (Cravotta 1996). As noted earlier, it can be quicker and easier to phone and ask for someone’s E-mail address rather than search for it on the Net.

2.7.3 Utility The concept of “Utility” is based upon the work of Anderson and Joerg (1996). Their exploration into the perceived usefulness of the Web served as a starting point for the survey developed for this thesis. Similarly, others have studied the Net and its

68 utility/usefulness from the user’s perspective (Murphy 1999; Rajani & Rosenberg 1999; Elmer 1999; Abdoulaye & Majid 2000; Anandarajan, et al. 2000; Golob & Regan 2002; Yu-Lan, et al. 2003). I operationalize utility later in the thesis (see section 3.2.3).

2.8 Summary In this chapter I develop the theoretical framework for the thesis – that the Net is a research and/or communication tool. I rely on the work of numerous theorists and take various approaches – incorporating literature from distinct bodies such as theories of mass media, theories of communication, and theories of learning – to establish such a framework.

First, I rely on the work of Postman to establish the “Technology as Tool” perspective (and support his contention that there are both benefits and drawbacks to adopting the tool). Then, I confirm Taylor’s argument that this perspective be expanded to include the “Computer as a Tool” viewpoint. I further extend this outlook – and confirm the work of Frizler and others – and adopt a “Net as Tool” outlook for this thesis. I also note that the “Net as Tool” perspective is just one of many equally valid perspectives.

Then, I rely on the work of various theorists to establish research and/or communication as the two major educational uses of the Net when it is viewed as a tool. I outline Warren Weaver’s “Broadcast Model” to show the differences between the Net and traditional media – where traditional media have the characteristics of usually being disseminated from a large organization on a “one to many basis”, and the Net has those characteristics, plus the ability of being disseminated from an individual on a “many to many basis”. Next, building on the work of Katz et al., Palmgreen, Newhagen and Rafaeli, and Rosengren, I adopt a “Uses and Gratifications” approach to view the Net as a tool. I examine both the uses and gratifications of the Net from the student’s perspective, and specifically, I highlight two educational uses of the tool: research and/or communication. I test the conclusions of Rheingold, Jones, Stoll, December, and McLaughlin in developing the research and communication uses, and adopt Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles of Good Practice to highlight how

69 interactivity is incorporated into both. Additionally, I acknowledge that the “edutainment” and “e-commerce” uses of the Net are not considered here in order to keep the scope of the thesis to a manageable level. Finally, I note three other bodies of literature on the use of the Net within higher education that lie outside the student- centred focus pursued in this study. These include the research on student engagement and interaction, on technology planning and policy, and on instructional design.

Next, I outline the main research programs of the Net: the Web, FTP, Telnet, Gopher, WAIS and specialized Online Databases. I also note that with the exception of the Web, all of these services have fallen into disuse (or are now accessed as part of the Web, and not through stand-alone programs). However, they are presented here because at the time of the survey, they were all viable, used research services. For the purposes of this study, I define “research” to mean “information retrieval”. I also outline the main communication programs of the Net: E-mail, Usenet News, IRC, Talk, Phone and Video-Conferencing. I also note that all six of these applications are still used, with the exception of the Talk facility (which is now accessed as part of Chat). However, “Talk” is presented here because at the time of the survey, it was a separate, used communication service. For the purposes of this study, I define “communication” to mean “CMC”.

Finally, I rely on the work of various theorists to examine the three inter-related concepts of usage, value and utility. First, I expand on Rogers (and his work on innovation adoption) and Geoghegan (and his work on the adoption and diffusion of instructional technology) to examine student usage of the Net as a research and/or communication tool. This is a continuation of the examination of the uses component of the “Uses and Gratifications” approach outlined earlier. Then, to explore the gratifications component, I first follow the arguments outlined by JJ Gibson, and Ryder and Wilson to highlight the value of student usage of the Net as a research and/or communication tool, and then Anderson and Joerg to highlight the utility of that usage. Value assumes a student weighs the advantages of using the Net for research and/or communication against the disadvantages of using the technology in its present form. I outline several advantages to research and communication (increased

70 speed/productivity, access to information and people, ease of use, low cost, convenience, current information, and direct communication), as well as numerous disadvantages (time intensiveness, access problems, difficulty of use, high cost, technical problems, information overload, too much US information, reliability of content, slow replies to E-mail, security issues, and difficulty in finding E-mail addresses). Utility refers to usefulness – or how useful the Net is as a research and/or communication tool to students.

In the next chapter of the thesis – Chapter III – I operationalize the concepts of usage, value and utility into dependent variables, as well as outline the methods used to gather the quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group) data needed for this study.

71 Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction There are two main types of research – research of a theory testing nature, and research of a theory construction nature (Rose 1982). This thesis spans both, exploring how the Net is being used as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students, examining the value and utility of that usage, and exploring how the inter- related concepts of usage, value and utility can inform both practice and policy. It both tests existing theoretical models for Net use and suggests modifications that might better explain the ways in which the Net is being used. In order to do this – and to fully answer the research questions posed earlier – I chose a “methodologically eclectic” style for this thesis, which combines both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group) research (Whitehouse 1995). Because quantitative data often do not tell the full story, qualitative (focus group interview) data is added to provide a more complete picture. This combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to examine Net use by various groups has also been used by others (Chester & Gwynne 1998; Jaffe, et al. 1995; Witmer 1998; Murphy, et al. 1997; Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA) 1995a; Rourke & Anderson 2002). In the rest of this chapter I outline the steps taken to gather both the survey and focus group data needed for this study.

3.2 Survey Research The “Net as a Research and/or Communication Tool” framework I developed for this thesis has, as its focus, the ways in which students use the technology. The best way to explore how students use the Net is to ask them – thus the survey (Alreck & Settle 1995). This is similar to other authors who have used survey research to explore Net usage (see for example, Mendoza & Toledo 1997; Smith 1997; Harriman & Fitz-Gibbon 1998; Gay, et al. 1999; Sheehan 2001).

72 In the rest of this section, I outline the sample selection criteria (why I chose those particular post-secondary students), describe the survey instrument used, highlight the dependent and independent variables examined, and discuss the concepts of survey reliability and validity.

3.2.1 Sample Selection Various researchers have outlined a myriad of factors which impact on the use of computers (in general), the use of the Internet (in general), the use of the Internet in the broad field of education (including kindergarten to grade 12, and the workplace), and specific use of the Internet by post-secondary students. Some of these factors include: age, gender, first language, ethnicity, nationality, location (whether urban or rural), type of student (full-time or part-time), the program that the student is involved in (adult education, diploma, undergraduate degree, post-graduate degree), as well as levels of access, training and support.

The sample of students I chose for this study were of the “quota” type – that is, they were groups which were thought to be relevant to the research study (Philliber, et al. 1980), as well as reflect most of the attributes inherent in the various factors outlined above. For example, by surveying students of varying ages, who come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, who speak different first languages, who reside at different institutions in different countries (at both urban and rural settings), who are involved in different educational programs, and who have different levels of Net access, training and support, I am able to fully explore the concepts of usage, value and utility with a diverse post-secondary student population.

Additionally, the sample I chose for this study was a “sample of convenience” (Rose 1982; Burdess 1994). I chose these students because I had easy access to them, and there was limited funding available to conduct surveys at more locations (Jonassen, et al. 1989). I considered (and then rejected) sending out an electronic version of the survey to students at select universities around the world; the length of the instrument and the time it would take for respondents to complete were considered deterrents to an adequate response rate (Hill 1998). This sample of convenience approach has

73 previously been used when examining student usage of the Net (Chugh, et al. 2001.

A total of 424 students, from Aurora College and Griffith University, participated in the study. Aurora College (AC) is a small, vocational and career-oriented institution which serves approximately 700 students spread out over three campuses and fourteen community learning centres in the Northwest Territories, Canada. The area served by the College is depicted in Figure 3.2.1.1.

Figure 3.2.1.1: Aurora College Campuses

Source: Aurora College Calendar 2003/04

Students at the three campuses (Yellowknife, Thebacha in Ft. Smith and Aurora in Inuvik) and one of the Community Learning Centres (Ft. Providence) participated in the study. Students were surveyed in Yellowknife between January 27 and February 14, 1997; in Fort Smith, between January 29 and January 31, 1997; in Inuvik between

74 February 5 and February 9, 1997; and in Ft. Providence on February 11, 1997.

Griffith University is a publicly-funded university serving approximately 16,000 students spread out over six campuses in southeast Queensland, Australia. The location of the campuses is depicted in Figure 3.2.1.2.

Figure 3.2.1.2: Griffith University Campuses

Source: Griffith University Homepage (2002)

The Griffith University students are separated into two groups for some analysis: undergraduates (hereafter referred to as the GU students) and post-graduates (hereafter referred to as the FG students). The post-graduates were also interviewed in “Focus Group” sessions, thus the FG designation. The results of those interviews are inter-twined with the survey results presented in the next chapter. GU students were surveyed between May 12 and May 14, 1997, while the FG students were surveyed April 27 and April 28, 1998.

75 All of the instructors approached by the author agreed to allow their students to be surveyed during in-class time. Paper surveys were handed out by the author at the beginning of each class, and filled out by the students themselves. The author was present to answer any queries that students had regarding completion of the survey, as well as to advise students that participation was voluntary. The survey took approximately five minutes to complete for those students who did not use the Net, and fifteen minutes for those who did. All results were double verified upon data-entry into a Paradox (v7) database, and then converted into SPSS (v8) for analysis.

This study was originally envisioned to be longitudinal in nature – that is, students were to be surveyed at the beginning and end of semesters to see if there were any changes in usage, value, and utility. Once surveying began, however, changes were made to the study structure for methodological reasons. First, while the "time" element could have been an important factor for the Griffith University and Focus Group students, it was not going to be a factor at Aurora College. There were no training opportunities in place for Aurora College students at the time of the survey and very few requirements that the Net be included as part of a class. Additionally, it would have been methodologically difficult to try to compare the first survey to the last at Aurora College. Aurora College runs a number of short four, six, and eight week courses, and many of the students surveyed were from that situation. A second survey wouldn't have necessarily included the same students – resulting in sample which could not be compared and questionable results. Thus, the study became of the “snapshot” type – that is, one moment in time.

3.2.2 The Survey Instrument The author-designed survey instrument included fifty-one questions, covering thirty independent variables and fourteen dependent variables, and was designed to gather information in the following areas: the profile of the student user; the nature of student Net access; the availability of training and technical support for students; how students use the Net as a research tool; how students use the Net as a communication tool; and the utility of the Net to students.

76 For a full listing of dependent and independent variables, see sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively. In Section A (questions 1-20), I build a profile of the student user, and gather information concerning demographics, level of study, whether the student uses the Net (or not), whether use of the Net is a required as part of a course, the length of time the student had been using the Net, hours online per week, and comfort level when using the Net.

In Section B (questions 21-26), I examine issues of access, specifically questions concerning types of Internet account, main access site, whether access is restricted (to certain times or days, or limited to so many hours online per week) or unrestricted (available anytime, any-day), whether access is free or fee based, and whether students encounter access problems (and if so, what types of problems).

In Section C (questions 27-30), I address training and technical support, and gather information on whether students had access to training and technical support. If the response is positive, is their confidence in using the Net improved by this training and support?

In Section D (questions 31-36), I examine use of the Net for research, address questions concerning which services students use (and the importance and utility of such services), their use of the various methods of finding information on the Web (and the importance and utility of such methods), and the name and operating system of the student’s Web browser.

In Section E (questions 37-42), I explore use of the Net for communication, and set out questions relating to which services students use (and the importance and utility of such services), the name and operating system of the student’s E-mail program, and the usage and utility of E-mail discussion lists.

In the final section – Section F (questions 43-48) – I examine the utility of the Net, and ask students to outline the advantages and disadvantages of using the Net for research and communication (and the importance of each), the overall usefulness of the

77 technology, and suggestions for making the Net a more useful research and communication tool.

For the most part, I used a pre-coded structure for the survey. All the possible answers to the questions were listed so that the respondent simply had to check off a box in the appropriate category (Silvey 1975). I also gave respondents the opportunity – through a blank “other” category which could be filled in – to write in their own responses for many of the questions. Additionally, I included three open-ended questions (Questions 49-51) to supplement the pre-coded structure and allow students to comment on any issues which may not have been covered, and which impact upon their use of the Net.

I also added a few questions to the Griffith University survey from the Aurora College survey. These included:

1. Question 11 – asking students which “faculty” they were in was not applicable to Aurora College students as there are no faculties at the college; 2. Question 13 – asking students which type of High School (public or private) they attended was not applicable to Aurora College students, as there are no private high schools in the Northwest Territories; and 3. Question 21 – asking students which type of Net account they have was not applicable to Aurora College students, as access to the Net at the College at the time the survey was administered was very informal, with no “accounts” set up for students.

Unless otherwise indicated, question numbers from this point forward refer to the GU survey; for the corresponding AC numbers, see the coding framework, Appendix B. I also made some minor (wording) revisions to the GU survey. Age categories (based along Australian Bureau of Statistics age intervals) were added to try to improve upon the number of students who didn’t report their age. Additionally, “mother tongue” was re-written as “first language” to account for differences in terminology between Canada and Australia. Finally, “ethnicity” was re-written as “descent” for the same

78 reasons.

Most of the data yielded by the survey is of the nominal type. The exceptions to this are the data used in the construction of the dependent variables, which is ordinal in nature (Diekhoff 1992). The survey was piloted/tested for readability, comprehensiveness, and structure (including skip logic) with students at the University of Queensland School of Government prior to being used in the field (Glastonbury & MacKean 1991). A copy of the survey is included as Appendix A. The coding framework – which lists all questions, the codes assigned to possible answers, the levels of measurement, variable types, and the types of analysis to be performed – is included as Appendix B.

3.2.3 Dependent Variables I examine three main concepts in this study: usage (USE), value (ADV/DIS), and utility (UTIL). As well as facilitating the analysis of the quantitative data collected for the study, these concepts are designed to help answer the research questions posed in section 1.2.1: usage is designed to explore how students are using the Net; value is designed to examine the advantages and disadvantages of that usage; and utility is designed to explore the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool. Each concept is operationalized through the construction of four scales (or dependent variables): two to explore the research dimension of the Net, two to explore the communication dimension.

The scales used in this study are modeled on Robin Kay’s “Computer Attitude Measure,” or “CAM” (Kay 1989). He uses a series of Seven-Point Likert Scale questions to measure student teachers’ attitudes towards computers. The scales consist of asking questions about students’ attitudes towards computers, with the responses ranging from extremely useful to extremely useless (and various points in between) provided as answers (Foddy 1993). The selected answers are then assigned numerical values, which are summed into composite scores (Neuman 1997). Of the twelve main dependent variables examined in this study, those exploring utility (UTIL) use these Seven-Point Likert Scale questions.

79 The scales for the other two concepts – usage (USE) and value (ADV/DIS) – are based on the same structure but instead of using the Seven-Point Likert Scale questions, they use a set of Forced Ranking Scale questions instead (Philliber, et al. 1980). For usage, the students are asked to list the services they use for research and/or communication, and then rank – from most used to least – these services. For value, the students are asked to list the advantages (ADV) and disadvantages (DIS) of using the Net for research and/or communication, and then rank – from most important to least – these advantages and disadvantages. These rankings are then assigned numerical values, depending on how many services (or advantages and disadvantages) are used or rated. The twelve main dependent variables (DV3- DV14) and their corresponding survey questions are found in the coding framework (Appendix B).

Net usage (USE) is designed to measure student usage of the various research and/or communication services of the Net, and is operationalized through the construction of four usage scales: research services (USE-R1), methods of finding information on the

Web (USE-R2), communication services (USE-C1), and E-mail discussion lists

(USE-C2). These scales reflect the separate dimensions of the Net for research and/or communication; and the higher the score on the scale, the more those services (or methods) are used by the student. All of the questions used for the four scales are based on the Forced Ranking-type of question, except the usage of E-mail discussion lists (which is of the “Yes-No” variety).

For the USE-R1 scale, I average the scores from Question 31 (which asks students which research services they use the most). As there are six research services examined in the survey (Web, FTP, Telnet, Gopher, WAIS, specialized Online Databases), a six point scale is used: the most used service scores a six; the second most used service scores a five; the third most used service scores a four; etc. (and if a particular service isn’t used, it scores a zero). Scores for the usage of each Net research service are presented in Table 3.2.3.1.

80 Table 3.2.3.1: Scoring of USE-R1

Research Services Score

Most Used 6

2nd Most Used 5

3rd Most Used 4

4th Most Used 3

5th Most Used 2

Least Used 1

Not Used 0

For example, a student who uses the Web the most for their research, followed by FTP, Telnet, and Gopher (in that order), and who does not use the other two research services would score an average of three on the USE-R1 scale (six for the Web, five for FTP, four for Telnet, three for Gopher, and zero for the two unused research services).

I perform two major analyses with the USE-R1 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) used services. For example, is the Web used more or less as a research service than Telnet? Is FTP used more or less as a research services than Gopher? Overall, what is the most used research service? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between usage of the various research services and the independent variables. For example, what are the most used research services of male students compared to female students? What are the most used research services of younger students compared to older students? Overall, what are the most important factors related to usage of the various research services (age, gender, birthplace, etc.)?

I develop the USE-R2 scale by averaging the scores from Question 35 (which asks students which methods they use the most to find information on the Web). As there are six methods of finding information on the Web examined in the survey (browsing/ surfing, single search engines, meta-search engines, subject-directories, seeing the address on tv or in a magazine, being told the address), a six-point scale is used.

Scores are identical to the scores for R1 (with a range from zero to six). Scores are

81 presented in Table 3.2.3.2.

Table 3.2.3.2: Scoring of USE-R2

Web Methods Score

Most Used 6

2nd Most Used 5

3rd Most Used 4

4th Most Used 3

5th Most Used 2

Least Used 1

Not Used 0

For example, a student who uses single search engines the most to find information on the Web, browsing/surfing second most, meta-searchers third most, subject-directories fourth most, and who does not use the other two methods of finding information on the Web would score an average of three on the USE-R2 (six for single search engines, five for browsing/surfing, four for meta-searchers, three for subject-directories, and zero for the two unused methods).

As with the previous scale, I perform two major analyses with the USE-R2 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) used methods of finding information on the Web. For example, is surfing/ browsing used more or less as a method to find information on the Web than single search engines? Are subject-directories used more or less as a method to find information on the Web than meta-search engines? Overall, what is the most used method to find information on the Web? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web and the independent variables. For example, what are the most used Net research methods of Aboriginal students compared to non-Aboriginal students? What are the most used research methods of part-time students compared to full-time students? Overall, what are the most important factors related to usage of the different research methods (ethnicity, student status, student level, etc.)?

82 For the USE-C1 scale, I average the scores from Question 37 (which asks students which communication services they use the most when they use the Net). As there are six communication services examined in the survey (E-mail, News, Chat, Talk, Phone, Video-Conferencing) a six point scale is used. Scores are identical to the scores for

USE-R1 scale presented above (with a range from zero to six). Scores for the usage of each Net communication service are presented in Table 3.2.3.3.

Table 3.2.3.3: Scoring of USE-C1

Communication Services Score

Most Used 6

2nd Most Used 5

3rd Most Used 4

4th Most Used 3

5th Most Used 2

Least Used 1

Not Used 0

For example, a student who uses E-mail the most for communication, followed by Chat and Newsgroups (in that order), and who does not use the other three communication services would score an average of 2.5 on the USE-C1 scale (six for E-mail, five for Chat, four for Newsgroups, and zero each for the unused communication services).

I perform two major analyses with the USE-C1 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) used services. For example, is E-mail used more or less as a communication service than Chat? Are Newsgroups used more or less as a communication service than Internet Phone? Overall, what is the most used communication service? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between usage of the various communication services and the independent variables. For example, what are the most used communication services of first-year students compared to post first-year students? What are the most used communication services of students located in urban areas compared to students located in rural areas? Overall, what are the most

83 important factors related to usage of the various communication services (year of study, location, type of high school attended, etc.)?

I develop the USE-C2 scale by calculating the scores from Question 41 (which asks students whether or not they are subscribed to an E-mail discussion list). As this is a simple yes-no question, only a simple scale is involved. Scores for the usage of E-mail discussion lists are presented in Table 3.2.3.4.

Table 3.2.3.4: Scoring of USE-C2

Subscribed to E-mail Score Discussion List

Yes 1

No 0

I perform only one type of analysis with the USE-C2 scale. I explore whether there are any significant relationships between usage of E-mail discussion lists and the independent variables. For example, do undergraduate students subscribe more to E- mail discussion lists than post-graduate students? Do students whose first language is English subscribe more to E-mail discussion lists than students whose first language is non-English? Overall, what are the most important factors related to usage of E-mail discussion lists (student type, first language, whether use of the Net is required, etc.)?

Net value (ADV/DIS) is designed to measure the advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet for research and/or communication, and is operationalized through the construction of four Net value scales: advantages for research (ADV-R), disadvantages for research (DIS-R), advantages for communication (ADV-C), and disadvantages for communication (DIS-C). Advantages are coded positively, disadvantages are coded negatively (McIver & Carmines 1981). The higher the score (either positive or negative), the more (or less) valuable the Net is as a research and/or communication tool to the student. All of the questions for all four scales are of the Forced Ranking type.

84 For the ADV-R scale, I average the scores from Question 43 (which asks students to rate the advantages of the Net for research from most important to least). As there are six advantages for research listed on the survey (low cost, access to information, convenience, speed, ease of use, and timely information), a six-point scale is used: the most important advantage scores a six; the second most important advantage scores a five; the third most important advantage scores a four; etc. (and if the advantage is not important at all, it scores a zero). Table 3.2.3.5 presents these scores.

Table 3.2.3.5: Scoring of ADV-R

Advantages Score

Most Important 6

2nd Most Important 5

3rd Most Important 4

4th Most Important 3

5th Most Important 2

Least Important 1

Not Important 0

For example, a student who lists access to information as the most important advantage to using the Net for research, followed by increased speed, convenience, and low cost (in that order), and who does not list any other advantages would score an average of three on the ADV-R scale (six for access to information, five for increased speed, four for convenience, three for low cost, and zero each for the remaining advantages).

I perform two major analysis on the ADV-R scale. First, I determine the most (and least) important advantages for students when they use the Net for research. For example, is access to information more important as an advantage than low cost? Is increased speed more important as an advantage than convenience? Overall, which is the most important advantage to using the Net for research? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the various advantages for research and the independent variables. For example, what are the most important advantages of

85 male students compared to female students? What are the most important advantages of younger students compared to older students? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the advantages of the Net for research (age, gender, first language, etc.)?

I develop the disadvantages for research scale (DIS-R) by averaging the scores from Question 44, which asks students to rate the disadvantages of the Net for research from most important to least. As there are eight disadvantages for research listed in the survey (time intensiveness, lack of access, high cost, difficulty of use, technical problems, information overload, too much US content, unreliable content), and disadvantages are coded negatively, the most important disadvantage scores a minus- eight; the second most important disadvantage scores a minus-seven; the third most important disadvantage scores a minus-six; etc. (and if the disadvantage is not important at all, it scores a zero). These scores are presented in Table 3.2.3.6.

Table 3.2.3.6: Scoring of DIS-R

Disadvantages Score

Most Important -8

2nd Most Important -7

3rd Most Important -6

4th Most Important -5

5th Most Important -4

6th Most Important -3

7th Most Important -2

Least Important -1

Not Important 0

For example, a student who lists time intensiveness as the most important disadvantage to using the Net for research, information overload as the second most important disadvantage, technical problems as the third most important disadvantage, high cost as the fourth most important disadvantage, and who does not list any other disadvantages would score an average of 3.25 on the DIS-R scale (eight for time

86 intensiveness, seven for information overload, six for technical problems, five for high cost, and zero for each of the remaining disadvantages).

As with the ADV-R scale, I perform two major analysis on the DIS-R scale. First, I determine the most (and least) important disadvantages for students when they use the Net for research. For example, are technical problems more important as a disadvantage than high cost? Is time intensiveness more important as a disadvantage than information overload? Overall, which is the most important disadvantage to using the Net for research? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the various disadvantages for research and the independent variables. For example, what are the most important disadvantages for Aboriginal students compared to non-Aboriginal students? What are the most important disadvantages for part-time students compared to full-time students? What are the most important factors related to the disadvantages for research (ethnicity, student status, student level, etc.)?

For the ADV-C scale, I average the scores from Question 45 (which asks students what the advantages are when they use the Net for communication). As there are six advantages for communication listed on the survey (low cost, access to people, convenience, speed, ease of use, and direct communication), a six-point scale is used. Scores are identical to the scores for ADV-R (with a range from zero to six). Table 3.2.3.7 presents these scores.

Table 3.2.3.7: Scoring of ADV-C

Advantages Score

Most Important 6

2nd Most Important 5

3rd Most Important 4

4th Most Important 3

5th Most Important 2

Least Important 1

Not Important 0

87 For example, a student who lists access to people as the most important advantage to using the Net for communication, followed by increased speed, convenience, and low cost (in that order), and who does not list any other advantages would score an average of three on the ADV-C scale (six for access to people, five for increased speed, four for convenience, three for low cost, and zero each for the remaining advantages).

I perform two major analysis on the ADV-C scale. First, I determine the most (and least) important advantages for students when they use the Net for communication. For example, is access to people more important as an advantage than low cost? Is increased speed more important as an advantage than convenience? Overall, which is the most important advantage to using the Net for communication? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the various advantages for communication and the independent variables. For example, what are the most important advantages of first-year students compared to post first year students? What are the most important advantages of students located in urban areas compared to students located in rural areas? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the advantages of the Net for communication (year of study, location, type of high school attended, etc.)?

I develop the DIS-C scale by averaging the scores from Question 46 (which asks students what the disadvantages are when they use the Net for communication). As there are nine disadvantages for communication listed in the survey (time intensiveness, lack of access, high cost, difficulty of use, technical problems, information overload, replies often don’t come in a timely fashion, insecure transmissions, and the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses), a nine-point scale is used. Scores are similar to the DIS-R, except that the range extends to minus nine. These scores are presented in Table 3.2.3.8.

88 Table 3.2.3.8: Scoring of DIS-C

Disadvantages Score

Most Important -9

2nd Most Important -8

3rd Most Important -7

4th Most Important -6

5th Most Important -5

6th Most Important -4

7th Most Important -3

8th Most Important -2

Least Important -1

Not Important 0

For example, a student who lists time intensiveness as the most important disadvantage to using the Net for communication, information overload as the second most important disadvantage, technical problems as the third most important disadvantage, high cost as the fourth most important disadvantage, and who does not list any other disadvantages would score 3.33 on the DIS-C scale (nine for time intensiveness, eight for information overload, seven for technical problems, six for high cost, and zero for each of the remaining disadvantages).

As with the DIS-R scale, I perform two major analysis on the DIS-C scale. First, I determine the most (and least) important disadvantages for students when they use the Net for communication. For example, are technical problems more important as a disadvantage than high cost? Is time intensiveness more important as a disadvantage than information overload? Overall, which is the most important disadvantage to using the Net for communication? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the various disadvantages for communication and the independent variables. For example, what are the most important disadvantages for undergraduate students compared to post-graduate students? What are the most important disadvantages for students whose first language is English compared to those students whose first language is non-English? What are the most important

89 factors related to the disadvantages for communication (student type, first language, whether use of the Net is required, etc.)?

Net utility (UTIL) is designed to measure the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students, and is operationalized through the construction of four utility scales: the Net as a research tool (UTIL-R1), the different methods of finding information of the Web (UTIL-R2), the Net as a communication tool (UTIL-C1), and E-mail discussion lists (UTIL-C2). All of the questions used in the four scales are Seven-Point Likert style questions; and the higher the score on the scale, the more useful it is to the student.

For the UTIL-R1 scale, I average the scores from Question 32 (which asks students to rate the usefulness of the various research services they use) and Question 47 (which asks students to rate the overall usefulness of the Net as a research tool). A seven point scale is used: responses range from extremely useful (which scores a seven), to extremely useless (which scores a one), and varying points in between. Scores in the five to seven range indicate that the student feels that the Net has some degree of usefulness for performing research; a score of four indicates that the student isn’t sure whether the Net is useful or useless when performing research; and scores in the one to three range indicate that the student feels that the Net has some degree of uselessness when performing research. Table 3.2.3.9 presents these scores.

Table 3.2.3.9: Scoring of UTIL-R1

Usefulness Score Description

7 Extremely Useful

Useful 6 Useful

5 Somewhat Useful

Not Sure 4 Not Sure if Useful or Useless

3 Somewhat Useless

Useless 2 Useless

1 Extremely Useless

90 For example, a student who rates the Web as extremely useful as a research service, Telnet as useful, specialized Online Databases as somewhat useful, and who rates the overall utility of the Net as useful for research would score a six on the UTIL-R1 scale (seven for the Web, six for Telnet, five for the specialized Online Databases, and six for overall utility).

I perform two major analyses with the UTIL-R1 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) useful services. For example, is the Web more useful as a research service than Telnet? Is FTP more useful as a research services than Gopher? Overall, what is the most useful research service? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the utility of the various research services and the independent variables. For example, what are the most useful research services of male students compared to female students? What are the most useful research services of younger students compared to older students? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the utility of the various research services (age, gender, ethnicity, first language, etc.)?

I develop the UTIL-R2 scale by averaging the scores from Question 36 (which asks students to rate the usefulness of the different methods of finding information on the Web). As the same Seven-Point Likert Scale is used, scores are identical to the scores for R1 (with a range from one to seven). Scores are presented in Table 3.2.3.10.

Table 3.2.3.10: Scoring of UTIL-R2

Usefulness Score Description

7 Extremely Useful

Useful 6 Useful

5 Somewhat Useful

Not Sure 4 Not Sure if Useful or Useless

3 Somewhat Useless

Useless 2 Useless

1 Extremely Useless

91 For example, a student who rates single search engines as extremely useful for finding information on the Web, browsing/surfing as useful, and subject-directories as somewhat useful would score six on the USE-R2 (seven for single search engines, six for browsing/surfing, and five for subject-directories).

As with the UTIL-R1 scale, I perform two major analyses with the UTIL-R2 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) useful methods of finding information on the Web. For example, are single search engines more useful as a method of finding information on the Web than browsing/surfing? Are subject-directories more useful as a method of finding information on the Web than meta-searchers? Overall, what is the most useful method? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web and the independent variables. For example, what are the most useful methods of Aboriginal students compared to non-Aboriginal students? What are the most useful methods of part-time students compared to full-time students? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web (ethnicity, student status, student level, etc.)?

For the UTIL-C1 scale, I average the scores from Question 38 (which asks students to rate the usefulness of the communication services they use) and Question 48 (which asks students to rate the overall usefulness of the Net for communication). As the same

Seven-Point Likert Scale is used, scores are identical to the R1 and R2 scales outlined above (with a range from one to seven). Scores are presented in Table 3.2.3.11.

92 Table 3.2.3.11: Scoring of UTIL-C1

Usefulness Score Description

7 Extremely Useful

Useful 6 Useful

5 Somewhat Useful

Not Sure 4 Not Sure if Useful or Useless

3 Somewhat Useless

Useless 2 Useless

1 Extremely Useless

For example, a student who rates E-mail as extremely useful as a communication service, Chat as useful, Newsgroups as somewhat useful, and who rates the overall utility of the Net for communication as useful would score a six on the UTIL-C1 scale (seven for E-mail, six for Chat, five for the Newsgroups, and six for overall utility).

As with the two previous utility scales, I perform two major analyses with the

UTIL-C1 scale. First, I determine the most (and least) useful services. For example, is E-mail more useful as a communication service than Chat? Are Newsgroups more useful as a communication service than Internet Phone? Overall, what is the most useful communication service? Second, I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the utility of the various communication services and the independent variables. For example, what are the most useful communication services of first-year students compared to post first-year students? What are the most useful communication services of students located in urban areas compared to students located in rural areas? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the utility of the various communication services (year of study, location, type of high school attended, etc.)?

I develop the UTIL-C2 scale by calculating the scores from Question 42 (which asks students to rate the usefulness of E-mail discussion lists). Since this is a single item question, and the same Seven-Point Likert Scale is used, scores are identical to the C1 scale outlined above (with a range from one to seven). Scores are presented in Table

93 3.2.3.12.

Table 3.2.3.12: Scoring of UTIL-C2

Usefulness Score Description

7 Extremely Useful

Useful 6 Useful

5 Somewhat Useful

Not Sure 4 Not Sure if Useful or Useless

3 Somewhat Useless

Useless 2 Useless

1 Extremely Useless

I perform one type of analysis with the UTIL-C2 scale. I explore whether there are any significant relationships between the utility of E-mail discussion lists and the independent variables. For example, do undergraduate students find E-mail discussion lists more useful than post-graduate students? Do students whose first language is English find E-mail discussion lists more useful than students whose first language is non-English? Overall, what are the most important factors related to the utility of E-mail discussion lists (student type, first language, whether use of the Net is required, etc.)?

Two other dependent variables are also considered in this thesis, but both are of a secondary nature compared to the main dependent variables discussed above. These include whether students will use the Net, and their comfort level when online. Question 14 on the survey asks students whether they use (or do not use) the Net for research and/or communication as part of their studies. Whether students will use the Net is based on the work of various authors who examine a variety of factors which influence whether or not someone will use the Net. Factors which are considered include: age (Kraut, et al. 1998; Alamaki 1999), gender (Christie 1997; Fishman 1999), first language (Singhal 1997; Trokeloshvili & Jost 1997), ethnicity (Austin & Mahlman 2000; Kaye 2000), and whether students are required to use the Net as part of a course (Anderson 1999; California State University 2001). For the purposes of

94 this investigation, I adapt this process to apply specifically to the post-secondary student, and whether they will use (or not use) the Net for research and/or communication. Question 20 on the survey asks students how comfortable/confident they are when they use the Net. Comfort is based on the work of Hunter (1997b) and others (Bernstein 1997; Emley 1999), who studied a user’s comfort level as an important influence on levels of computer usage and usefulness. I extend this to study the importance of comfort level as it relates to a student’s use of the Net as a research and/or communication tool.

Both of these dependent variables are pursued in only a minor way here for two reasons. First, comfort with and use of the Net have already been studied in detail elsewhere (Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt 1998; Ertmer & Hruskocy 1999; Atkins & Vasu 2000; Lauman 2000; Smink 2000; Clyde & Klobas 2001; Osborn 2001; VanFossen 2001; Irizarry, et al. 2002; St. Amant 2002; Maloney 2003; Olcott & Mahar 2003). Second, examining these two dependent variables in detail would distract from the main focus of the study – which is to fill gaps in the evaluation literature of student usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post- secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction.

3.2.4 Independent Variables I chose the independent variables for examination within this study from three distinct sources: variables which are discussed in the literature – either relating generally to computers and instructional technology in education, or specifically to the Internet in education; variables recommended by the author’s advisory committee; and additional variables thought to be relevant to the sample.

The variables discussed in the literature include: age (Haynie 1999; Gustafson, et al. 2000), gender (Fan, et al. 1998; Young 2000), first language (GVU Center 1997; Austin & Mahlman 2000), ethnicity (Leigh 1999; Ruffini 1999), location – either urban or rural (Crews & Feinberg 2002; Grubesic 2002; Katsinas & Moeck 2002), year of study (Hill & Smith 1998; Clark & Wenig 1999; Parkinson 1999), type of program (Hansen 1995), whether use was required as part of the course (Parker 1997), length

95 of time using (Karsten & Roth 1998; Takacs, et al. 1999; Yildirim 2000), hours used per week (Becker & Ravitz 1999; Hill 1999; Mitra, et al. 1999), comfort level in using (Dusick 1998; Ropp 1999; Clark 2000), where one accesses (Bier, et al. 1996; Lauman 2000; Mitra & Steffensmeier 2000), having had training on how to use (Thurston, et al. 1996; Pugalee & Robinson 1998; Visscher & Bloemen 1999), and the availability of technical support (Parr 1999; Durrington, et al. 2000; Fuller 2000).

The variables recommended for inclusion in the study by the author’s advisory committee include: birthplace, student type, student status, type of high school attended, type of access, pay for access, whether access problems were encountered, and type of access problem. The variables which are thought to be relevant to the sample of students under consideration include: campus, course name, faculty, the type of Net account the student used, name of Web browser, browser operating system, name of E-mail client, E-mail client operating system, and whether subscribed to an

E-mail discussion list. A full list of the thirty independent variables (IV1-IV30), plus their corresponding survey questions, is found in the coding framework (Appendix B).

3.2.5 Validity and Reliability Validity is the extent to which the scales under consideration truly represent the concept being measured. Different types of validity include content validity, criterion- related validity and construct validity (DeVellis 1991). For the purposes of this investigation, construct validity is the most useful of the three, as it relates most directly to the relationships (or correlations) between variables. In this thesis, I will examine the construct validity of the three main concepts (usage, value and utility), and the scales constructed to measure each.

For each dependent variable, four different scales are constructed to measure the underlying research and/or communication dimensions of the variable (two for research, and two for communication). For example, utility (UTIL) is designed to measure the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post- secondary students, and it is operationalized through the construction of the following scales: utility of the Net as a research tool (UTIL-R1); utility of the different methods

96 of finding information of the Web (UTIL-R2); utility of the Net as a communication tool (UTIL-C1); and utility of E-mail discussion lists (UTIL-C2). Having four scales devised to explore each dependent variable is preferred over, for example, one scale that may try to combine all of the underlying dimensions (LaRose, et al. 2001).

Additionally, in scale construction, construct validity will usually be higher when each scale consists of the combined results of more than one item from the survey (Judd, et al. 1991). For example, to measure usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web (USE-R2), the scores from six items are averaged to give the final scale scores for each student (the scale score is the average of the scores from usage of browsing/surfing, single search engines, meta-search engines, subject- directories, seeing the address on tv or in a magazine usage, and being told the address). Ten of the twelve scales constructed are of this multiple-item composite type:

1. USE-R1 (the six different research services);

2. USE-R2 (the six different methods of finding information on the Web);

3. USE-C1 (the six different communication services); 4. ADV-R (the six advantages for research); 5. DIS-R (the eight disadvantages for research); 6. ADV-C (the six advantages for communication); 7. DIS-C (the nine disadvantages for communication);

8. UTIL-R1 (the utility of the six different research services and overall utility for research);

9. UTIL-R2 (the utility of the six different methods of finding information on the Web); and

10. UTIL-C1 (the utility of the six different communication services and overall utility for communication).

The two remaining scales – USE-C2 and UTIL-C2 – are not of the composite variety. However, as they both deal with a single issue (usage of and utility of E-mail discussion lists), single item questions were felt to suffice.

97 Reliability is the extent to which a scale which has been constructed would give the same results with a different (though roughly similar) sample (Garson 1999). Cronbach’s alpha is the most common form of reliability coefficient, and it is the one I used for this thesis. By convention, a coefficient score of .7 or greater is needed in order to include an item in the scale (Yaffee 1999). The final alpha scores for the ten composite scales (USE-R1, USE-R2, USE-C1, ADV-R, DIS-R, ADV-C, DIS-C,

UTIL-R1, UTIL-R2, and UTIL-C1) are all greater than .7. See the calculation tables for each alpha score in Appendix E.

3.3 Focus Group Research Focus groups are an accepted part of social science research methodology, and have been used to gather data on a variety of topics (Greenbaum 1994; Lunt 1996; Gerson 1998), including Internet use (Connaway, et al. 1997; Murray 1997). Focus groups consist of two basic elements – the person leading the discussion (the moderator), and a number of participants, usually ranging in size from four to twelve (with the preferred number between six and eight). The moderator leads the discussion on a certain topic – usually with questions which “focus” the respondents answers – to elicit respondent views on the topic being considered (Hakim 1987). I designed the focus groups for this thesis to gather data to supplement the quantitative data assembled by the survey (and to generate more in-depth insights into student usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool). However, it should be acknowledged that focus group research has other benefits, including the potential to empower participants (Catarell & Maclaren 1997). This was evident in the kinds of discussion that took place within student cohorts. For this study, I specifically asked students to discuss: the differences between traditional methods of research and/or communication, and Net research and/or communication; and the skills they feel are needed by students to research and communicate via the Net.

I chose the participants for the focus groups from the list of post-graduate students, Faculty of Arts, Griffith University. All were sent an E-mail inviting them to participate in the study. Out of a list of ninety-one post-graduates, ten responded positively. Additionally, to combat the response bias outlined in Chapter One, the E-mail was

98 turned into a poster and pasted around the Nathan Campus to entice post-graduate students from outside the Faculty of Arts to participate in the study. As a result, one student from the Faculty of Business Administration participated in the focus group sessions.

The post-graduate students were felt to be greater users of the Net due to the fact that they have relatively easier access compared to undergraduate students (there are labs for post-graduates only, as well as post-graduate access stations in many of the Schools on campus, while undergraduates can only use the common computer labs), and they have more hours online allotted per week than undergrad students (post- graduate students have thirty hours per week allotted through their post-graduate Net accounts, compared to five hours allotted for undergraduates). Also, as all of the post- graduate students were pursuing research-based degrees, there was a greater chance that they had been using the Net as part of their research activities; and that this usage would likely be more than just cursory. Generally, the longer a student uses the technology, the more one would expect them to become aware of its strengths and weaknesses; the post-graduates, therefore, would be better able (than the average undergraduate student) to give more in-depth opinions about their use of the Net for research and/or communication.

I conducted two focus group sessions for the thesis, both at the Nathan Campus of Griffith University. The first was held Monday April 27, 1998 and the second was held Tuesday April 28, 1998. Each session was divided into two parts: the first included having the participants fill out the same survey that the GU undergrad students had completed; the second included about an hour to an hour and a half discussion of their use of the Net as a research and/or communication tool. I acted as moderator for both sessions. The first session had six participants (four females and two males); the second had five participants (three males and two females). A complete list of the questions used in the focus group sessions is included as Appendix C.

99 The focus group content was analysed using the NVIVO software package. A free node analysis was undertaken with the data. The nodes which were used included:

1. advantages for research (six identified); 2. disadvantages for research (eight); 3. advantages for communication (six); 4. disadvantages for communication (nine); 5. differences between traditional research and Net research; 6. differences between traditional communication and Net communication; and 7. skills needed by students to research and/or communicate when online.

Additionally, other nodes (or themes) emerged when the analysis was undertaken. See Appendix D for a full listing of the Node Summary.

3.4 Summary In this chapter I outline the methodology that I will employ to address my research problem. I designed and developed a survey instrument to gather original quantitative data on the usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students. The survey included fifty-one questions, covering thirty independent variables and fourteen dependent variables; it was designed to gather information on the student user, student access to the Net, the availability of help and technical support for students, student use of the Net as a research tool, student use of the Net as a communication tool, the advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research, the advantages and disadvantages of the Net for communication, and the utility of the Net to students for research and/or communication.

The three main concepts of were utilized to help answer the research questions and sub-questions: usage was designed to describe student usage of the Net for research and/or communication; value was designed to examine the advantages and disadvantages of that Net usage; and utility was designed to explore the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool to post-secondary students. Each of the three concepts was operationalized through the construction of four scales (two to

100 explore the research dimension of the Net; two to explore the communication dimension). Two other dependent variables – whether student will use the Net in the first place, and their comfort levels when using the technology – are noted but are not pursued in this thesis because that work has already been undertaken elsewhere.

Additionally, thirty independent variables were presented. These included age, gender, first language, location (whether rural or urban), year of study, type of program, etc.; and they are considered so they can be analysed against the main dependent variables to determine, for example, which factors are related to usage, value, and/or utility.

Focus group sessions were designed to supplement this quantitative data with qualitative findings (and to generate in-depth insights into student usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool). This included obtaining student views on: the differences between traditional research and/or communication, and Net research and/or communication; and the skills that are needed to cope with researching and/or communicating in the online environment. I decided on this qualitative element to complement the quantitative data and to provide a more complete picture of student views on usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool.

In the following chapter, I present my research findings, weaving together the qualitative data collected from the focus groups with the quantitative data collected from the student surveys.

101 Chapter 4: Research Results

4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I outline the research results of the study, and combine the quantitative data collected through the student-answered surveys with the qualitative data collected through the focus group sessions. As noted above, the quantitative data was analysed with SPSS, and the qualitative data with NVIVO. Both types of data (quantitative and qualitative) are designed to help answer the research questions. In this chapter, I examine:

1. which programs students are using the most for their research and/or communication (RQ1i and iii), which methods they use the most to find information on the Web (RQ1ii), and whether they use E-mail discussion lists (RQ1iv); 2. the most important advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research and/or communication (RQ2i - iv); 3. which programs are the most useful for research and/or communication (RQ3i and iii), which methods are the most useful for finding information on the Web (RQ3ii), and the usefulness of E-mail discussion lists (RQ3iv); and 4. the skills needed for students to research and/or communicate in the online environment (RQ4i and ii).

The survey data is presented in tables throughout this section. The Focus Group Node Summary (Appendix D) lists the themes emerging from that analysis, and it includes the total number of times an issue was raised. These themes either support/confirm the survey results, or shed light on issues not already covered.

Overall, 457 students participated in the survey. A small number of surveys (N = 33) were considered unusable and were discarded. Students in those instances indicated they were using the Net, but stopped filling out their surveys, leaving incomplete

102 forms. Thus, a total of 424 usable surveys were collected. The overall completion rate for the sample was 92.8%.

Of the 424 students who completed the surveys, 53.8% (N = 228) used the Net to some degree or other for either research and/or communication. Further, 11 of those 228 participated in the two focus group sessions.

My analysis focuses on these 228 students. The remaining students who didn’t use the technology are not examined in detail for two reasons. First, exploring their demographic characteristics and the reasons why they didn’t use the Net in detail would detract from the main focus of the thesis – which is to fill the gaps in the evaluation literature of the Net by examining the usage, value and utility of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students in support of classroom-based instruction. Second, as noted above, much of that work has already been undertaken; pursuing it again would add little of value to the overall field of knowledge regarding the use of the Net in post-secondary education.

4.2 User Profile As noted above, the full sample consists of students from Aurora College (60.5%; N = 138), the Griffith University undergraduates (34.6%; N = 79), and the Focus Group students (4.8%; N = 11).

As Table 4.2.1 shows, although close to half (49.6%; N = 113) of the students fall into the 15-19 and 20-24 year age ranges, a significant proportion of students are older. Some students (9.2%; N = 21) did not give their age.

103 Table 4.2.1: Age

Additionally, the majority of students using the Net were female (60.5%; N = 138), spoke English as their first language (79.4%; N = 181), were born in Canada (60.5%; N = 138), and were of non-Aboriginal descent (62.7%; N = 143).

Tables 4.2.2 to 4.2.4 provide details of the other first languages, other birthplaces (besides Canada), and other ethnic backgrounds of the sample respondents. For analysis purposes, these other first languages were collapsed into “Aboriginal first language” and “neither English nor Aboriginal” categories; birthplaces besides Canada or Australia were combined into a “neither Canada or Australia” category; and respondents of Aboriginal descent were examined separately (although the Australian Aboriginal category was dropped in subsequent analysis due to only having one response).

104 Table 4.2.2: First Language

Table 4.2.3: Birthplace

Table 4.2.4: Descent

105 The majority of students (72.4%; N = 165) were in their first year of study, though there were students who were in their second year or later. These non-first year students included: Year 2 of 2 (19.7%; N = 45), Year 2 of 3 (4.4%; N = 10), Year 3 of 3 (3.1%; N = 7), and Year 4 of 4 (0.4%; N = 1). For analysis purposes, these “post first-year” students were combined into one category.

The majority of students were undergraduates (95.2%; N = 217). Additionally, the majority of students lived in a rural location (60.5%; N = 138). For the purposes of this study, the Aurora College students were classed as “rural” and the Griffith University and Focus Group students were classed as “urban”.

The largest number of students were taking social sciences courses at the time of the survey (51.3%; N = 117), while fewer students were taking business (25.9%; N = 59), science (15.8%; N = 36), or education (7.0%; N = 16) courses at the time of the survey.

The largest number of students were enrolled in Diploma programs at the time of the survey (46.9%; N = 107), while fewer students were enrolled in Degree (36.0%; N = 82), Adult Basic Education (12.3%; N = 28) or Graduate Degree (4.8%; N = 11) programs at the time of the survey. For analysis purposes, this “program” variable was turned into a “student level” scale, where Adult Basic Education students are considered “beginners”, diploma students are “intermediate”, degree students are “advanced”, and post-graduate students are “experts”.

The majority of students were from the Faculty of Humanities (39.0%; N = 89), while only one student was from the Faculty of Business Administration (0.4%; N = 1). Just under two-thirds of the students (60.5%; N = 138) did not list a faculty type.

The majority of students attended full-time (88.2%; N = 201). Additionally, the majority of the Australian students attended a public high school (25.4%; N = 58), while fewer students attended a private high school (14.0%; N = 32). There were no private high schools in the NWT when the survey was conducted (so the question was

106 not applicable to them).

The majority of students who indicated they had used the Net (86.4%; N = 197) used the technology on their own, and did not have a course requirement to do so.

Table 4.2.5 shows that the students were roughly evenly split (in terms of how long they had been using the Net) between just begun, a few months and a year, and a year or more.

Table 4.2.5: How Long Using the Net

Table 4.2.6 shows that the majority of students spent either less than one hour online per week, or between one and three hours online per week. Fewer students spent between three and five hours online per week, or over five hours online per week.

Table 4.2.6: Hours Online Per Week

While students were online for research, the majority of them used Netscape Navigator as their Web browser (72.7%; N = 157). Fewer students used Microsoft Internet Explorer (8.8%; N = 19) or both Netscape and Explorer (6.5%; N = 14). Some students were unsure which type of browser they used (12.0%; N = 26). Additionally,

107 the majority of those students who used the Web, used a Windows based system to access the Net (83.3%; N = 180). Fewer students used a Macintosh based system (2.8%; N = 6) or both the Windows and Macintosh operating environments (1.9%; N = 4). Some students were unsure which type of system they used (12.0%; N = 26).

While students were online for their communication, the largest number of them used Netscape E-mail as their main E-mail software program (34.0%; N = 50). Other E-mail packages used by students included: Eudora (17.0%; N = 25), Pine (12.2%; N = 18), Microsoft Exchange (3.4%; N = 5), Pegasus Mail (2.7%; N = 4), and both Eudora and Pine (4.8%; N = 7). Some students were unsure which type of E-mail package they used (18.4%; N = 27). Additionally, the majority of students who used E-mail used a Windows based system (54.4%; N = 80). Other systems students used for accessing E-mail included Unix (12.2%; N = 18), Macintosh (1.4%; N = 2), both Windows and Unix (4.8%; N = 7), and Windows and Macintosh (1.4%; N = 2). Some students were unsure which type of system they used (18.4%; N = 7).

Table 4.2.7 shows student responses when they were asked to rate their comfort level when using the Net. Responses ranged from extremely comfortable to extremely uncomfortable (and varying points in between). The majority of student (67.1%; N = 153) had some degree of comfort when using the Net – when combining extremely comfortable, comfortable, and somewhat comfortable.

Table 4.2.7: Comfort Level

108 The majority of students accessed the Net on-campus (53.5%; N = 122). Fewer students accessed the Net off-campus (33.3%; N = 760), or both on-campus and off- campus (13.2%; N = 30). The “on campus” category consists of accessing the Net in the library, a computer lab, or in a student office. The “off-campus” category consists of accessing the Net at home, a friends place, or a cyber-café.

The majority of students (61.8%; N = 141) had restricted access to the Net – either in terms of the number of hours they could log-on each week, or in terms of having access to the Net through a library or lab during certain hours of the day only. The remaining students had no such restrictions. Additionally, the majority of students received the service for free (69.7%; N = 159).

Just under half of the students encountered problems while trying to access the Net (54.4%; N = 104). These problems included lack of access (39.4%; N = 41), technical problems (38.5%; N = 40), and both a lack of access and technical problems (22.1%; N = 23). The “lack of access” category consists of the lab or library being closed, and all of the terminals being busy. The “technical problems” category consists of the local network being down, and the dial-in modems being busy.

The majority of students had not received any training on how to use the Net (52.6%; N = 120), whether that training be a formal session on how to use the Net or an informal tutorial with a friend. Of those who had received training, the majority felt that the training had increased their comfort levels when using the Net (77.8%; N = 84).

The majority of students had access to technical help or peer support (67.1%; N = 153) when they used the Net. Of the students who had access to this support, the majority felt that the support had increased their comfort levels when using the Net (79.7%; N = 122).

109 4.3 Usage of the Net for Research and/or Communication The World Wide Web was the most used research tool of students. As Table 4.3.1 shows, 94.7% (N = 216) of the students used the Web to some degree or other, with 87.7% (N = 200) naming the Web as their most used research tool. FTP was the second most used service (though it was used much less than the Web). Other services such as Gopher, specialized Online Databases, Telnet, and WAIS were not used to any great extent by students.

The Focus Group data confirmed the Web as the most used research service of the Net (it was amongst the Focus Group’s most frequent responses). This response from one focus group participant was typical:

In terms of using the Internet, actually surfing the Web or looking at sites on the Web, I would say I’m online anywhere from three to five hours a week, on average. Some weeks it might be ten, and other weeks it might only be a couple. For example, this week I’ve been online about nine hours already, but last week I was only on for a few.

Students used single search engines and browsing/surfing the most as methods to find information on the Web. As Table 4.3.2 shows, 68.4% (N = 156) of the students used single search engines to some degree or other, with 50.4% (N = 115) naming them as their most used method of finding information on the Web. Similarly, 64.0% (N = 146) of the students used browsing/surfing to some degree or other, with 25.4% (N = 57) naming it as their most used method of finding information on the Web.

The next most used methods of finding information on the Web were being told the address, subject-directories, and finding the addresses in magazines or on tv. Meta- search engines were the least used method of finding information on the Web.

Usage of the various research services of the Net and the different methods used to find information on the Web are presented in Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 on the following pages.

110 Table 4.3.1: Usage of Research Services

111 Table 4.3.2: Usage of Web Research Methods

112 E-mail was the most used communication service by students. As Table 4.3.3 shows, 59.7% (N = 136) of the students used E-mail to some degree or other, with 54.4% (N = 124) naming E-mail as their most used communication tool. Chat and Newsgroups were used next most – though both were used to a much lesser extent than E-mail. Other services such as Talk, Phone, and Net Video Conferencing were not used much at all by students.

The Focus Group data confirmed E-mail as the most used communication service of the Net (it too was amongst the Focus Group’s most frequent responses). As one participant observed:

I have to spend a good hour on E-mail every day because I’m part of two discussion groups which gives me an enormous amount of stuff, a lot of which I don’t read, but some of which I do. I find if I start reading it I am stuck there for an hour going through it. But I do find that I get a lot of useful material from it and I will select newspaper articles or particular discussions that I’m going on to read. And then I might reply to some or maybe just communicate with my cousins on my E-mail or whatever. This week, I haven’t surfed the Web or used any other part of the Internet at all, but I have used E-mail everyday.

113 Table 4.3.3: Usage of Communication Services

114 As Table 4.3.4 shows, 13.6% (N = 31) of students were subscribed to E-mail discussion lists.

Table 4.3.4: Usage of E-mail Discussion Lists

The focus group data confirmed that some students are using E-mail discussion lists, but with mixed responses. One participant noted:

I use E-mail discussion lists for my research. There’s two more that I want to be part of that I just haven’t joined since I’ve been at Griffith. There’s one that I was on that I got out of because I just didn’t find it useful; there’s another one which is called Record’s Net, which I find really useful. So I’d get about twenty messages a day from that one. I might read four or five of them and the rest are trash. But I still find it useful because it’s good for story ideas and for my general knowledge about that area. And then there’s another journalism discussion group, Australian Journal, which I am only interested in for professional purposes, like when people advertise for a conference that’s coming up or a new journal edition is coming out.

4.4 The Value of the Net for Research and/or Communication As noted earlier, the concept of value focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research and/or communication.

The students who used the Net for research rated the advantages of doing so, and as Table 4.4.1 shows, the most important advantage identified was access to information. Almost 85% of students (84.6%; N = 193) attached some degree of importance to this advantage, with 49.1% (N = 112) rating it as the most important one overall. Low cost, convenience, and increased speed emerged as the next most important advantages (though all three were of lesser importance). Access to current information and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net for research.

115 Access to information was also the most discussed topic at both focus group sessions. This response captures the essence of the groups’ perception:

You can go to any politician’s website and get a whole archive of his or her speeches and use that as a resource for putting questions to that politician. For example: point in fact, in 1998 you said this and now you’re saying that. I mean it’s just amazing to have access to all of that info as a journalism resource! Before the Internet, you had to keep collecting their quotes and then looking through all these wads of paper to see what they said in 1991 as opposed to 1997, or whatever.

Another observed:

I’m finding the Internet extremely useful for research. I can access information online, government information from another country as well as Australia, I can go to a government website, and have a look at the actual legislation, and policy documents. It’s great for that!

The impact of this access to information on the research process was also highlighted by several participants in both sessions. One concluded:

I think probably that the Internet is having an impact on the research process because it affects our (academic) boundaries. There is an academic tradition that says, okay, these are the boundaries from where we get our information and this is how we are going to get that information; and I think the Net is starting to disintegrate these boundaries.

Convenience of the Net and its advantage for research activity was another popular theme identified by the focus group members in both sessions. This response was typical:

In the research I’m doing, I’m using the Net a lot to access central bank figures. The Central Bank in Costa Rica decided to upload all of it’s information, and put all of it’s figures on to the Net. And I find that really useful because to go to the library and get those figures would take a lot longer.

116 Table 4.4.1: Advantages For Research

117 Another was equally as praiseworthy of this advantage:

The Net is a magnificent tool for conducting surveys and staging debates with a target audience that is world-wide. I was able to obtain the political opinions of lesbian writers on four continents very easily, without having to travel further than my university to do the interviews!

The remaining advantages of using the Net for research – low cost, increased speed, ease of use, and the ability to access current information – were also all raised as issues at the focus group sessions, although all were less popular as advantages than access to information and convenience. This response from one participant regarding cost was typical:

Because the cost of producing journals now is totally outrageous, and there are advantages to subscribing to the digital ones – especially in Griffith’s situation, where you have multiple campuses. If the information is in a hard-copy journal at one central location, it remains there: yet if it’s in a digital format, it can be accessed by all GU students. The university gets a big return on their investment when they use the digital versions.

One advantage to the use of the Net for research not raised through the survey data was the flexibility of the hypertext format. It became a topic in one session, with participants debating the merits of the advantages offered by hypertext. This participant captured the essence of that discussion:

It is a stylistic change from using plain text. The main thing is that it can bring in more than just text. You can have film clips and music and animation and whatever you want. If you want people to just read text, then you can do that. But it can do so much more than text, which is a great idea.

Students also rated the disadvantages of using the Net to do their research. As Table 4.4.2 shows, technical problems (such as down or busy servers, and slow access lines) and too much US information were the most import disadvantages for students. Over one-third of students (37.3%; N = 85) attached some degree of importance to technical problems as a disadvantage, with 23.7% (N = 54) naming it as the most important drawback. Similarly, 29.4% (N = 67) of students attached some degree of importance to too much US information as a disadvantage, with 9.6% (N = 22) naming it as the

118 most important drawback to using the Net for communication. Information overload, difficulty of use, time intensiveness, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages (though all four were of lesser importance). The issues of unreliable content and high cost were the least important disadvantages when using the Net for research.

Technical problems and too much US content were also popular themes emerging amongst the focus group discussions. As one participant noted in relation to too much US content:

One thing that I find is that I might do a search, say on Robert Menzies. I just want some basic detail on him. I know if I search Australian sites I’m going to come up with stuff on Sir Robert Menzies, the Australian Prime Minster back in the 1960s. But if I don’t limit it to Australian sites, and I do a search on Robert Menzies, I get Robert Menzies from Minnesota, Robert Menzies from New York, or wherever; mostly American stuff, which is of no use to me.

However, of the disadvantages listed on the survey, the most frequently identified issue by both focus group sessions was difficulty of use. Issues raised include everything from the difficulty of manipulating online resources, to the difficulty of online navigating, to the issue of portability. Participants noted that print was easily manipulated in a variety of familiar ways (for example, notes on the margins, manually cutting out articles, easily photocopied, etc.), while manipulation of hypertext (printing, copying, cutting and pasting) requires a printer and word-processing software with marginal note-taking capabilities. This response was typical of that discussion:

You can’t put post-it notes on your screen, like you can do with a book; and you can’t use a highlighter.

119 Table 4.4.2: Disadvantages For Research

120 Table 4.4.2: Disadvantages For Research (continued)

121 Additionally, the difficulty of online navigation was raised as an issue by several other participants:

It’s much easier to read off paper than off the screen. I usually just skim through something when it’s in virtual form. Whenever you want to flick back to a previous section or part, it’s a lot easier to do that with a book than it is to be forever scrolling around a document.

Finally, the issue of portability was raised. Participants felt that print was highly portable (for example, taking a book home from the library; reading it in the washroom, or on the beach or the bus) while digital text was much less so (for example, laptop computers can be used to overcome the portability issue, but they are not without their problems – cost, battery life, etc.). As one participant noted wryly:

Would you rather take a good book to bed, or a computer?

Another opined:

You see all the people in the trains, lots of them reading books and novels and papers. I mean, I haven’t seen anybody with a laptop and a mobile phone plugged into something, reading the morning news off the computer. I suppose it can be done, but I just haven’t seen it.

However, not all participants agreed that portability was such a disadvantage, as some advocated for the benefits of laptop use:

Well, it’s hard to read on a moving bus. But if I’m on my way to the university to print something, like the last change to my chapter six or whatever, then I can make some changes on the bus before I get to campus and that saves me time. So that’s what I use it for: to make corrections in my own writing, to edit stuff, etc.

The focus group results confirmed the other disadvantages for research highlighted by the surveys. High cost, the questionable reliability of online content, lack of access, information overload, and time intensiveness were all raised throughout the sessions.

122 The issue of cost was a hot topic, with this participant focussing on the growing commercial orientation of the Web:

I have three words for you: pay per use. I have a research account that’s very slim and if you ask me for money, I can’t afford it. When I go down to the library and use the journals, there’s no direct cost: the university’s funding me, and providing the journals in the library. Whereas, if I go and find a nice pay per use site somewhere, I’ll either go try to convince the university to subscribe to that site, or use up my research account. But once my account is empty for the semester, I can’t afford to access that site anymore – especially if it’s in US dollars.

Regarding the reliability of online information, another participant explained:

At least with journals and books you’ve got an editorial board or process. You know it’s been through these processes to get on there so that you can trust that source. In our department we tend to use only articles that have come from reliable peer-reviewed sources. For example, we don’t use Women’s Day magazine as a source, usually, unless we’re trying to make a point about Women’s Day.

The time required to search for resources prompted this student to observe:

I would say the main problem that I have with the Net is in not being able to find what I’m looking for. I want some paper that I know exists on the Web from the Department of Communication (or wherever). So I go in to the site, but when I get there they’ve got ten links. Do you want publications, research, staff, development? So I start going through these links to find this paper – it could take me, honestly, two hours and I may not even find what I’m looking for; it can sometimes be extremely time consuming for very little reward.

The focus group discussions also highlighted other disadvantages associated with use of the Net for research not noted in the survey results. These include plagiarism, the difficulty of citing online sources, the non-static unstable nature of online sources, use of the Net as a “toy” (for procrastination), and information “underload”.

123 Plagiarism was the most discussed disadvantage at both focus group sessions, and it is clearly something some students are acutely aware of and concerned about. Participants felt that allowing access to information via the Net made plagiarism easier (as it’s now harder to catch cheaters, even though instructors were now more aware of it). This response reflected the feeling of many:

With the access to information, as you say, it’s how you use it – and you can use it for good things or bad. There are certainly cases of students going to on-line sites and buying essays, as well as cases of students just finding a website with something that looks good, downloading it, printing it off and handing it in saying “here’s my report”.

Another participant noted:

That’s the problem. It would be very hard for me to find out whether it’s something coming off the Internet or whether the student has actually written it themselves. There’s so much information online it would be impossible to be familiar with it just to ensure that a student hadn’t plagiarized it.

The difficulty of citing online sources was also a strong theme mentioned in both focus groups. This student response sums up the tone of the discussion:

One thing that’s difficult for me with the Net as a research tool is that when I come to quote things, I quote it and then you have to give the reference at the end and it’s much easier to say, oh, yeah, well, so and so wrote this in this book, page eighteen, rather than say, oh, well, it came from “big [email protected]” on such and such a date and all that. It’s complicated when it comes to citing Net resources.

Participants identified stability as an important issue during both focus group sessions. They felt that print was much more stable than hypertext; and that print, once finished, “stays the same”, while digital texts can be altered by anyone with hacking skills or be moved altogether. As one participant explained:

I feel very insecure about using some of the online information because, even though I can take and print a copy of it for myself and for my files, it may not be there when I submit my thesis (it may have moved), and then what does your marker think?

124 Getting “hyper-tracked” was another important issue raised in both focus groups. As one focus group member stated:

I think the other thing that I find is that with the Net I can waste a lot of time. I can get taken off onto something that I didn’t even mean to look at – but it’s awfully interesting!; it’s “useful procrastination” for the post-graduate student.

Information underload was commonly identified by both focus groups. Regarding the information available in the differing formats, participants felt that much more information was available in print format than was available online. Participants felt that copyright and intellectual property issues hinder access to much of the information they would like to see online. For example, many old journal issues have not yet been put online, while a great deal of new information was retained in hard copy in order for the authors to receive royalties. One participant summed it up like this:

I have the problem of getting hold of back issues of materials – maybe stuff from five or ten years ago (which is the research I’m looking at). I can get 1997, 1996, sometimes 1995, but not anything below that. And that’s a problem, because I know those journals go back to the 1970's. But they have decided the cost of putting that online is too much, so it’s not available.

The students who used the Net for communication rated the advantages of doing so. As Table 4.4.3 shows, low cost, access to people, and convenience were the three most important advantages to using the Net for communication. Over forty percent of students (43.9%; N = 100) attached some degree of importance to low cost as an advantage, with 21.5% (N = 49) rating it the most important. Similarly, 42.5% (N = 97) of students attached some degree of importance to access to people as a benefit, with 17.1% (N = 39) rating it as the most important; and 39.5% (N = 90) of students attached some degree of importance to convenience as a benefit, with 10.1% (N = 23) rating it as the most important. Increased speed emerged as the next most important advantage (though it was of lesser importance). Direct communication and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net for communication.

125 Table 4.4.3: Advantages For Communication

126 The focus group discussions were consistent with the survey results: the three most important advantages listed on the survey (access to people, low cost, and convenience) were also strongly identified as advantages by the focus group participants. Access to people and convenience were mentioned most, while low cost was mentioned less during both sessions.

Participants agreed that in terms of access, electronic communication promotes access to people more so than does traditional communication: it allows access to people from dispersed communities, as long as they are online and have E-mail addresses. As one student noted:

For me, I think I use the Net because it will more put me in touch with other people or articles or books or things or organizations that I can then contact. And then I might contact them then using E-mail to extract information from somebody or something, rather than actually taking a lot of stuff off the Web.

Access to people – or human beings – was an issue for another participant:

Well, I don’t know what anyone else is like in their field, but my supervisor has explained to me that basically about four or five (maybe six) people in the world are going to be interested in what I’m doing. E-mail is vital because to talk to those key people – one of which is in Australia, and the rest of which are in the US and the UK – I have to have E-mail. I can communicate with them and let them know who I am and what I’m doing, and they let me know what they do and what research is going on in our field. Really, I just E-mail people these days – I rarely use the phone.

Additionally, participants felt that one of the factors contributing to use of the Net for communication was its low cost. As one focus group member noted:

E-mail is still faster than regular mail. Plus you don’t have to pay for postage: you can send a manuscript for an article in a journal, and you just E-mail and it costs nothing. But if you were to post it, God knows how many dollars it costs to send it overseas to the States.

127 Convenience was also raised as advantage of communicating via the Net. Participants felt that electronic communication was more convenient than traditional communication processes. You can work from home or wherever you have your computer set up, and you don’t have to wait to coordinate schedules with the person you are trying to communicate with:

If there is a distance involved, I don’t know how we have survived without E-mail to contact people in other countries. It’s so quick and so easy. You don’t have to call on the phone and worry whether it’s a holiday or not, or if they’re even there.

The other advantages listed on the survey – increased speed, direct communication and ease of use – were also raised during the focus group sessions, but less so than the other advantages outlined above. The desire for increased speed was raised at both focus groups, whereas the latter two advantages were mentioned less (each being raised in one session only).

The focus group analysis also highlighted two other advantages to use of the Net for communication not noted in the survey results: the empowering nature of E-mail, and the advantages of informal communication over the Net. These themes were raised by and discussed by participants in both sessions.

Participants felt that one of the benefits of online communication was that it eliminated the “shyness” factor from traditional communication, which can be a reason for not communicating with someone in person. As one participant observed:

Sometimes you can E-mail somebody who is very prominent – like a very famous writer in a far-off city. Yet if I was to meet her face-to-face, I’d probably babble on and on – rather than make intelligent conversation – because I love her work and am probably sort of a fan.

128 Another explained:

I know this would vary from person to person, but one of the most useful features I find with E-mail is that it eliminates the daunting nature of initial contact. It’s certainly less daunting than speaking to someone on the telephone, or approaching them face-to-face like at a conference, going up to them and saying, hi, whoever you are, my name’s so and so and I’m from Griffith University. That can be a really difficult thing for a lot of people to do, and I’ll avoid it if I can. But I have no problem sending an E-mail to someone, introducing myself and my work.

Additionally, participants identified the informal nature of online communication as one of its advantages, as this response suggests:

You can actually be quite abrupt with people online – even my supervisor. For example, he E-mailed me asking me “where is that chapter that is so far overdue?”. And I thought, “oh, God, it’s not finished, now what am I going to do?” Then I thought, “I can do this, because I don’t actually have to speak to him. I can just E-mail him back, and I don’t even have to speak to him.” And I did just that – E-mailed him back saying that “it’s in progress and he’ll get it when it’s finished”, which is something I would never have said face-to-face.

Some participants took this further, lauding online communication over traditional approaches:

I’ve found that I have better contact with some people by E-mail than I do face- to-face. This guy I used to work for, when you talk to him in person, he was really abrupt, he was rude. But I speak with him via E-mail now and he’s coming across as just the nicest person. It’s really weird...maybe he’s more relaxed online, I don’t know, but the communication is better.

Students also rated the disadvantages of using the Net for communication. As Table 4.4.4 shows, technical problems (such as down or busy servers, or E-mail going missing) was the most important disadvantage listed by students. Just under one-quarter of students (24.6%; N = 53) attached some degree of importance to technical problems as a drawback, with 15.4% (N = 35) rating it as the most important disadvantage to using the Net for communication. The slow replies to E-mail, the difficulty of finding E- mail addresses, information overload, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages (though all four were of lesser importance). Security problems, time intensiveness, difficulty of use, and high cost were the least important disadvantages when using the Net for communication.

129 The focus group results were generally consistent with the survey results, with one major exception: the most discussed disadvantage during the focus groups was information overload (and junk E-mail). It was the most frequently discussed theme raised during both sessions, while technical problems (the most important disadvantage noted by the surveys) was discussed about half as much. As one participant noted regarding the information overload associated with Net communication:

I used to be part of two discussion lists, but I couldn’t keep up. I’d get a bunch of E-mails every day..... read this book or look at that article or comment on this discussion. Most of the information was really interesting, but it got to the point where it was just too much. So I un-subscribed to both of them.

And as another noted, the global reach of junk E-mail is a key concern:

I hate junk E-mail! I mean, I wish they could just ban it. I’ve received all kinds of crap. One showed how you could get a virtual girlfriend or boyfriend. Another was telling me about discount airfares within the US. And I’m like, how did they find me in Australia, and why would they send it to me here?

The other disadvantages noted by the survey – including slow replies to E-mail, lack of access and time intensiveness – were also mirrored in the focus group discussions. Frustration over slow replies to E-mail was a topic for significant discussion during both focus groups. This response typified the frustration over the slowness of some in replying to E-mail communication:

One problem though, that bugs me, is the people who have E-mail accounts who don’t use them. I’ve been E-mailing a lot of academics in the past few months. Hardly any of them read their E-mail. They all have E-mail addresses and they’re all on the Web. There was one I E-mailed about 18 months ago that I really needed to contact. She hadn’t logged in months, and finally tech support told me her account was closed down. That part’s very frustrating.

130 Table 4.4.4: Disadvantages For Communication

131 Table 4.4.4: Disadvantages For Communication (continued)

132 Lack of universal access to the Net for communication purposes was widely acknowledged and summed up by this observation:

I agree that the Net is a tool. But there’s also this assumption that everyone has a computer and everyone’s got access to the Net. That’s not true. Computers can exclude people on the basis of gender or the basis of race or the basis of economic position, as well as literacy skill, age, and education.

One respondent likened the demands of E-mail to other technologies in their early stages of implementation:

It’s sort of like what the fax machine used to be like. You’d be in an office and a fax would come through, and everyone would drop what their doing to work on what came through the fax. Now it’s E-mail. Everyone just drops what they’re doing to answer the E-mail, and then goes back to work. It wastes a lot of our time to continuously answer these messages, especially when you’ve got somebody on the other end using it for really mundane things.

Other issues – such as security problems, high cost, and the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses – were also mentioned during the focus group sessions, but all were raised on a few occasions only.

The focus group discussions highlighted two other disadvantages associated with use of the Net for communication not noted in the survey results. These include the intertwined issues of miscommunication and flaming, and the “sterile” nature of some online communication. Each was raised on a number of occasions during both focus groups sessions. Participants felt that the face-to-face mode of communication was much more reliable than the digital mode – there was always the chance for miscommunication with the lack of social cues, as one participant concluded:

I mean I see the Net as a tool, but it’s not the be all and end all. I mean, I can’t imagine interviewing anybody through the Net. I’m going to interview Jenny George [a federal labour union official] Thursday afternoon, and there’s just no way I could ever get all the information I need from her over the E-mail, or doing it via a chat site or whatever. You’d miss out on those inflections of the voice, whole mannerisms, whatever. For me, there’s nothing that can replace the sort of face-to-face research that I’m doing.

133 Flaming raised the ire of many of the participants, as outlined by this student:

Here’s a good example for you: I know I can get into an argument online quite easily. I can find a user group and start an argument, or I could get into leading a philosophical discussion. It all depends on the level of argument I’m looking for: a slaying match or something at a little higher level.

From another perspective, the tone of E-mails was identified as being crucial for good communication:

It becomes very clinical because, I know when I respond to my students I interact with them and might even joke with them or play with the questions. But when it’s electronic, and you go to put it on paper, you think, “what are the words I need to use now to ask just this question.”

Another home-based participant noted this disadvantage associated with electronic communication:

I’ve spent about the last three months working primarily from home and using E-mail basically to contact people. It is interesting because doing that I get a lot more work done. At the same time, I lose a lot of a casual sort of communication. I mean I was not even having any type of casual conversation with anyone in a given day. If you E-mail someone on a business matter, they might E-mail you back pretty quickly, sometimes within minutes. But if it’s a chatty sort of E-mail, people usually put it down the list in terms of a reply. And it’s pretty grim when even your partner does not return your chatty E-mails!

4.5 The Utility of the Net for Research and/or Communication The Web was the most useful of the research tools used by students. As Table 4.5.1 shows, the Web was chosen either extremely useful, useful, or somewhat useful by 94.4% of the students who used it, with 34.3% (N = 74) naming it an extremely useful research tool. FTP emerged as the next most useful tool (though it was much less useful than the Web), and the remaining services were not that useful at all for research.

134 This response from the focus group discussions supported these findings, but with an important caveat:

I think it depends on the topic that you’re researching. For me, I’m actually getting quite a few essays and stuff off the Internet from various writers that have published online. Okay, so I know it hasn’t been through any editorial board, but I mean, they’re just essays like they are in print, and now I have access to them, which I find quite useful.

Another explained the broad attraction of the Web:

For example, I’m looking at a number of different community based organizations – radio and broadcasting organizations – and a lot of them now have websites. So the Internet is giving me an opportunity to develop an overview of what’s going on in that area, as well as it’s given me a base from which to draw a sample as well. I find it’s really useful for that.

Students also rated the usefulness of each of the methods they used to find information on the Web. As Table 4.5.2 shows, single search engines and browsing/surfing were the most useful of the methods of finding information online. Over 90% of students (93.6%; N = 146) found single search engines to have some degree of usefulness (when combining extremely useful, useful and somewhat useful), with 31.4% (N = 49) naming it as an extremely useful method of finding information on the Web. Similarly, 87% of students (N = 127) found browsing/surfing to have some degree of usefulness, with 23.3% (N = 34) naming it as an extremely useful method of finding information on the Web. Being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address in a magazine or on tv were the next most useful methods, while meta-search engines were the least useful method of finding information on the Web

The usefulness of the various research services of the Net and the different methods used to find information on the Web are presented in Tables 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 on the following pages.

135 Table 4.5.1: Utility of Research Services

136 Table 4.5.2: Utility of Web Research Methods

137 The students who used the Net as a research tool rated its overall usefulness for that purpose. Almost 95% (94.9%; N = 205) found the Net useful – to some degree or other – as a research tool, with 35.6% (N = 77) naming the Net as extremely useful. Table 4.5.3 shows the overall usefulness of the Net as for research.

Table 4.5.3 Overall Utility of the Net for Research

The students also gave their views on what would improve the usefulness of the Net for research. These suggestions included:

1. offer more training so students can be more efficient/effective in their research (N = 29); 2. improve access to the Net (N = 27); 3. improve the searchers/indexing for more specific search results/less extraneous information (N = 25); 4. increase local content (N = 22); 5. reduce the technical difficulties, especially to improve speed (N = 15); 6. improve reliability of Net sources (N = 6); 7. reduce the cost so students can access the Net at home (N = 2); 8. make time available so students can become more familiar with it (N = 2); 9. integrate the Net into regular classes, rather than treating Net research as a separate, speciality item (N = 2); 10. increase the amount of information available online (N = 2) 11. update Web pages more frequently (N = 1); and 12. have computer system voice-controlled (N = 2).

138 E-mail was the most useful of the communication tools used by students. As Table 4.5.4 shows, E-mail was chosen either extremely useful, useful, or somewhat useful by 97.8% (N = 133) of the students who used it, with 61% (N = 83) naming it as an extremely useful communication tool. Chat and Newsgroups were the next most useful communication tools, while Talk, Phone and Video-Conferencing were much less useful as communication tools.

The utility of E-mail was a strong element of the focus group discussions, as this response suggests:

I guess if I had to choose between the two, I’d rather have access to E-mail than the Web. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Web... that I can do things from the office, that I don’t have to go out to go to work, don’t have to worry whether it’s cold or hot, I don’t have to go anywhere. I don’t even have to go to the library, because I can access the information from my computer. But the simple truth is I use E-mail more than the Web. It’s the first thing I do every morning (check my E-mail), and it stays on all day until I go home. I just find it really useful.

Participants also agreed that the other communication services of the Net could be useful, as this observation concludes:

I think news groups and list services are great for answering specialist questions in a way that you could never do before. You might have this really obscure specialized question and you can post it on a newsgroup and you know that there might be twenty experts around the world who read it and then give you an answer. I can’t imagine how you would answer that question without those Net services.

139 Table 4.5.4: Utility of Communication Services

140 Those students who used E-mail discussion lists rated the usefulness of these lists. Almost 90% (87.1%; N = 27) found E-mail discussion lists useful – to some degree or other – for communication, with 25.8% (N = 8) naming discussion lists as extremely useful. Table 4.5.5 shows the usefulness of E-mail discussion lists.

Table 4.5.5: Utility of E-mail Discussion Lists

This high level of acknowledgement of the utility of E-mail discussion lists was confirmed by focus group participants. The speed of response was particularly crucial to this utility, as one student commented:

The times when I found discussion lists the most useful was when I wanted something. I just sent a message and got a reply right away. I find that aspect excellent.

The students who used the Net as a communication tool also rated its overall usefulness for that purpose. Almost 99% (98.6%; N = 145) found the Net useful – to some degree or other – as a communication tool, with 44.2% (N = 65) naming the Net as extremely useful. Table 4.5.6 shows the overall usefulness of the Net for communication.

141 Table 4.5.6 Overall Utility of the Net for Communication

The students also gave their views on what would improve the usefulness of the Net for communication. These suggestions included:

1. offer more training, so students will know how to use it better, and can learn to find E-mail addresses (N = 13); 2. improve access to the Net, especially for E-mail (N = 11); 3. reduce the technical difficulties – no more lost E-mail (N = 11); 4. integrate E-mail into regular classes, so that it is more accepted as a method of communication, and people will respond to their messages in a more timely fashion (N = 5); 5. have computer systems voice-controlled (N = 2); 6. reduce the cost so students can access E-mail at home (N = 2); 7. make time available so students can become more familiar with it (N = 2); 8. improve the security of transmissions (N = 1); and 9. reduce the junk mail (N = 1).

4.6 Skills Needed by Students for Net Research and/or Communication One of the major themes to emerge from the focus group discussions were the skills needed to cope with researching and/or communicating via the Net. The issue of “skills” was one of the most frequently raised themes during both focus groups. Participants agreed that these skills encompass a variety of tasks: knowing how to find information online, having the scrolling skills necessary to navigate when online, and knowing what to do with what you retrieve (from evaluation, analysis, and writing). As

142 one participant noted, possessing the required skills involved an ongoing learning process:

The point is that people are going to have to learn research skills all over again. They are going to have to get good at being able to read, comprehend, and determine for themselves: is this a good article? Does it make sense? Is there justification and support for it? It’s back to the basic skills of research.

Having effective scrolling and navigation skills were frequently raised as concerns by participants of both groups, with this student highlighting a common concern:

You know, one problem that I have is that when you have the digital version, scrolling through pages is not the same as flicking through pages in printed form....it’s much more difficult with the electronic version.

Another suggested that time online improves this skill:

Scrolling and navigating requires fine motor skills, which I don’t really have. I used to be really klutzy....I’d be scrolling through a document and end up 10 pages from where I should be, and ask myself “how did that happen”? But the more I use it (online information), the better I become. I’m actually quite good at it now!

Focus group participants also highlighted three additional skills that student need to cope with online research and communication: managing the information that is retrieved (which links to the problem of information overload, discussed above); learning how to properly cite online sources; and proper “Netiquette”.

Participants agreed that students will need the skills to “keep up” with all of the information generated by the Net, so they don’t get swamped and overloaded. As well as flowing from the volume of material on the Web, information overload can occur through the communication side of the Net, as one participant concluded:

143 The only disadvantage I’ve found is information overload. I was working on a research project about twelve months ago and the person who ran the project would send about a dozen E-mails everyday on issues related to this huge project. And though a lot of it wasn’t really relevant to the part that I was working on, it was sent to me as background information. It was a real case of information overload. I couldn’t deal with that amount of information. I knew I would rather have had a meeting with the people involved to give each other an update of what was going on, and be told verbally and in point form rather than get six attachments a day of ten pages each. I just got to the point where I said, “forget it, I’m not reading all that”.

Participants recognized that the ability to file E-mails into folders (a task which was difficult to do in non-graphical E-mail systems, like PINE) helps with this information management process, as does the use of threads in newsgroup discussions, and the use of bookmarks for the Web.

Group members also suggested that as the Net has become more and more accepted in post-secondary education, the citing of online sources becomes less of an issue. They recognized that bibliographic software (such as Citation) have built-in references for all types of Net resources: from E-mails to newsgroup discussions to Websites to online journals and magazines. But they also recognized that students will have to possess the skills necessary to use that software.

The issue of Net etiquette (or “Netiquette”) was also raised by the focus group participants. They felt that students will need to learn proper netiquette to avoid misunderstandings, as this student suggested:

I published something where I quoted from the Net and I got into so much trouble because the people were very upset that they had supposedly been quoted out of context (in a chat room) and they thought that a chat room was like a private conversation and they were a lot more open about what they wrote, which they wouldn’t have been if they had known that others could also listen in.

144 Another reminded peers of other kinds of breaches of protocol:

Some people have really bad manners when they use their E-mail. Also, some of them have no clue as to proper etiquette. Like if they receive a signed written letter or a memo, they should know to write back in hard-copy, and not send an E-mail, which is bad form. People need to learn when it’s appropriate to use which type of communication.

4.7 Summary In this chapter I have presented the raw data obtained by the surveys as well as the qualitative data gathered through the two focus groups sessions to answer parts of all four research questions designed for this study.

In the first part of this chapter, I developed a demographic profile of the student user. The survey data revealed that the students who used the Net for their research and communication were predominantly younger, female, English speaking, born in Canada, and were of non-Aboriginal descent. They were also most likely to be in their first year of study, to be undergraduates, to be taking social sciences courses, to be enrolled in diploma programs, and to be attending full-time.

Additionally, the majority of students used the Net on their own (without a course requirement to do so), and were roughly evenly split in terms of how long they had been using the Net. The majority of students spent less than one hour online per week, and they had some degree of comfort when they were online. Netscape Navigator was the main Web browser used by students; Netscape E-mail was the most used E-mail program. Students mostly used a windows environment to access both the Web and E- mail.

Finally, the majority of students accessed the Net on campus, had restricted access to the Net, received their Net access for free, and had encountered problems when they tried to get online. They were also more likely not to have received training on how to use the Net, although they were more likely to have access to technical or peer support. In both cases, having access to training and technical/peer support increased student

145 confidence/comfort when using the Net.

In the section on usage, I outlined the main research and/or communication programs used by students. The survey data and focus group discussions showed that the Web was the most used research tool by students (thus answering RQ1i). FTP was the second most used service, and the other research services were not used to any great extent by students. Single search engines and browsing/surfing were the most used methods of finding information on the Web (thus answering RQ1ii). Being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address on tv or in a magazine were the next most used methods; meta-search engines were the least used as a method of finding information on the Web. The survey data and focus group discussions also confirmed that E-mail was the most used communication service for students (thus answering RQ1iii). Chat and Newsgroups were the next most used services, and the other communication services were not used much at all by students. Finally, the survey data and focus group discussion showed that E-mail discussion lists were being used by some students (thus answering RQ1iv).

In the section on value, I examined the advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research and/or communication. The survey data and focus group discussions suggest that the most important advantage to using the Net for research was access to information (thus answering RQ2i). Low cost, convenience, and increased speed emerged as the next most important advantages. Access to current information and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net for research. One advantage to using the Net for research not raised through the survey data – but which was raised in the focus groups – was the flexibility of the hypertext format to convey more than just text.

The survey data revealed that technical problems (such as down or busy servers, and slow access lines) and too much US information were the most import disadvantages for students (thus answering RQ2ii). Information overload, difficulty of use, time intensiveness, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages. The issues of unreliable content and high cost were the least important disadvantages

146 when using the Net for research. The focus group discussions were generally consistent with the survey results, although the most discussed disadvantage at those sessions was difficulty of use (that is, the difficulty of manipulating online resources, the difficulty of online navigating, the issue of portability). The focus group discussions also highlighted other disadvantages associated with use of the Net for research not noted in the survey results. These included plagiarism, the difficulty of citing online sources, the non-static unstable nature of online sources, use of the Net as a “toy” (for procrastination), and information “underload”.

The survey data and focus group discussions showed that low cost, access to people, and convenience were perceived as the three most important advantages to using the Net for communication (thus answering RQ2iii). Increased speed emerged as the next most important advantage. Direct communication and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net for communication. The focus group analysis also highlighted two other advantages to use of the Net for communication not noted in the survey results: the empowering nature of E-mail and the advantages of informal communication over the Net.

Finally, the survey data suggest that technical problems (such as down or busy servers, or E-mail going missing) were the most important disadvantages identified by students (thus answering RQ2iv). The slow replies to E-mail, the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses, information overload, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages. Security problems, time intensiveness, difficulty of use, and high cost were the least important disadvantages perceived by the students. The focus group results were generally consistent with the survey results, with one major exception: the most discussed disadvantage during the focus groups was information overload (and junk E-mail). Two other disadvantages associated with use of the Net for communication not noted in the survey results – which were raised during the focus group discussions – were the intertwined issues of miscommunication and flaming, and the “sterile” nature of some online communication.

147 In the section on utility, I examined the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool. The data from the surveys and focus groups showed conclusively that the Web was perceived as the most useful research tool by students (thus answering RQ3i). FTP was the second most useful tool, and the other research services proved to be not that useful at all. Single search engines and browsing/surfing were identified as the most useful methods of finding information on the Web (thus answering RQ3ii). The next most useful methods were being told the address, subject- directories, and seeing the address in a magazine or on tv. Meta-search engines were the least useful method of finding information on the Web. Almost 95% of students found the Net useful – to some degree or other – as a research tool.

The survey data and focus group discussions also confirmed that E-mail was the most useful communication service of students (thus answering RQ3iii). Chat and Newsgroups were the next most useful communication tools. Talk, Phone and Video- Conferencing were not that useful to students. Almost 90% of the students who used E-mail discussion lists found those lists useful – to some degree or other – for communication (thus answering RQ31iv). Almost 99% of students found the Net useful – to some degree or other – as a communication tool.

In the final section of this chapter, I outlined focus group participant views on the skills needed by students to conduct research and/or communicate via the Net (thus answering RQ4i and ii). These skills encompass a variety of tasks, including knowing how to find information online, having the scrolling skills necessary to navigate when online, and knowing what to do with the information you retrieve. Three additional skills that students identified as important in helping them to cope with online research and/or communication were managing the information that is retrieved, learning how to properly cite online sources, and proper “Netiquette”.

In the next chapter, I undertake an in-depth statistical analysis of the raw survey results outlined here.

148 Chapter 5: Analysis

5.1 Introduction The survey was designed to help answer the research questions outlined for this study. Parts of these research questions were answered by the raw survey results presented in Chapter Four; the remaining parts of those questions are answered through the analysis of that raw data (presented here). In this chapter, I examine:

1. which factors are related to usage of the various research services and the different methods of finding information on the Web (RQ1v); which factors are related to usage of the various communication services and E-mail discussion lists (RQ1vi); and overall, which programs (research or communication) students use the most (RQ1vii); 2. what factors are related to the advantages and disadvantages of the Net as a research and/or communication tool (RQ2v and vi); the overall value of the Net as a research and/or communication tool (RQ2vii); 3. which factors are related to the utility of the various research services and the different methods of finding information on the Web (RQ3v); which factors are related to the utility of the various communication services and E-mail discussion lists (RQ3vi); and overall, which programs (research or communication) are the most useful for students (RQ3vii); and 4. the inter-relationships between usage, value and utility.

I used the three main concepts as organizing themes for the analysis. I examined Net usage first, followed by value and utility. Five types of statistical tests were performed for the data analysis: significance testing, bivariate correlations, partial correlations, multiple regressions, and reliability analysis.

Significance testing was used to determine whether the differences which occurred between the mean scores on the various usage, value and utility scales were statistically significant. For example, were the differences in means between Web usage, Telnet usage, FTP usage, Gopher usage, WAIS usage and the usage of specialized Online

149 Databases the result of mere chance, or were these differences significant statistically? (Holt 1991; Fink 1995b). The Friedman test was used as the test procedure (SPSS Inc. 1998).

The bivariate correlation procedure was used to scan the entire data-set to see whether there were any relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables, and to determine the variables which should be included in the multiple regression equations. All of the variables were normally distributed; therefore Pearson’s r was used as the correlation coefficient (Easton & McColl 2000). Significance was determined at .05, an appropriate level for social science research (Fink 1995a).

One of the issues highlighted with the initial correlation scan was that of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity means that there is a high multiple correlation between the independent variables, making it very difficult to separate out the effects of each variable (Norusis 2003). Where independent variables are highly correlated (that is, those that have an r score of over +/- .600), they must be identified and addressed (Vos, et al 2002: 18). Of the 30 independent variables scanned, a number of statistical interaction effects were identified. Table 5.1.1 shows the strong positive relationship between the independent variables of location and student level (r = .848; p = .000).

Table 5.1.1: Multicollinearity of Location and Student Level

150 Therefore, the partial correlation procedure – instead of the bivariate correlation procedure – was used to determine if there truly was a correlation between location and student level (SPSS 1998). For example, if it was determined (using the bivariate correlation procedure) that location was correlated with usage of E-mail discussion lists, the test was run again using the partial correlation procedure (but this time, controlling for student level). Only those correlations which held true after the partial correlation procedures were run are reported here.

As Table 5.1.2 in Appendix E shows, multicollinearity between the independent variables of “where access”, “type of access” and “pay for access” was also identified (that is, many of the inter-correlated r scores were above .600). However, multicollinearity is not always an important issue, and can be dismissed where theory or reason dictate (MacPherson 1999). For example, students who accessed the Net “on campus” used the accounts provided to them by the university or college. By design, those accounts were provided for free and they had restricted access (either in terms of the total number of hours students could access the Net per week, or in the time of day they could go online). Therefore, it was not surprising that there was a strong inter-correlation between accessing on campus, having to pay to get online, and having restricted access. In light of the Net access profile of the students in this sample, the multicollinearity between these variables was ignored during subsequent analysis.

Additionally, as Table 5.1.3 in Appendix E shows, there were no statistical interaction effects between the independent variables of age and gender (that is, they were not related to any significant extent). This is somewhat surprising, given the findings of other researchers who noted strong inter-relationships between those two variables (Comber, et al 1997; Colley & Comber 2003).

Once I identified relationships between independent and dependent variables, I used multiple regression analysis to determine which independent variables were the strongest predictors of the dependent variables. The adjusted square of the multiple correlation coefficient (R2) was used as the test statistic for the multiple regression

151 analyses (Norman & Streiner 1997). Additionally, the unstandardized (b) and standardized (B) beta coefficients were provided so as to highlight the size and direction of the relationships (Statsoft Inc. 2003).

Finally, reliability analysis was used to test the overall reliability of the scales. Cronbach’s alpha was used as the test statistic in those instances (Coakes & Steed 1997). All alpha scores exceeded .7, indicating that the scales were indeed reliable.

Not all of the statistical tests preformed on the thirty independent variables listed on the survey are reported here; a total of eight variables were omitted for various reasons. First, some variables had low numbers of responses in some of the variable categories (or low variability). For example, of the students who answered the question asking which faculty they belonged to, all (except one) reported that they were from the Faculty of Humanities. Further statistical analysis could not realistically be performed when one category of the variable had only one response. The other variables omitted for this reason included type of Net account, name of Web browser, browser operating system, name of E-mail program, and E-mail operating system. Second, some variables were dropped because other variables were felt to be better measures of the concept being examined. For example, the type of Net account was originally included on the survey to explore the issue of access on Net usage, value and utility. However, the type of access (whether restricted or unrestricted) actually turned out to be a better measure of this concept – so it was used instead. The other variables which were excluded from analysis for this reason included birthplace and sample; location and student level (respectively) were instead used as measures.

The variables which were collapsed into more manageable categories prior to analysis were previously outlined in Chapter 4. Some of these were further collapsed into dummy variables. Dummy variables are created by transforming non-scale variables into dichotomously coded scores, so they can be used in correlation and regression analyses (Edgell 2003). For example, the students listed sixteen different first languages when they responded to Survey Question 3 (first language). These were reduced down to three variables for analysis: English, an Aboriginal language, and

152 neither English nor an Aboriginal language. For each of the three categories, students were assigned either a 1 (for example if they spoke English) or a 0 (if English wasn’t their first language). Those re-coded variables were then used in subsequent correlation and multiple regression analysis. The variables which were dummy coded included: first language, descent, course, where access, and type of access problem.

5.2 Net Usage (USE) As noted above, the concept of usage (USE) – which is designed to measure student usage of the various research and/or communication services of the Net – is examined through the four usage scales: research services (USE-R1), methods of finding information on the Web (USE-R2), communication services (USE-C1), and E-mail discussion lists (USE-C2). The higher the score on the scale, the more those services (or methods) are used by the student. Each scale is examined in the order listed above. Additionally, I conclude this section by exploring overall usage.

5.2.1: USE-R1

USE-R1 was designed to measure student usage of the research services of the Net.

The Cronbach’s alpha level for the USE-R1 scale was .7905 (see Table 5.2.1.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that the Web was the most used research service, and that FTP was the second most used service (though the former was used much more than the latter). The other research services were not used to any great extent. Table 5.2.1.2 shows the mean scores of all six of the research services. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

153 Table 5.2.1.2: USE-R1 Means

Table 5.2.1.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the USE-R1 scale. The strongest relationship with USE-R1 was with student type (r = .481; p = .000): post-graduate students (M = 2.86) scored higher on the scale than did undergraduate students (M = 1.43). The next strongest relationships identified with

USE-R1 included: hours online per week (r = .389; p = .000), length of time using the Net (r = .325; p = .000), student level (r = .311; p = .000), type of access (r = -.302; p = .000), year of study (r = .246; p = .000), whether first language was neither English nor an Aboriginal language (r = .240; p = .000), whether students couldn’t access the Net (r = -.232; p = .021), comfort level (r = .226; p = .001), and whether students accessed the Net on campus (r = -.218; p = .001). Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with having technical problems when trying to access the Net (r = .199; p = .049), the availability of technical support (r = .184; p = .007), and descent (r = -.164; p = .016).

154 Table 5.2.1.3: USE-R1 Correlations

155 Table 5.2.1.3: USE-R1 Correlations (continued)

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

USE_R1 LEVEL

USE_R1 1.0000 .3109 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .000

LEVEL .3109 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .000 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

Students scored higher on the USE-R1 scale if: their time online per week increased, they were higher-up on the student level scale, they had unrestricted access to the Net, they were past their first year of study, they spoke neither English nor an Aboriginal first language, they hadn’t experienced access problems when trying to get online, they didn’t access the Net on campus, they had experienced some technical problems when trying to get online, they had access to technical support, or they were not of Dene decent.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the USE-R1 scale provides additional insight into student usage patterns of the various research services (Table 5.2.1.4, Appendix E). The most noticeable pattern to emerge was the difference between just using the Web, and using other services such as logging in to remote library catalogues via Telnet, searching specialized Online Databases, or downloading files from the Net via FTP. Students who were undergraduates (r = -.231; p = .001), who hadn’t received any training (r = -.156; p = .022), or who spent the least amount of time online each week (r = -.150; p = .027) tended to stick to using the Web, while students with restricted access (Telnet: r = -.364; p = .000; FTP: r = -.257; p = .000), those who had access problems (Telnet: r = -.237; p = .018), those who accessed the Net on campus (Telnet: r = -.225; p = .001; FTP: r = -.205; p = .003), or those who were part-time (Telnet: r = -.180; p = .008) tended not to use

156 the other research services. Students who did use the other research services included: post-graduate students (Telnet: r = .799; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .365; p = .000; FTP: r = .167; p = .014), students who had been online the longest (Telnet: r = .351; p = .000; FTP: r = .257; p = .000), students who spent the most time online each week (Telnet: r = .453; p = .000; FTP: r = .343; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .143; p = .036), students whose first language was neither Aboriginal nor English (Online Databases: r = .256; p = .000; Telnet: r = .255; p = .000; FTP: r = .171; p = .012), students of non-Aboriginal descent (Telnet: r = .236; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .183; p = .007), students past their first year of study (Telnet: r = .294; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .139; p = .042; FTP: r = .135; p = .048), students who were higher up on the student level scale (Telnet: r = .419; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .136; p = .046), students who accessed the Net off campus (Telnet: r = .157; p = .021; FTP: r = .156; p = .022), students who experienced technical problems when they were trying to get online (Telnet: r = .217; p = .031), rural students (Telnet: r = -.192; p = .005), and students who had access to technical support (Telnet: r = .168; p = .013).

Table 5.2.1.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to usage of the various research services of the Net. Of the variables outlined above that were

2 related to USE-R1, the strongest predictor was student type (R = .239; b = 1.275; B = .489; p = .000). The next strongest predictors were how long a student had been using the Net (R2 = .269; b = .188; B = .229; p = .017) and year of study (R2 = .294; b = .303; B = .202; p = .037). All of the other independent variables which were related to USE-R1 were excluded from the regression equation.

157 Table 5.2.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis – USE-R1

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were positively correlated with USE-R1: post-graduate students, students who had been using the Net the longest, or students past their first year of study used more research services than did students who were undergraduates, students who had been using the Net for a shorter amount of time, or students still in their first year of study.

5.2.2: USE-R2

USE-R2 was designed to measure student usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the USE-R2 scale was .8124 (see Table 5.2.2.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that single search engines and browsing/surfing were the most used methods of finding information on the Web, and that being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address on tv or in a magazine were the next most used methods (though all three were used to a lesser extent than single search engines and browsing/surfing). Meta search engines were not used to any great extent by students. Table 5.2.2.2 shows the mean scores of all six methods of finding information on the Web. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

158 Table 5.2.2.2: USE-R2 Means

Table 5.2.2.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the USE-R2 scale. The strongest relationships with USE-R2 were with length of time using (r = .412; p = .000) and comfort level (r = .404; p = .000). Both relationships were positively correlated: as time online and comfort level increased, so too did scores on the USE-R2 scale. For example, students who had used the Net for a year or more (M = 2.50) scored higher than did students who had used the Net for a few months (M = 2.27) or who had just begun using the Net (M = 1.73). Similarly, students who were extremely comfortable when they used the Net (M = 2.63) scored higher than did students who were comfortable (M = 2.30), students who were somewhat comfortable (M = 2.17), and students that weren’t sure whether they were comfortable or uncomfortable (M = 1.67).

The next strongest relationships identified with USE-R2 included: hours online per week (r = .346; p = .000), type of access (r = -.315; p = .000), whether students experienced both a lack of access and technical problems when trying to get online (r = .310; p = .002), whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = .288; p = .000), student type (r = .238; p = .000), and the availability of technical support (r = .212; p = .002). Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with whether students had to pay for access (r = .191; p = .005) and student level (r = .169; p = .013). Students scored higher on the USE-R2 scale if: their hours online per week increased, they had unrestricted access to the Net, they had experienced both access and technical problems when trying to get online, they accessed the Net both on and off campus, they were post-graduates, they had access to technical support, they had to pay for their Net access, or they were higher-up on the

159 student level scale.

Table 5.2.2.3: USE-R2 Correlations

160 Table 5.2.2.3 (continued): USE-R2 Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

USE_R2 LEVEL

USE_R2 1.0000 .1685 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .013

LEVEL .1685 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .013 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the USE-R2 scale provides additional insight into student usage patterns of the various methods of finding information on the Web (Table 5.2.2.4, Appendix E). Two main patterns emerged: differences in usage of single search engines versus browsing/surfing as methods of finding information on the Web (especially in terms of descent, course, and first language); and differences in usage of single search engines by different groups of students. First, students who were non-Aboriginal used single search engines the most to find information on the Web (r = .186; p = .006), and did not browse/surf to any great extent (r = -.199; p = .003), while Aboriginal students were the exact opposite. This was most noticeable with students of Metis descent (browsing/surfing: r = .144; p = .035; single search engines: r = -.239; p = .000). Students enrolled in social science courses used single search engines more (r = .159; p = .023) and browsing/surfing less (r = -.155; p = .026) as methods of finding information on the Web. Students enrolled in business courses browsed/surfed the Web to find their information (r = .208; p = .003), as did students whose first language was Aboriginal (r = .138; p = .043). Second, students who had been using he Net the longest (r = .257; p = .000), who spent the most hours online each week (r = .249; p = .000), who had higher comfort levels (r = .192; p = .005), who had access to technical support (r = .151; p = .026), or who were post-graduate students (r = .140; p = .040) used single search engines to find information on the Web; those students who accessed the Net on campus

161 (r = -.177; p = .009), or who had restricted access (r = -.167; p = .014) did not use single search engines to find information on the Web.

Table 5.2.2.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web. Of the variables outlined above that were related to USE-R2, the strongest predictor was comfort level (R2 = .230; b = .242; B = .487; p = .000). The next strongest predictors were whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus (R2 = .306; b = .667; B = .296; p = .001), how long they had been using the Net (R2 = .372; b = .318; B = .320; p = .001), and student type (R2 = .404; b = .662; B = .210; p = .016). All of the other independent variables which were related to USE-R2 were excluded from the regression equation.

B Table 5.2.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis USE-R2

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were positively correlated with USE-R2: students who had higher comfort levels, who accessed the Net both on and off campus, who had been using the Net longer, or who were post-graduates all used more methods of finding information on the Web than did students with lower comfort levels, students who accessed the Net either on or off campus (but not both), students who had been using the Net for a shorter period of time, or students who were undergraduates.

162 5.2.3: USE-C1

USE-C1 was designed to measure student usage of the communication services of the

Net. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the USE-C1 scale was .8106 (see Table 5.2.3.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that E-mail was the most used communication service of students, and that Chat and Newsgroups were the next most used services (though both were used to a much lesser extent than E-mail). The remaining communication services were not used much at all by students. Table 5.2.3.2 shows the mean scores of all six of the communication services. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.2.3.2: USE-C1 Means

Table 5.2.3.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the USE-C1 scale. The strongest relationships with USE-C1 were with hours online (r = .461; p = .000), type of access (r = -.425; p = .000), and where students accessed the Net (r = -.403; p = .000). The relationship with time online was positively correlated: as time online increased, so too did scores on the USE-C1 scale. For example, students who spent more than 5 hours online each week scored highest (M = 1.91), students who spent between 3 and 5 hours online each week scored second highest (M = 1.59), students who spent between 1 and 3 hours online each week scored third highest (M = .87), and students who spent less than 1 hour online each week scored lowest (M = .69). The relationships with type of access and accessing on campus were both negatively correlated. Students who had restricted access to the Net scored lower (M = .65) than did those students with unrestricted access (M = 1.27). Similarly, those students who accessed the Net on campus scored lower (M = .61) than those who did

163 not (M = 1.21).

Table 5.2.3.3: USE-C1 Correlations

164 Table 5.2.3.3 (continued): USE-C1 Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

USE_C1 LEVEL

USE_C1 1.0000 .3024 ( 0) ( 225) P= . P= .000

LEVEL .3024 1.0000 ( 225) ( 0) P= .000 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

The next strongest relationships identified with USE-C1 included: the length of time students had been using the Net (r = .394; p = .000), whether students had to pay for Net access (r = .360; p = .000), whether students had problems getting access to the Net (r = -.354; p = .000), whether students were non-Aboriginal (r = .330; p = .000), student level (r = .302; p = .000), student type (r = .277; p = .000), and comfort level (r = .265; p = .001). Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with the availability of technical support (r = .148; p = .025), age (r = -.145; p = .038), having an Aboriginal first language (r = -.144; p = .030), and student status (r = -.144; p = .030). Students scored higher on the USE-C1 scale if: the length of time they had been using the Net increased, they had to pay for their Net access, they hadn’t had access problems when getting online, they were of non- Aboriginal descent, they were higher up the student level scale, they were post- graduate students, they had higher comfort levels, they had access to technical support, they were younger, their first language was not Aboriginal, or they attended full-time.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the USE-C1 scale provides additional insight into student usage patterns of the various communication services (Table 5.2.3.4, Appendix E). Two main patterns emerged: the differences between just using E-mail, and using other communication services such as Chat and Newsgroups; and differences in usage of E-mail by different groups of

165 students. First, students who used the other communication services in addition to E-mail included: post-graduate students (News: r = .419; p = .000; E-mail: r = .191; p = .004), those of non-Aboriginal descent (E-mail: r = .394; p = .000; Chat: r = .176; p = .008), those with unrestricted access (E-mail: r = -.398; p = .000; News: r = -.260; p = .000; Chat: r = -.143; p = .031), those who spent more hours online each week (E-mail: r = .352; p = .000; Chat: r = .339; p = .000; News: r = .298; p = .000), those who had been using the Net longer (E-mail: r = .317; p = .000; News: r = .298; p = .000; Chat: r = .204; p = .002), those who hadn’t had access problems when trying to get online (E-mail: r = -.314; p = .001; News: r = -.243; p = .013), younger students (Chat: r = -.242; p = 000; E-mail: r = -.149; p = .032), those enrolled in social science courses (E-mail: r = .162; p = .017; Chat: r = .161; p = .018), and those who had access to technical support (Chat: r = .144; p = .029; News: r = .131; p = .049). Second, in addition to the groups of students just listed who used E-mail, students who had to pay for their Net access used E-mail as a communication tool (r = .376; p = .000); students who accessed the Net on campus (r = -.400; p = .000), who were of Dene descent (r = -.264 p = .000), who were part-time (r = -.228; p = .001), who were male (r = -.205; p = .002), or whose first language was Aboriginal (r = -.182; p = .006) did not use E-mail as a communication tool.

Table 5.2.3.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to usage of the various communication services of the Net. Of the variables outlined above that were related to USE-C1, the strongest predictor was whether students accessed the Net on campus (R2 = .353; b = -.986; B = -.600; p = .000). The next strongest predictors were whether students were of non-Aboriginal descent (R2 = .440; b = .533; B = .311; p = .000) and student type (R2 = .482; b = .722; B = .222; p = .003). All of the other independent variables which were related to USE-C1 were excluded from the regression equation.

166 Table 5.2.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - USE-C1

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were correlated in the same direction with USE-C1 (accessing on campus was negatively correlated; descent and student type were positively correlated). In other words, students who accessed the Net on campus used fewer communication services than did students who accessed the Net off campus; students of non-Aboriginal descent or those enrolled full-time used more communication services than did students who were of Aboriginal descent or those who were enrolled part-time.

5.2.4: USE-C2

USE-C2 was designed to measure student usage of E-mail discussion lists. The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that E-mail discussion lists were being used by some students. As this was a simple yes-no question, reliability tests, computing of means, and Friedman tests could not be computed. However, correlation and multiple regression analysis tests were still performed.

Table 5.2.4.1 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the USE-C2 scale. The strongest relationships with USE-C2 were with student type (r = .568; p = .000) and hours online (r = .509; p = .000). Post-graduate students were more likely to use E-mail discussion lists than were undergraduate students; and as the time spent online increased, so too did usage of E-mail discussion lists.

167 Table 5.2.4.1: USE-C2 Correlations

168 Table 5.2.4.1 (continued): USE-C2 Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

USE_C2 LEVEL

USE_C2 1.0000 .3714 ( 0) ( 225) P= . P= .000

LEVEL .3714 1.0000 ( 225) ( 0) P= .000 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

USE_C2 LOCATE

USE_C2 1.0000 -.2006 ( 0) ( 225) P= . P= .002

LOCATE -.2006 1.0000 ( 225) ( 0) P= .002 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

The next strongest relationships identified with USE-C2 included: the length of time students had been using the Net (r = .374; p = .000), student level (r = .371; p = .000), comfort level (r = .248; p = .000), type of access (r = -.242; p = .000), whether students had access to technical support (r = .223; p = .001), year of study (r = .213; p = .001), whether students experienced technical problems when trying to get online (r = .209; p = .033), and student location (r = -.201; p = .000). Students were more likely to use E-mail discussion lists if: the they had been using the Net for a longer period of time, they had higher comfort levels, they were higher-up on the student level

169 scale, they had unrestricted access to the Net, they had access to technical support, they were past their first year of study, they had experienced technical problems when trying to get online, or they were located in an urban area.

Table 5.2.4.2 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to usage of

E-mail discussion lists. Of the variables outlined above that were related to USE-C2, the strongest predictor was student type (R2 = .549; b = .948; B = .744; p = .000). The next strongest predictor was type of access (R2 = .571; b = -.114; B = -.172; p = .015).

All of the other independent variables which were related to USE-C2 were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.2.4.2: Multiple Regression Analysis - USE-C2

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, both factors were correlated in the same direction with USE-R2 (student type was positively correlated, and type of access was negatively correlated). In other words, post-graduates used E-mail discussion lists more than undergraduates; and students with restricted access used E-mail discussion lists less than students with unrestricted access.

5.2.5: Overall Usage An examination of Table 5.2.5.1 shows that students used more research services and more methods of finding information on the Web, than they used communication services and E-mail discussion lists.

170 Table 5.2.5.1: Usage Means

Overall, students used more research services (M = 1.50) than communication services (M = .92). This was due to two reasons: first, the most used research service (the Web: M = 5.92) was used more than the most used communication service (E-mail: M = 3.53). Second, students used the other research services (FTP: M = 1.6.1; Gopher: M = .76; Telnet: M = .37; Online Databases: M = .33) more than they did the other communication services (Chat: M = .95; News: M = .73; Talk: M = .18; Phone: M = .11). One of the main reasons for this difference in usage between the research and communication services of the Net was the issue of access: students seemed to have a much more difficult time getting online to use E-mail than they did getting online to use the Web. This issue will be more fully explored in the next chapter. It should also be noted that since the survey data was collected, many students now access their E-mail through the Web (through such programs as Hotmail), thus making the distinction between research and communication services a bit artificial. However, the main purpose of the investigation is to look at the separate practices of research and communication – so this distinction does hold up (for both usage and utility) despite the age of the data.

Correlation analysis of the four usage scales confirmed that there was a strong inter- relationship between usage of the various research and communication services, usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web, and the usage of E-mail discussion lists. Table 5.2.5.2 shows that there was a strong positive correlation between all four scales: as usage on one scale increased, so too did usage on the other three scales. For example, as usage of the various research services increased, usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web, usage of the various communication services, and usage of E-mail discussion lists also increased

171 correspondingly.

Table 5.2.5.2: Inter-Correlations of the Usage Scales

5.3 Net Value (ADV and DIS) The concept of value (ADV/DIS) – which is designed to measure the advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet for research and/or communication – is examined through the four value scales: advantages for research (ADV-R), disadvantages for research (DIS-R), advantages for communication (ADV-C), and disadvantages for communication (DIS-C). The higher the score on the scale (either positive or negative), the more (or less) valuable the Net is as a research and/or communication tool to students. Each scale is examined in the order listed above. Additionally, I conclude this section by examining the overall value of the Net as a research and/or communications tool.

5.3.1 ADV-R ADV-R was designed to measure the advantages of the Net for research. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the scale was .7869 (see Table 5.3.1.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that the most important advantage to using the Net for research was access to information. Low cost, convenience, and increased speed were the next most important advantages, while access to current information and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net

172 for research. Table 5.3.1.2 shows the mean scores of all six advantages for research. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.3.1.2: ADV-R Means

Table 5.3.1.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the ADV-R scale. The strongest relationships with ADV-R were with comfort level (r = .328; p = .000) and hours online (r = .321; p = .000). The relationships with both independent variables were positively correlated: as time online and comfort level increased, so too did scores on the ADV-R scale. For example, students who were extremely comfortable when they used the Net (M = 2.90) scored higher than did students who were comfortable (M = 2.71), students who were somewhat comfortable (M = 2.44), students that weren’t sure whether they were comfortable or uncomfortable (M = 2.22), and students who were somewhat uncomfortable (M = 2.12). Similarly, students who spent more than 5 hours online each week (M = 3.19) scored higher than did students who spent between 3 and 5 hours online each week (M = 2.70), students who spent between 1 and 3 hours online each week (M = 2.65), and student who spent less than 1 hour online each week (M = 2.26).

173 Table 5.3.1.3: ADV-R Correlations

174 Table 5.3.1.3 (continued): ADV-R Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

ADV_R LEVEL

ADV_R 1.0000 .1493 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .029

LEVEL .1493 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .029 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

The next strongest relationship identified with ADV-R was the length of time using the Net (r = .263; p = .000). Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with: student type (r = .193; p = .004), whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = .185; p = .006), the availability of technical support (r = .180; p = .008), gender (r = .155 p = .022), whether students were of non- Aboriginal descent (r = .154; p = .024), and student level (r = .149; p = .029). Students scored higher on the ADV-R scale if: the length of time they had been using the Net increased, they were post-graduates, they accessed the Net both on and off campus, they had technical support available to them, they were males, they were of non- Aboriginal descent, or they were higher-up on the student level scale.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the ADV-R scale provides additional insight into how students viewed the advantages of using the Net for research (Table 5.3.1.4, Appendix E). Although no one pattern emerged, some interesting differences were noted. For example, and not surprisingly, students who found ease of use as an advantage were those that had higher comfort levels (r = .290; p = .000), had been using the Net longer (r = .234; p = .001), spent more hours online (r = .216; p = .001), had access to technical support (r = .176; p = .010), and that accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = .155; p = .023); students with restricted access (r = -.158; p = .020) did not see ease of use as an advantage. Those students

175 whose first language was Aboriginal found that using the Net increased their speed when performing research (r = .162; p = .017). Students who found the current information available on the Net as an advantage included those students that accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = .283; p = .000), who were non-Aboriginal (r = .257; p = .000), who were rural (r = .269; p = .000), who spent more hours online each week (r = .200; p = .003), or who were post-graduates (r = .143; p = .036); students who were of Dene descent (r = -.219; p = .001), or who were older (r = -.188; p = .008) did not see currency of information as an advantage. Finally, students who viewed convenience as an advantage included those that spent the most time online each week (r = .213; p = .002), that were post-graduates (r = .170; p = .012), that had higher comfort levels (r = .157; p = .021), that were non-Aboriginal (r = .154; p = .024), or that had technical support (r = .141; p = .038); students who did not find convenience was an advantage when using the Net for research included students of Dene descent (r = -.149; p = .029), students with restricted access (r = -.144; p = .034), or part-time students (r = -.141; p = .038).

Table 5.3.1.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the advantages of using the Net for research. Of the variables outlined above that were related to ADV-R, the strongest predictor was comfort level (R2 = .103; b = .187; B = .328; p = .000). The next strongest predictors were hours online (R2 = .139; b = .200; B = .220; p = .002), and whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus (R2 = .152; b = .336; B = .133; p = .039). All of the other independent variables which were related to ADV-R were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.3.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - ADV-R

176 As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were positively correlated with ADV-R: students who had higher comfort levels, who spent more time online each week, or who accessed the Net both on or off campus all found more advantages to using the Net for research than did students with lower comfort levels, students who spent less time online each week, or students who accessed the Net either on or off campus (but not both).

5.3.2 DIS-R DIS-R was designed to measure the disadvantages of the Net for research. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the scale was .8213 (see Table 5.3.2.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that that technical problems (such as down or busy servers, and slow access lines) and too much US information were the most import disadvantages for students. Information overload, difficulty of use, time intensiveness, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages, while the issues of unreliable content and high cost were the least important disadvantages when using the Net for research. Table 5.3.2.2 shows the mean scores of all eight disadvantages for research. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.3.2.2: DIS-R Means

Table 5.3.2.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the DIS-R scale. The strongest relationships with DIS-R were with students who had problems when they tried to get online (r = -.273; p = .000), especially the problems of both a lack of access and technical problems (r = -.368; p = .000). Both of these relationships were

177 negatively correlated (although because the DIS-R scale is negative in nature, the correlations are actually positive in effect). For example, students who had problems getting online listed more disadvantages (M = -2.25) than did those students who had encountered no such problems (M = -1.70). Similarly, students who encountered both access problems and technical problems had higher DIS-R scores (M = -2.78) than did students who hadn’t encountered both types of problems (M = -1.89).

Table 5.3.2.3: DIS-R Correlations

The next strongest relationship was with descent (r = -.212; p = .002), and a weaker – though still statistically significant relationship – was also identified with where students accessed the Net (r = -.172; p = .011). Students scored higher on the DIS-R scale (that is, they found more disadvantages to using the Net) if they were of non- Aboriginal descent or if they accessed the Net both on and off campus.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the DIS-R scale provides additional insight into how students viewed the disadvantages of the Net for research (Table 5.3.2.4, Appendix E). Although no one pattern emerged, some

178 interesting differences were noted. For example, and not surprisingly, students who experienced the most difficulty with use of the Net were those that: had the lowest comfort level (r = .472; p = .000), had no technical support (r = .295; p = .000), had been using the Net the least amount of time (r = .274; p = .000), or that spent the least amount of time online each week (r = .222; p = .001). Students that experienced the highest degree of information overload were the ones that: had unrestricted access (r = .214; p = .002), didn’t access the Net on campus (r = .167; p = .014), and were part-time (r = .136; p = .046). Students that noted that there was too much US information on the Net were the ones that: were younger (r = .192; p = .007) or those that had not received any training (r = .173; p = .011). There were also differences in the importance of the various disadvantages along student descent lines: students of Aboriginal descent were more likely to cite lack of access (r = .135; p = .048) as a disadvantage, while non-Aboriginal students were more likely to cite time intensiveness (r = .197; p = .004), and information overload (r = .154; p = .024) as disadvantages.

Table 5.3.2.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the disadvantages of using the Net for research. Of the variables outlined above that were related to DIS-R, the strongest predictor was whether students encountered both access and technical problems (R2 = .127; b = -.945; B = -.368; p = .000). All of the other independent variables which were related to DIS-R were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.3.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - DIS-R

179 As with the correlation analysis outlined above, whether students encountered both access and technical problems was negatively correlated with DIS-R: students who had encountered such problems found more disadvantages to using the Net for research than did students who had not encountered such problems.

5.3.3 ADV-C ADV-C was designed to measure the advantages of the Net for communication. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the scale was .8152 (see Table 5.3.3.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that low cost, access to people, and convenience were the three most important advantages to using the Net for communication. Increased speed was the next most important advantage, while direct communication and ease of use were the least important advantages when using the Net for communication. Table 5.3.3.2 shows the mean scores of all six advantages for communication. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.3.3.2: ADV-C Means

Table 5.3.3.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the ADV-C scale. The strongest relationship with ADV-C was with hours online (r = .387; p = .000). This was a positive relationship: as hours online increased, so too did scores on the ADV-C. For example, students who spent more than 5 hours online each week (M = 3.08) scored higher than did students who spent between 3 and 5 hours online each week (M = 2.66), students who spent between 1 and 3 hours online each week (M = 2.30), and students who spent less than 1 hour online each week (M = 2.08).

180 Table 5.3.3.3: ADV-C Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

ADV_C LEVEL

ADV_C 1.0000 .3002 ( 0) ( 144) P= . P= .000

LEVEL .3002 1.0000 ( 144) ( 0) P= .000 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

The next strongest relationships identified with ADV-C were with student type (r = .308; p = .000), student level (r = .300; p = .000), the length of time using the Net (r = .296; p = .000), and comfort level (r = .208; p = .011). A weaker – though still statistically significant relationship – was also identified with the availability of

181 technical support (r = .163; p = .048). Students scored higher on the ADV-C scale if: they were post-graduates, they were higher-up on the student level scale, they had been using the Net for a longer period of time, they were more comfortable with using the Net, or they had technical support available to them.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the ADV-C scale provides additional insight into how students viewed the advantages of using the Net for communication (Table 5.3.3.4, Appendix E). Although no one pattern emerged, some interesting differences were noted. For example, and not surprisingly, students who experienced the least difficulty with use of the Net were those that: spent the most hours online each week (r = .279; p = .001), or who had been using the Net the longest (r = .270; p = .001). Students who felt that the Net increases speed for communication included those that: were required to use the Net (r = .238; p = .004), spent the most hours online each week (r = .207; p = .012), or who had been using the Net the longest (r = .171; p = .038). Students who felt that the Net was convenient for communication included those that: spent the most hours online each week (r = .185; p = .025), were part-time (r = .176; p = .033), or were female (r = .173; p = .036). Students who felt that direct communication was an advantage to using the Net included those that: were enrolled in Social Science courses (r = .240; p = .005), were of non-Aboriginal descent (r = .169; p = .041), or who were enrolled part-time (r = .168; p = .042). Differences were also noted along both age and course-type lines: older students found that the Net increases speed when communicating (r = .191; p = .027), while younger students appreciated the direct communication advantages of the Net (r = -.235; p = .006); students enrolled in education courses felt that the Net increases speed when communicating (r = .211; p = .014), while those enrolled in social science courses did not (r = -.193; p = .025).

Table 5.3.3.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the advantages of using the Net for communication. Of the variables outlined above that were related to ADV-C, the strongest predictor was hours online (R2 = .143; b = .350; B = .387; p = .000). The next strongest predictor was student type (R2 = .163; b = .702; B = .176; p = .045). All of the other independent variables which were

182 related to ADV-C were excluded from the regression equation.

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, both factors were positively correlated with ADV-C: students who spent more time online each week and who were post- graduates found more advantages to using the Net for communication than did students who spent less time online each week and who were undergraduates.

Table 5.3.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - ADV-C

5.3.4 DIS-C DIS-C was designed to measure the disadvantages of the Net for communication. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the scale was .7871 (see Table 5.3.4.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that technical problems (such as down or busy servers, or E-mail going missing) was the most important disadvantage listed by students. The slow replies to E-mail, the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses, information overload, and lack of access emerged as the next most important disadvantages, while security problems, time intensiveness, difficulty of use, and high cost were the least important disadvantages when using the Net for communication. Table 5.3.4.2 shows the mean scores of all nine disadvantages for communication. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

183 Table 5.3.4.2: DIS-C Means

Table 5.3.4.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the DIS-C scale. The strongest relationship with DIS-C was with students who had both a lack of access and technical problems when trying to get online (r = -.265; p = .030). This relationship was negatively corelated (although because like the DIS-R scale, it is negative in nature, the correlation is actually positive in effect). For example, students who encountered both access problems and technical problems had higher DIS-C scores (M = -2.15) than did students who hadn’t encountered both types of problems (M = -1.49).

Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with descent (r = .186; p = .024), course type (r = .183; p = .033), and where students accessed the Net (r = -.179; p = .031). Students scored higher on the DIS-C scale (that is, they found more disadvantages to using the Net) if they were of non-Aboriginal descent, they were not enrolled in business courses, or they accessed the Net both on and off campus.

184 Table 5.3.4.3: DIS-C Correlations

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the DIS-C scale provides additional insight into how students viewed the disadvantages of the Net for communication (Table 5.3.4.4, Appendix E). Although no one pattern emerged, some interesting differences were noted. For example, and not surprisingly, students who experienced the most difficulty with use of the Net were those that had lower comfort levels (r = .239; p = .004) or that spent less time online each week (r = .210; p = .011). Students that experienced a lack of access the most were those that: had been using the Net for the least amount of time (r = .201; p = .015), had restricted access to the Net (r = -.181; p = .028), or that spent the least amount of time online each week (r = .165; p = .045). Students that experienced the highest degree of information overload were the ones that: experienced technical problems (r = -.254; p = .038), were required to use the Net (r = -.242; p = 003), were post-graduates (r = -.230; p = .005), were part-time (r = .227; p = .006), or that accessed the Net off campus (r = -.202; p = .014). Students that were most concerned about security were the ones that: were enrolled in social science courses (r = -.219; p = .010), were of non- Aboriginal descent (r = -.179; p = .030), spent the most hours online each week (r = -.177; p = .032), or accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = -.170; p = .039). Students that had the most difficulty finding E-mail addresses were those that: were

185 enrolled in social science courses (r = -296; p = .000), were urban (r = -.262; p = .001), were younger (r = .258; p = .003), were of non-Aboriginal descent (r = -.254; p = .002), were enrolled full-time (r = -.240; p = 003), accessed the Net both on and off campus (r = -.192; p = .020), or those that hadn’t received any training (r = -.165; p = .046). Finally, post-graduate students experienced more technical problems than did undergraduate students (r = -.164; p = .047).

Table 5.3.4.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the disadvantages of using the Net for communication. Of the variables outlined above that were related to DIS-C, the strongest predictor was whether students encountered both access and technical problems (R2 = .056; b = -.724; B = -.265; p = .030). All of the other independent variables which were related to ADV-R were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.3.4.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - DIS-C

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, whether students encountered both access and technical problems was negatively correlated with DIS-C: students who had encountered such problems found more disadvantages to using the Net for communication than did students who had not encountered such problems.

5.3.5: Overall Value An examination of Table 5.3.5.1 shows that students found more advantages to using the Net for research (M = 2.48) than they found advantages for communication (M = 2.33). They also found more disadvantages to using the Net for research (M = -1.78) than they found disadvantages for communication (M = -1.51). Overall,

186 students seemed to indicate that the research and communication sides of the Net were about equally as valuable.

Table 5.3.5.1: Value Means

Additionally, students rated the advantages for research and communication higher than they rated the disadvantages of both. This is interesting, because the disadvantages scales of both research and communication were larger (based on eight and nine point scales, respectively), while the advantages scales of both were based on six point scales. This was primarily due to the fact that students rated the most important advantages of access to information (M = 4.83) and people (M = 3.28), low cost for communication (M = 3.28) and research (M = 3.00), convenience for communication (M = 2.93) and research (M = 2.43), and increased speed for research (M = 2.31) and communication (M = 1.96) higher than they rated the most important disadvantages of technical problems with communication (M = -3.24) and research (M = -2.91), too much US information (M = -2.16) and information overload (M = -2.16) when performing research, the slow replies to E-mail (M = -1.99) and the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses (M = -1.80) when communicating online, and the difficulty of use (M = -1.87) and time intensiveness (M = -1.09) when performing research on the Net.

Correlation analysis of the four value scales confirmed that there were strong inter- relationships (both positive and negative) between the advantages for research and communication and the disadvantages for research and communication. Table 5.3.5.2 shows that there was a strong positive correlation between advantages for research and advantages for communication: students who found more advantages to using the Net for research were also likely to find more advantages for communication, and vice

187 versa (r = .439; p = .000). There were weaker (but still significant) negative correlations between advantages for research and disadvantages for both research and communication: students who found more advantages to using the Net for research were also likely to find more disadvantages for research (r = -.236; p = .000) and more disadvantages for communication (r = -.174; p = .044). Disadvantages for research and communication were also strongly correlated: students who found more disadvantages for research also found more disadvantages for communication (r = .467; p = .000).

Table 5.3.5.2: Inter-Correlations of the Value Scale

5.4 Net Utility (UTIL) The concept of utility (UTIL) – which is designed to measure the usefulness of the Net as a research and/or communication tool for post-secondary students – is examined through the four utility scales: the Net as a research tool (UTIL-R1), the different methods of finding information of the Web (UTIL-R2), the Net as a communication tool (UTIL-C1), and E-mail discussion lists (UTIL-C2). The higher the score on the scale, the more useful the tool (or methods) are to the student. Each scale is examined in the order listed above. Additionally, I conclude this section by exploring overall utility.

188 5.4.1: UTIL-R1

UTIL-R1 was designed to measure the usefulness of the Net for research. This includes measuring the utility of the various research services students use, as well as the overall usefulness of the Net for research. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the UTIL-R1 scale was .8406 (see Table 5.4.1.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that the Web was the most useful research tool of students. FTP emerged as the next most useful tool (though it was much less useful than the Web), while the other research services were not that useful. Table 5.4.1.2 shows the mean scores of all six of the research services. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.4.1.2: UTIL-R1 Means

Table 5.4.1.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the UTIL-R1 scale. The strongest relationships with UTIL-R1 were with comfort level (r = .289; p = .000), descent (r = -.244; p = .000) and first language (r = .218; p = .001). The relationship with comfort level was positive: as comfort level increased, so too did scores on the UTIL-R1. For example, students who were extremely comfortable (M = 6.18) and comfortable (M = 6.18) scored higher than did students who were somewhat comfortable (M = 6.07), not sure if they were comfortable or uncomfortable (M = 5.80), and those students who were somewhat uncomfortable (M = 5.73). The relationships with descent and first language were negative and similarly consistent: students of non-Aboriginal descent (M = 5.88) or those whose first language was not Aboriginal (M = 5.94) found the Net less useful for research than did students who were of Aboriginal descent (M = 6.22) or those whose first language was Aboriginal (M = 6.34).

189 Table 5.4.1.3: UTIL-R1 Correlations

190 Table 5.4.1.3 (continued): UTIL-R1 Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

UTIL_R1 LOCATE

UTIL_R1 1.0000 -.1424 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .037

LOCATE -.1424 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .037 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with hours online (r = .164; p = .016), the availability of technical support (r = .162; p = .017), and location (r = -.142; p = .037). Students scored higher on the UTIL-R1 scale if they: spent more time online per week, they had technical support available to them, or they were located in a rural setting.

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the UTIL-R1 scale provides additional insight into student views of the utility of the various research services (Table 5.4.1.4, Appendix E). Two main patterns emerged: differences in the utility of the research services other than the Web; and differences in views of the utility of the Web by various groups of students. First, students who found the research services (other than the Web) useful included: post-graduate students (Telnet: r = .757; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .423; p = .000; FTP: r = .230; p = .001), those who spent the most time online each week (Telnet: r = .430; p = .000; FTP: r = .379; p = .000), those who were higher-up the student level scale (Telnet: r = .394; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .182; p = .007), those that had been using the Net the longest (Telnet: r = .359; p = .000; FTP: r = .288; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .144; p = .034), those that had higher comfort levels (FTP: r = .257; p = .000; Telnet: r = .249; p = .000), those that were past their first year of study (Telnet: r = .281; p = .000; FTP: r = .163; p = .016; Online Databases: r = .160; p = .018),

191 those that had access to technical support (Telnet: r = .164; p = .016; FTP: r = .144; p = .035), or those that were located in rural areas (Telnet: r = -.157; p = .021). Students who had restricted access (Telnet: r = -.348; p = .000; FTP: r = -.250; p = .000) or who accessed the Net on campus (Telnet: r = -.216; p = .001; FTP: r = -.190; p = .005) did not find those other research services very useful. Differences were also noted between students along descent lines: students of non-Aboriginal descent used those other services (Telnet: r = .240; p = .000; Online Databases: r = .200; p = .003), while students – particularly of Dene descent – did not (Telnet: r = -.164; p = .016; Online Databases: r = -.156; p = .022). Second, students were more likely to find the Web useful as a research tool if they: spent more time online each week (r = .292; p = .000), were more comfortable using the Net (r = .289; p = .000), had access to technical support (r = .224; p = .001), or had been using the Net for a longer period of time (r = .212; p = .002).

Table 5.4.1.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the utility of the various research services of the Net. Of the variables outlined above that were

2 related to UTIL-R1, the strongest predictor was comfort level (R = .079; b = .130; B = .289; p = .000). The next strongest predictor was whether students were of Aboriginal descent (R2 = .133; b = -.334; B = -.240; p = .001). All of the other independent variables which were related to UTIL-R1 were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.4.1.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - UTIL-R1

192 As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were correlated in the same direction with UTIL-R1 (comfort level was positively correlated, and descent was negatively correlated). In other words, students who had higher comfort levels found the research services of the Net more useful than did students with lower comfort levels; and students of non-Aboriginal descent found the research services of the Net less useful than did students who were of Aboriginal descent.

5.4.2: UTIL-R2

UTIL-R2 was designed to measure the usefulness of the various methods students use to find information on the Web. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the USE-R2 scale was .8301 (see Table 5.4.2.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that single search engines and browsing/surfing were the most useful methods of finding information on the Web, and that being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address in a magazine or on tv were the next most useful methods. Meta-search engines were not that useful as a method of finding information on the Web. Table 5.4.2.2 shows the mean scores of the utility of all six methods of finding information on the Web. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

Table 5.4.2.2: UTIL-R2 Means

Table 5.4.2.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the UTIL-R2 scale. The strongest relationship with UTIL-R2 was with comfort level (r = .254; p = .000), and this relationship was positive in nature: as comfort level increased, so too did scores on the UTIL-R2. For example, students who were extremely comfortable (M = 6.11) scored higher than did students who were comfortable

193 (M = 5.98), somewhat comfortable (M = 5.92), not sure if they were comfortable or uncomfortable (M = 5.69), somewhat uncomfortable (M = 5.56), uncomfortable (M = 5.50), or extremely uncomfortable (M = 5.48).

Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with location (r = -.189; p = .005), the availability of technical support (r = .185; p = .006), first language (r = .189; p = .005), descent (r = -.171; p = .012), and year of study

(r = .142; p = .037). Students scored higher on the UTIL-R2 scale if they: were located in a rural area, had technical support available to them, spoke an Aboriginal first language, were of Aboriginal descent, or were past their first year of study.

Table 5.4.2.3: UTIL-R2 Correlations

194 Table 5.4.2.3 (continued): UTIL-R2 Correlations

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

UTIL_R2 LOCATE

UTIL_R2 1.0000 -.1893 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .005

LOCATE -.1893 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .005 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the UTIL-R2 scale provides additional insight into student views of the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web (Table 5.4.2.4, Appendix E). The main pattern to emerge was differences in views of the utility of the two most useful methods of finding information on the Web (single search engines versus browsing/ surfing). Students who were more likely to use single search engines to find information on the Web included those: who were most comfortable using the Net (r = .333; p = .000), those who had access to technical support (r = .315; p = .000), those who spent the most time online each week (r = .202; p = .011), or female students (r = .164; p = .040). Students who were more likely to browse/surf to find information on the Web included those: located in rural areas (r = -.195; p = .019), those whose first language was Aboriginal (r = .180; p = .030), or those whose descent was of Dene origin (r = .163; p = .050).

Table 5.4.2.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web. Of the variables outlined above that were related to UTIL-R2, the strongest predictor was comfort level (R2 = .060; b = .125; B = .254; p = .000). The next strongest predictors were location (R2 = .086; b = -.2.64; B = -.174; p = .008) and the availability of technical support (R2 = .099; b = .212; B = -.134; p = .049). All of the other independent variables

195 which were related to UTIL-R2 were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.4.2.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - UTIL-R2

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, the factors were correlated in the same direction with UTIL-R2 (comfort level and technical support were positively correlated; location was negatively correlated). In other words, students who had higher comfort levels or who had access to technical support found the different methods of finding information on the Web more useful than did students with lower comfort levels or students who did not have access to technical support; students located in urban areas found the different methods of finding information on the Web less useful than did students in rural areas.

5.4.3: UTIL-C1

UTIL-C1 was designed to measure the usefulness of the Net for communication. This includes measuring the utility of the various communication services students use, as well as the overall usefulness of the Net for communication. The Cronbach’s alpha level for the UTIL-C1 scale was .7998 (see Table 5.4.3.1, Appendix E). The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that E-mail was the most useful communication service of students, and that Chat and Newsgroups were the next most useful communication tools (though both were much less useful than E-mail). Talk, Phone and Video-Conferencing were not that useful to students. Table 5.4.3.2 shows the mean scores of all six of the communication services. These differences in mean scores were in fact significant, and were confirmed by the Friedman test (p = .000).

196 Table 5.4.3.2: UTIL-C1 Means

Table 5.4.3.3 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the UTIL-C1 scale. The strongest relationships with UTIL-C1 were with hours online (r = .374; p = .000) and comfort level (r = .323; p = .000). Both relationships were positive in nature: as hours online and comfort levels increased, so too did scores on the

UTIL-C1. For example, students who spent more than 5 hours online each week (M = 6.82) scored higher than did students who spent between 3 and 5 hours online (M = 6.57), those who spent between 1 and 3 hours online each week (M = 6.19), or those that spent less than 1 hour online each week (M = 6.09). Similarly, those students who were extremely comfortable (M = 6.45) scored higher than did those students who were comfortable (M = 6.44), those who were somewhat comfortable (M = 6.26), or those who were not sure if they were comfortable or uncomfortable (M = 6.03).

The next strongest relationship identified with UTIL-C1 was with the length of time students had been using the Net (r = .224; p = .006). Weaker – though still statistically significant relationships – were also identified with the availability of technical support (r = .193; p = .019), and student type (r = .190; p = .021). Students scored higher on the UTIL-C1 scale if they: increased the time they had been using the Net, had technical support available to them, or were post-graduate students.

197 Table 5.4.3.3: UTIL-C1 Correlations

An examination of the correlations with the individual components of the UTIL-C1 scale provides additional insight into student views of the utility of the various communication services (Table 5.4.3.4, Appendix E). Two main patterns emerged: differences in views of the utility of the communications services other than E-mail; and differences in views of the utility of E-mail by various groups of students. First, students who found the communication services (other than E-mail) useful included: students who spent the most time online each week (Chat: r = .423; p = .005), those that had received training (News: r = .422; p = .013), or those with higher comfort levels (Chat: r = .362; p = .018). Second, students were more likely to find E-mail useful as a communication tool if they: had higher comfort levels (r = .345; p = .000), spent more time online each week (r = .331; p = .000), had not experienced technical problems (r = -.284; p = .024), had access to technical support (r = .210; p = .014), had been using the Net for a longer period of time (r = .204; p = .017), or were post- graduates (r = .204; p = .017).

198 Table 5.4.3.5 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the utility of the various communication services of the Net. Of the variables outlined above that

2 were related to UTIL-C1, the strongest predictor was hours online (R = .134; b = .264; B = .374; p = .000). The next strongest predictor was comfort level (R2 = .160; b = .008; B = .288; p = .001). All of the other independent variables which were related to UTIL-C1 were excluded from the regression equation.

Table 5.4.3.5: Multiple Regression Analysis - UTIL-C1

As with the correlation analysis outlined above, both factors were positively correlated with UTIL-C1: students who spent more time online each week or those with higher comfort levels found the communication services of the Net more useful than did students who spent less time online each week or those students who were less comfortable in using the Net.

5.4.4: UTIL-C2

UTIL-C2 was designed to measure the usefulness of E-mail discussion lists. The raw survey results outlined in Chapter 4 showed that students found E-mail discussion lists useful (to some degree or other) for communication (M = 5.61). As this was a single question response scale, reliability tests and Friedman tests could not be computed. However, correlation and multiple regression analysis tests were still performed (although no internal correlations could be calculated).

Table 5.4.4.1 shows the correlations of the independent variables with the UTIL-C2 scale. The strongest relationships with UTIL-C2 were with the type of course students were enrolled in (r = .576; p = .008) and whether use of the Net was required

199 (r = .438; p = .014). Students enrolled in business courses found E-mail discussion lists more useful (M = 6.25) than did students enrolled in other types of courses (M = 4.75); students who were required to use the Net as part of a course found E-mail discussion lists more useful (M = 6.57) than did students who were not required to use the Net as part of a course (M = 5.33). No other relationships with

UTIL-C2 were identified.

Table 5.4.4.1: UTIL-C2 Correlations

Table 5.4.4.2 shows the multiple regression analysis for the factors related to the utility of E-mail discussion lists. Of the two variables outlined above that were related to

2 UTIL-C2, both were strong positive predictors (course type: R = .295; b = 1.55; B = .576; p = .008; required to use: R2 = .438; b = 1.43; B = .407; p = .030).

Table 5.4.4.2: Multiple Regression Analysis - UTIL-C2

200 Students enrolled in business courses or students who were required to use the Net for a course used E-mail discussion lists more than students who were enrolled in other types of courses or students who were not required to use the Net.

5.4.5: Overall Utility An examination of Table 5.4.5.1 shows that students found the Net useful for both research and communication, while they found the different methods of finding information on the Web and E-mail discussion lists slightly less useful.

Table 5.4.5.1: Utility Means

Overall, although students found the Net useful for communication (M = 6.27) and for research (M = 6.01), they found the former slightly more useful. This was due primarily to the fact that students rated the overall utility of the Net (questions 47 and 48) higher for the communication side (M = 6.23) than the research side (M = 6.07), when the ratings of the most useful communication services (E-mail: M = 6.01) and the most useful research service (the Web: M = 6.00) were relatively equal.

Correlation analysis of the four utility scales confirmed that there was a strong inter- relationship between three of them: the utility of the Net for research, the utility of the Net for communication, and the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web. Table 5.4.5.2 shows that there was a strong positive correlation between these three scales: as utility on one scale increased, so too did utility on the other two. For example, as the utility of the Net for research increased, the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web, and the utility of the Net for communication also increased correspondingly. The utility of E-mail discussion lists was not correlated with any of the other three scales.

201 Table 5.4.5.2: Inter-Correlations of the Utility Scales

5.5: Inter-relationships Between Usage, Value and Utility The strong inter-relationships within each of the concepts of usage, value and utility have already been noted. There was a strong positive correlation between all four usage scales, there were both strong positive and negative correlations between the four value scales, and there were strong positive correlations between three of the four utility scales.

There were also strong inter-relationships between the three main concepts being investigated (see Table 5.5.1).

202 5.5.1: Correlations - Usage, Value and Utility Scales

Generally, usage and value were very strongly inter-related; value and utility were also closely related (but to a lesser extent than value and utility); and the weakest (but still significantly related concepts) were usage and utility.

203 Usage of the various research services was positively correlated with advantages for research (r = .280; p = .000) and advantages for communication (r = .242; p = .005): as students used more research services they found more advantages for both research and communication. Similarly, usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web was positively correlated with advantages for research (r = .320; p = .000) and advantages for communication (r = .187; p = .005). Although the relationship between the former was stronger than the relationship between the latter, students who used more methods of finding information on the Web found more advantages for both research and communication.

Usage of research services and the different methods of finding information on the Web were also both correlated with the disadvantages for research and communication. Students who used more methods of finding information on the Web also found more disadvantaged for research (r = -.212; p = .002) and more disadvantages for communication (r = -.200; p = .020), while students who used more of the various research services of the Net found more disadvantages for research (r = -.195; p = .004).

The relationship between usage and value was also mirrored on the communication side of the Net, but to a lesser extent. Students who used more of the communication services found more advantages for research (r = .159; p = .019) and more disadvantages for research (r = -.195; p = .004), while students who were more likely to use E-mail discussion lists were more likely to find more advantages for research (r = .155; p = .022). Somewhat surprisingly, the relationship between usage of communication services and advantages for communication was not significant (r = .143; p = .083). Similarly, the relationship between usage of E-mail discussion lists and advantages for communication was likewise not statistically significant (r = .136; p = .100) .

The advantages of using the Net for research was strongly positively correlated with overall utility for research (r = .327; p = .000), and correlated with the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web (r = .198; p = .003) – although

204 the former relationship was stronger than the latter. Students who listed more advantages to using the Net for research found the Net more useful for research, and they also found the different methods of finding information on the Web more useful. Similarly, the advantages of using the Net for communication was strongly positively correlated with overall utility for communication (r = .341; p = .000), and correlated with the utility of the Net for research (r = .178; p = .038) – although the former relationship was stronger than the latter. Students who listed more advantages to using the Net for communication found the Net more useful for communication, and they also found the Net more useful for research. Interestingly, advantages for communication was not significantly related to the utility of E-mail discussion lists.

The disadvantages of using the Net for communication was inversely correlated with utility of the Net for communication (r = .253; p = .002): students who listed more disadvantages in using the Net for communication also found the Net less useful for communication than those students who listed fewer disadvantages. Likewise, the disadvantages of using the Net for research was inversely correlated with utility of the Net for communication (r = .173; p = .045): students who listed more disadvantages to using the Net for research on also found the Net less useful for communication than those students who listed fewer disadvantages for research. Surprisingly, the relationship between disadvantages for research and utility of the Net for research was not significant (r = .038; p = .575), although it was of the expected sign in that students who listed more disadvantages for research found the Net less useful as a research tool.

Finally, usage of the various research services of the Net was positively correlated with the overall utility of the Net for research (r = .177; p = .009), and with the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web (r = .145; p = .033). Students who used more of the various research services and more of the different methods of finding information on the Web found the Net more useful as a research tool.

205 The relationship between usage and utility was also mirrored on the communication side of the Net. Students who used E-mail discussion lists found the Net more useful for communication (r = .223; p = .007). Surprisingly, usage of the various communication services was not significantly related to overall utility for communication (r = .091; p = .273) – although it was of the expected sign in that students who used more communication services found the Net more useful as a communication tool. Also surprisingly, the utility of E-mail discussion lists (not shown in Table 5.5.1) was not significantly correlated with any of the usage or value scales.

The implications of all of these inter-related concepts will be discussed in the next chapter.

5.6 Summary In this chapter I undertook a statistical analysis of the survey data collected for this study in order to answer the remaining research questions. The three inter-related concepts of usage, value and utility were used as organizing themes, and each was examined through the application of four scales.

The concept of Net usage was measured through the following: research services

(USE-R1), methods of finding information on the Web (USE-R2), communication services (USE-C1), and E-mail discussion lists (USE-C2). I confirmed that the differences in usage of the various research and communication services of the Net (and differences in usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web and usage of E-mail discussion lists) were in fact significant. These differences included the fact that the Web was the most-used research tool by students; FTP was the second most used service (though it was used much less by students than the Web); and that the other research services were not used to any great extent. Additionally, single search engines and browsing/surfing were the most-used methods of finding information on the Web; being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address on tv or in a magazine were the next most-used methods; and that meta-search engines were least-used as methods of finding information on the Web. Finally, E-mail was the most used communication service by students; Chat and Newsgroups were the

206 next most-used services (though both were used to a lesser extent than E-mail); that the other communication services were not used to any great extent; and that E-mail discussion lists were being used by some students.

I also outlined the factors which were related to usage (summarized in Table 5.6.1). The best predictors of usage of the various research services of the Net (from most important to least) were student type, how long a student had been using the Net, and year of study. The best predictors of usage of the various methods of finding information on the Web were comfort level, whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus, how long they had been using the Net, and student type. The best predictors of usage of the various communication services of the Net were whether students accessed the Net on campus, whether students were of non-Aboriginal descent, and student type. The best predictors of usage of E-mail discussion lists were student type and type of access.

Some noticeable patterns emerged during the statistical analysis of the four usage scales: some students were more comfortable just using the Web, while others used more of the various research services; there were differences in usage (along demographic variable lines) of single search engines versus browsing/surfing as methods of finding information on the Web; there were differences between just using E-mail, and using other communication services such as Chat and Newsgroups; and there were differences in E-mail usage levels (along demographic and access variable lines). Overall, students used more research services than they used communication services (and they used the Web more than E-mail).

Finally, I confirmed that all four scales were reliable, and noted the strong positive inter-relationships between them (that is, as usage levels on one scale increased, so too did usage levels on the other three scales).

207 Table 5.6.1: Summary of Factors Related to the Usage Scales

Independent USAGE Variables USE-R1 USE-R2 USE-C1 USE-C2

Age X X / X

Gender X X X X

Language / X / X

Descent / X / X

Student Type / / / /

Location X X X /

Year of Study / X X /

Course X X X X

Student Level / / / /

Student Status X X / X

High School X X X X

Required X X X X

Length Using / / / /

Hours Online / / / /

Comfort Level / / / /

Where Access / / / X

Type Access / / / /

Pay X / / X

Access Problems X X X X

Type Access Problems / / / /

Training X X X X

Tech Support / / / /

KEY: / = Significant X = Not Significant

The concept of Net value was measured through the advantages for research (ADV-R), the disadvantages for research (DIS-R), the advantages for communication (ADV-C), and the disadvantages for communication (DIS-C). I confirmed that the differences in the advantages and disadvantages of using the Net for research and/or communication were in fact significant. These differences included the fact that the most important advantage in using the Net for research was access to information; low

208 cost, convenience, and increased speed were the next most important advantages (though all three were of lesser importance than access to information); and access to current information and ease of use were the least important advantages identified by this sample of students. Additionally, technical problems (such as down or busy servers, and slow access lines) and too much US information were the most important disadvantages students identified when using the Net for research; information overload, difficulty of use, time intensiveness, and lack of access were the next most important disadvantages (although all four were of lesser importance than the first two); and the issues of unreliable content and high cost were the least important disadvantages students indicated when using the Net for research. The three most important advantages to using the Net for communication were low cost, access to people, and convenience; increased speed was the next most important advantage (though it was of lesser importance than the first three); and direct communication and ease of use were the least important advantages according to this sample. Finally, technical problems (such as down or busy servers, or E-mail going missing) were listed as the most important disadvantage by students in using the Net for communication; slow replies to E-mail, difficulty of finding E-mail addresses, information overload, and lack of access were the next most important disadvantages (though all four were of lesser importance than technical problems); and security problems, time intensiveness, difficulty of use, and high cost were the least important disadvantages students identified when using the Net for communication.

In this chapter I also outlined factors which were related to value (summarized in Table 5.6.2). The best predictors of finding the Net advantageous for research (from most important to least) were comfort level, hours online, and whether students accessed the Net both on and off campus. The best predictor of finding the Net disadvantageous for research was whether students encountered both access and technical problems when trying to get online. The best predictors of finding the Net advantageous for communication were hours online, and student type. The best predictor of finding the Net disadvantageous for communication identified by students was whether they encountered both access and technical problems when trying to get online.

209 Table 5.6.2: Summary of Factors Related to the Value Scales

Independent VALUE Variables ADV-R DIS-R ADV-C DIS-C

Age X X X X

Gender / X X X

Language X X X X

Descent / / X /

Student Type / X / X

Location X X X X

Year of Study X X X X

Course X X X /

Student Level / X / X

Student Status X X X X

High School X X X X

Required X X X X

Length Using / X / X

Hours Online / X / X

Comfort Level / X / X

Where Access / / X /

Type Access X X X X

Pay X X X X

Access Problems X / X X

Type Access Problems X / X /

Training X X X X

Tech Support / X / X

KEY: / = Significant X = Not Significant

Some noticeable patterns emerged during the statistical analysis of the four value scales: there were differences in the number of advantages for research listed by various groups of students; differences in viewing convenience as an advantage for research; differences (along demographic and access variable lines) in viewing the disadvantages of the Net for research, including the difficulty of use of the Net, information overload, and too much US information; differences in the number of

210 advantages for communication listed by various groups of students; differences in viewing direct communication as an advantage; and differences (along demographic and access variable lines) in viewing the disadvantages of the Net for communication, including the difficulty of use of the Net, lack of access, information overload, security, the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses, and technical problems. Students found more advantages to using the Net for research than they found advantages for communication; and they also found more disadvantages to using the Net for research than they found disadvantages for communication. Overall, students seemed to indicate that the research and communication sides of the Net were about equally as valuable. Finally, I confirmed that all four scales were reliable, and noted the strong inter- relationships (both positive and negative) between them: advantages for research and advantages for communication were correlated positively; advantages for research and disadvantages for both research and communication were correlated negatively; and disadvantages for research and communication were also strongly positively correlated.

The concept of Net utility was measured through the utility of the following: the Net as a research tool (UTIL-R1), the different methods of finding information of the Web

(UTIL-R2), the Net as a communication tool (UTIL-C1), and E-mail discussion lists

(UTIL-C2). I confirmed that the differences in the utility of the various research and communication services offered by the Net (and the differences in the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web and the utility of E-mail discussion lists) were significant. These differences included the fact that the Web was the most useful research tool for students; that FTP was the second most useful tool (though it was much less useful than the Web); and that the other research services were not that useful to students. Additionally, students found single search engines and browsing/surfing the most useful methods of finding information on the Web; the next most useful methods were being told the address, subject-directories, and seeing the address in a magazine or on tv; meta-search engines were identified as the least useful method of finding information on the Web. Finally, E-mail was the most useful communication service nominated by students; Chat and Newsgroups were the next most useful communication tools (though they were both much less useful than

211 E-mail); Talk, Phone and Video-Conferencing were not that useful to students; and those who used E-mail discussion lists found those lists useful – to some degree or other – for communication. I also outlined that factors which were related to utility (summarized in Table 5.6.3).

Table 5.6.3: Summary of Factors Related to the Utility Scales

Independent UTILITY Variables

UTIL-R1 UTIL-R2 UTIL-C1 UTIL-C2

Age X X X X

Gender X X X X

Language / / X X

Descent / / X X

Student Type X X / X

Location / / X X

Year of Study X / X X

Course X X X /

Student Level X X X X

Student Status X X X X

High School X X X X

Required X X X /

Length Using X X / X

Hours Online / X / X

Comfort Level / / / X

Where Access X X X X

Type Access X X X X

Pay X X X X

Access Problems X X X X

Type Access Problems X X X X

Training X X X X

Tech Support / / / X

KEY: / = Significant X = Not Significant

212 I found the best predictors of the utility of the Net as a research tool (from most important to least) were comfort level, and whether students were of Aboriginal descent. The best predictors of the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web were comfort level, location, and the availability of technical support. The best predictors of the utility of the Net as a communication tool were hours online and comfort level. The best predictors of the utility of E-mail discussion lists were course type and whether students were required to use the Net.

Some noticeable patterns emerged during the statistical analysis of the four utility scales: there were differences in student views of the utility of the research services other than the Web; differences in views of the utility of the Web (along demographic and access variable lines); differences in views of the utility of the two most useful methods of finding information on the Web (single search engines versus browsing/ surfing); differences in views of the utility of the communications services other than E-mail; and differences in views of the utility of E-mail by various groups of students (along demographic and access variable lines). Students found the Net useful for both research and communication, while they found the different methods of finding information on the Web and E-mail discussion lists slightly less useful. Overall, they found the Net slightly more useful for communication than research.

Finally, I confirmed that the scales were reliable, and noted the strong positive inter- relationships between three of them. These three scales included the utility of the Net for research, the utility of the Net for communication, and the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web; and as utility levels on one scale increased, so too did utility levels on the other two.

In the next chapter I discuss the implications of these results.

213 Chapter 6: Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusions

6.1 Introduction The quantitative and qualitative findings I outlined in the previous two chapters have important implications for students in their usage of the Net as a research and/or communication tool, and the value and utility they will ultimately derive from that usage. This discussion is in three parts. First, I discuss the original contribution to knowledge that this thesis makes. Next, I recommend a strategy which will help to make the most productive use of the Net as a research and communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction. Then I conclude by highlighting some of the outstanding questions identified by the study which require further investigation.

6.2 The Contribution to Knowledge The results and analysis outlined in the previous two chapters show a wealth of findings emanating from this study. However, only the most important (and/or interesting) of those findings are discussed in detail here. For example, the importance of comfort level and its relationship to usage has been well-documented elsewhere, and was confirmed by students as an important issue in this study. Additionally, it was hypothesized that comfort level (and the inter-related variables of hours online, the length of time using the Net, and the availability of technical support) would also be correlated with value and utility; and the results from this study confirmed that indeed they were. While I note these rather obvious findings, or where the findings of this study confirms previously reported research, I do not do so in great detail. The main purpose here is to show how a particular finding contributes to our understanding of student usage, value and utility of the Net (and thus help fill gaps in the evaluation literature regarding the Net and its use in post-secondary education).

This section focuses – in order – on the significance of the three main concepts of usage, value and utility. Additionally, I highlight other significant findings, answer part of the remaining research question (RQ4 I and ii), and highlight the importance of the skill of digital literacy.

214 6.2.1 The Significance of Usage My investigation of the concept of usage is important because it contributes to our understanding of how students are really using the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction. It was not surprising to find the Web was the most used research tool by students, or that there were differences between groups of students in their usage patterns of the various available research services (including the Web) along the lines of student-type, year of study, students level, length of time using the Net, hours online, and comfort level. I hypothesized that the differences in the research needs between post-graduates and their undergraduate counterparts would lead the former to use services such as logging into online catalogues, downloading files, and searching online databases more-so than the latter. The data for this study suggests that this same rationale holds true for similar differences between first-year students and post-first year students; and for differences between beginning and intermediate students and more advanced and expert students. Additionally, the relationships between usage levels, and comfort levels and hours spent online, and the relationships between usage levels and having had training and access to technical support have been well documented elsewhere (and the data collected for this study conforms to those previously-discussed relationships).

This study clearly showed that access, and the inter-related concepts of descent and first language, had impacts on research usage patterns. Much has been written about issues of student access to the Net within post-secondary education. The results of this study are important in that they suggest that not only is getting online important, but having the freedom to stay online once you get there is equally as important (thus the difference between students with restricted access and those with unrestricted access terms of usage of research services). I also hypothesized that students whose first language was Aboriginal used fewer research services because of language barriers (that is, their usage was more cursory), while students whose first language was non- Aboriginal were not limited by those constraints. The data suggests that the same reasoning could be used to explain differences between students of Aboriginal descent and non-Aboriginal descent in regards to usage of research services. These findings regarding type of access, descent, and first language have important implications for

215 institutional policies on student access and student training per se (and will be discussed more fully later in this chapter).

Similar findings also emerged with student usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web. It was not surprising that single search engines and browsing/searching were nominated as the top two preferred methods, nor was it surprising that there were differences between groups of students in their usage patterns of these two methods. I suggest that post-first year students – through the normal course of learning online research skills as their academic careers progress – have learned how to use single search engines more effectively than first year students (so thus the differences in usage between those groups of students). Similarly, students who had higher comfort levels and who had been using the Net longer would likewise be expected to use single search engines more (as an advanced skill) than those students who may be more inclined to simply browse/surf the Net at a beginner level.

What is particularly interesting about the results is that where students accessed the Net, as well as descent, first language and course type, all had impacts on how students found information online. First, the data suggests that students accessing the Net on campus were less inclined to use single search engines than those students who accessed the Net off campus. It was thought that these differences were the result of the hassle of students having to find open terminals in computer labs and libraries on campus versus the convenience of having easier access at home. However, these differences actually have less to do with where students access the Net and more to do with comfort levels (and partial correlation analysis – controlling for comfort level – confirmed that assumption). This finding is important because it has implications for both campus infrastructure and student training. Second, the descent and first language considerations were similar to those already outlined in regards to the usage patterns of the various research services. Finally, course type was important because it highlights the influences of the instructor on students: where instructors encourage students to use the technology, students tend to do so. These findings regarding descent, first language, and course type are significant because they impact upon student training programs and how instructors can make better use of available

216 technology and access to it in post-secondary education.

It was not surprising that the survey data found – and the focus groups data confirmed – that E-mail was the most used communication service by students, and that Chat and Newsgroups were the next most used services. However, recent data suggests that the gap between usage of the various communications services (especially the gap between E-mail and Chat usage) would be smaller today than when the survey was undertaken (Engle 2003). Nor was it surprising that there were differences in the usage patterns of the various communication services according to student type, hours online, comfort level, and gender. As with the usage of research services, it seems likely that because of their academic needs, post-graduate students would be inclined to use E-mail as well as the other communication services (including Chat and Newsgroups), while undergraduate students would primarily use E-mail. Additionally, the data collected for this study supports already well-documented relationships between hours spent online and comfort levels, and the usage of communication services; and the gender differences between female students (who tend to use E-mail more) and male students (who tend to use the Web more) (Colley & Comber 2003).

What I am suggesting here is that student status, descent, the type of access, and whether students experienced access problems had impacts upon the usage of the various communication services. First, the data suggests that part-time students used fewer communication services, and were less likely to use E-mail, than full time students. It seems reasonable to conclude that part-time students’ work and family commitments detract from their ability to use E-mail to the extent that full-time students do. Second, the descent and type of access considerations were similar to those outlined above for usage of research services. These findings speak to issues of both student access and training. Finally, those students who had encountered access problems when trying to get online were less likely to use E-mail. This, in itself, is not surprising; but what is surprising is that the same pattern for the use of the Web was not noted. The evidence collected for this study does not indicate why differences between access for the Web and access for E-mail were significant.

217 The findings for usage of E-mail discussion lists followed similar patterns to those for usage of research and communication services (in that there were differences between groups of students according to variables such as student type, hours online, how long using, comfort level, and year of study). Another expected finding that was confirmed was that the availability of technical support encourages usage of services (and in this case, particularly, usage of E-mail discussion lists). The most interesting finding here – and one similar to the differences outlined above – was the difference along type of access lines, where students with restricted access tended not to use E-mail discussion lists, while those with unrestricted access did. This has clear implications for institutional policies regarding student access.

The overall usage patterns of research and communication services was not unexpected, and roughly mirrors other studies in that research services (specifically the Web) were used more than the combined communication services (Jones, et al 2002). As noted previously, students in this study seemed to have more difficulty getting online to access their E-mail accounts than they did just getting online to use the Web – which is why there were differences between overall usage of research and communication services. This is by no means a conclusive finding, though, as other studies have found that E-mail was used more than the Web (Markham, et al. 2003).

My investigation revealed a strong inter-relationships between the four usage scales. It was expected that the two research usage scales would be strongly correlated (as they were), and that the two communication usage scales would be strongly correlated (as indeed they were). I also expected that there would be some relationship between usage of research services (the Web) and the usage of communication services (E-mail, Chat, Newsgroups). What was unexpected was the strength of those relationships (as all four scales were strongly positively correlated), and the link between usage of the different methods of finding information on the Web and usage of E-mail discussion lists. It was not clear why these two findings emerged, as there was no compelling evidence to explain them. This may be a topic for possible further investigation.

218 6.2.2 The Significance of Value The concept of value is a crucial one because it contributes to our understanding of what students find valuable about using the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction. The survey data predictably found – and the focus group studies confirmed – that students identified access to information as the most important advantage to using the Net for research; that low cost, convenience, and increased speed were the next most important; and that the currency of information and the ease of use were the least important advantages. These have been well documented elsewhere, and my study confirmed that for this student sample, at least, they remain important issues. Nor was it surprising that different groups of students identified differences in the number of advantages found when using the Net for research. I suggest that such identified differences along the lines of student level and student type can be attributed to the differences in the research needs of those disparate groups of students. Post-graduate students would be expected to undertake more intensive research activity than undergraduate students, and would therefore be more likely to view researching via the Net in a more positive manner. Similar differences were expected between advanced and expert students, and those classed as beginners and intermediates. Additionally, the differences between students according to variables such as comfort level, hours online, length of time using, technical support, and gender in regards to difficulty of use tend to support previously-documented research.

However, the study revealed several noteworthy findings. First, where students accessed the Net had an impact on the number of advantages for research identified by students (those who could access the Net from home as well as on campus found more advantages than students who could access the Net in only one place). It seems reasonable to suggest that the “convenience” aspect – being able to access the Net in multiple locations – was the major contributor to this finding. Second, the flexibility of hypertext noted in the focus group discussions is important because it sheds light on one particular aspect of the access to information advantage: that of being able to access much more than just text through one format. Finally, differences in viewing Net research as “convenient” were noted according to type of access, student status,

219 and descent. The same rationale is applied here (as it was for usage of services) for type of access and students status to explain why part-time students and those with restricted access don’t view the Net as convenient for research. Regarding descent, it is likely that non-Aboriginal students may have greater access to home computers than Aboriginal students, thus accounting for the differences in views of convenience. However, even when controlling for accessing the Net at home (through the partial correlation procedure), the differences between these two groups remained significant. Therefore, more investigation is needed to explain this difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. These findings have implications for designing campus infrastructure, instructors wishing to integrate technology into their courses, and the training of students from different cultural backgrounds.

My data reinforced previous research in that technical and access problems played a large part in determining how many disadvantages students found when using the Net for research. Similarly, it came as no surprise that students without technical support – who spent fewer hours online, who were less comfortable, and who had been using the Net for a shorter period of time – found the Net more difficult to use.

However, my study revealed that there were differences in student views of the disadvantages of using the Net for research according to variables like student status, type of access, and training. Students who had unrestricted access to the Net and those who were enrolled part-time experienced information overload more than students with restricted access and those who were enrolled full-time. This suggests that students with unrestricted access have more time to use the Net – and are thus able to retrieve more information (which then presents them with the problem of determining how to manage that information). Regarding the part-time/full-time differences, it seems likely that the time restrictions experienced by part-time students would lead them to view information overload as a disadvantage. The lack of training was related to viewing too much US information on the Net as a disadvantage for research, in that students without training tended to view this disadvantage as important, while those with training did not. It is argued that students who did not have training had more difficulty finding the information they were looking for, especially if it was non-US

220 based information. These findings impact upon both student training needs and the development of digital literacy skills, discussed later in this chapter. Finally, the difficulty of citing online sources and the issue of information overload – both raised in the focus group discussions – similarly support the need for strong digital literacy skills and training in this area.

My findings regarding the advantages for communication were similar to those for the advantages for research. Predictably, perhaps, low cost, access to people, and convenience were identified by the students as the most important advantages to using the Net for communication; increased speed was the next most important advantage identified; and ease of use and direct communication were the least important advantages identified. It was expected that there would be differences between groups of students regarding the number of advantages they identified when using the Net for communication – especially according to variables such as hours online, student type, student level, length of time using, comfort level, and the availability of technical support.

What was surprising was that variables like gender, the course being taken, and whether students were required to use the Net, were all related to the different advantages of using the Net for communication. The differences between male and female students in their use of the Net has been well documented elsewhere. Much of this discussion has focused on the differences between the two and their relative levels of comfort in using the technology. My findings highlight additional issues, specifically convenience – female students found using the communication services of the Net convenient, while male students did not – which may help to explain these gender differences. Second, my data suggest that course differences and whether students were required to use the Net were related to instructors views on the use of technology, as outlined above. Additionally, the focus group results shed additional light on two of the advantages for communication – convenience and the direct communication of E-mail. The fact that the Net fosters informal communication is in- part one of the convenient features of online communication; and the empowering nature of E-mail relates both to convenience and the advantage of direct

221 communication. These findings have implications for student training, and the integration of technology into post-secondary courses.

It was not surprising that technical problems, information overload, lack of access, security concerns, and time intensiveness were identified by students as disadvantages when using the Net for communication. And predictably, the data revealed differences between groups of students in the number and types of disadvantages they listed according to year of study, hours online, comfort level, length of time using, and type of access.

However, the difficulty of finding E-mail addresses emerged as an important disadvantage identified by students in using the Net for communication; and the differences between groups of students in viewing this as a disadvantage is what was striking about the results. Students who were younger, of non-Aboriginal descent, enrolled full-time, who were urban, or who accessed the Net both on and off campus all found it difficult to find E-mail addresses. This suggests that all of these student tend to use E-mail to a significant degree, while older students, those of Aboriginal descent, enrolled part-time, located in rural areas, or who access only on or off campus, do not. The results suggest that increased use also highlights the problems associated with the technology. This finding speaks to both the training needs and the digital literacy skills of different groups of students. In addition, students who were required to use the Net, those enrolled part-time, and those enrolled in certain courses all felt that information overload was an important disadvantage. This is a significant indication of the need for training students who have to use the Net when they would not be inclined to use it otherwise.

Overall, the advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research and/or communication mirror those found in other studies (Wiebe, et al 2003). Similarly, the fact that students found the research and communication dimensions of the Net about equally as valuable was likewise reflected in the literature.

222 However, one unexpected finding was the degree of the inter-relationships between the scales was not expected. I expected to find that advantages for research and disadvantages for research would be correlated (as they were), as would advantages and disadvantages for communication (although the latter were not). It was also expected that there would be some relationship between advantages for research and advantages for communication, but not to the extent found in this study. It was not clear why advantages and disadvantages for communication were not correlated, nor why the other relationships were so strong. Additionally, difficulty of use was quite an important disadvantage for research, where it was nominated 4th out of eight disadvantages, while it was less so for communication (8th out of nine disadvantages). This suggests that, overall, students may be finding it easier to use E-mail, and more difficult to use the Web. This has clear implications for both training and technical support programs in post-secondary education.

6.2.3 The Significance of Utility The concept of utility contributes to our understanding of what students find useful about using the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom- based instruction. The survey data found – and the focus group data confirmed – that the Web was the most useful research service of students. Another unsurprising finding was that there were differences between groups of students (along the lines of comfort level, hours online, location, and access to technical support) in their views of the Net as an overall tool for research.

What is surprising from the results is that there were differences regarding perceptions of utility along descent and first language lines, as well as with type and location of access. Descent and first language relationships with utility were the exact opposite to those for usage. In fact, the data suggest that students of Aboriginal descent or those with an Aboriginal first language found the Net more useful for research exactly because their usage levels were low, whereas students of non-Aboriginal descent or whose first language was English (whose usage levels were higher) would have used the Net enough to see the down-sides to that usage (thus resulting in a lower utility rating). In addition, students with restricted access or those who accessed the Net on

223 campus were least likely to find logging into remote library catalogues or the downloading of files useful. It is surmized that this is primarily due to the fact that students in both of those groups were also least likely to use those research services in the first place, so those low utility ratings were not unexpected. These findings regarding variables such as descent, first language, type of access, and where students access the Net are relevant for the planning and implementation of student training programs and institutional policies on student access.

Similar findings emerged for the utility of the different methods of finding information on the Web as for the usage of those methods. Predictably, single search engines and browsing/surfing were identified by students as the most useful of the methods used, and equally unsurprising were the differences in the usefulness of the various research methods according to variables like comfort level, year of study, location, and the availability of technical support.

The results revealed significant differences regarding utility along both descent and first language lines – in terms of the overall utility of the various methods of finding information on the Web and in terms of the utility of browsing/surfing as a method – in that Aboriginal students and those with an Aboriginal first language tended to browse/surf to find their information on the Web. The suspected rationale for these differences is the same as for the overall utility of the Net for research: differences in usage levels between the different groups of students. Additionally, there were differences in student views of the utility of single search engines and browsing/surfing. Much has been written about gender differences in usage of the Net, and the results of this study reinforces that earlier work. However, my results highlight a particular difference in how female and male students view and use the Net, specifically, that female students found single search engines more useful as a method of finding information online than did their male counterparts. These findings have clear implications for student training programs, and for integrating technology into the classroom. Finally, being told the URL was identified by students as a useful method of finding information on the Web (ranking just slightly behind single search engines and browsing/surfing in the utility of the different methods). Perhaps it would have been

224 even more useful had it been used more as a method to find information on the Web. This finding is significant because it suggests that the Net can be a very useful tool when students know where to find what they are looking for.

The survey data found – and the focus group data confirmed – that E-mail was the most useful communication service, and that Chat and Newsgroups were the next most useful services. Additionally, there were differences between groups of students (along the lines of comfort level, hours online, the length of time students had been using the Net, student type, and technical support) in their views of utility of the different communication services.

Although these findings tended to reinforce previous research, several findings are noteworthy. First, the low utility ratings of other communication services (especially Chat) was not surprising. This is most likely due to the date that the data was collected – in that Chat was not used as much then as it is now. I venture to suggest that were the data collected between 2002-2004, the gap in utility rating would be smaller and that Chat would be rated as an even more useful communication tool. Second, I found that students who had training were likely to find the other communication services of the Net, including Newsgroups and Chat, more useful. While this may have been expected, this is one of the first times that the importance of training was confirmed in this study. I will explore the issue of training more fully later in this chapter.

The finding that the utility of E-mail discussion lists was related to year of study was predictable. It would be expected that as students progress in their academic careers, they pickup more skills and knowledge along the way, so that post first-year students would therefore be more likely to rate E-mail discussion lists higher in terms of utility than first year students. However, the relationships between course being taken, and whether or not use of the Net was required, and the utility of E-mail discussion lists offered an interesting finding. Again, this highlight the importance of the influence instructors might have on students, suggesting further implications for the integration of technology into classrooms.

225 Overall, the findings of the utility of the Net for research and/or communication mirror those found in other studies (Frey, et al 2003). Similarly, the fact that students found the communication dimensions of the Net slightly more useful than the research dimension was likewise unsurprising. The study also revealed that the utility scales were strongly inter-related, as expected.

An unexpected results emerging from this section of my study revealed that the utility of E-mail discussion lists was low compared to the utility of other Net services, compared especially to general E-mail use. This is somewhat surprising, given other research that outlines the utility of E-mail discussion lists (Hyman 2003). However, it should be noted that less than 15 per cent of the students in the study sample actually used E-mail discussion lists, so the finding regarding their utility should be interpreted with caution. In addition, the inter-relationships among the utility scales showed some surprising results. It was expected that the overall utility for research would be strongly correlated with the utility of the various methods of finding information on the Web (as they were); and that overall utility for research would be strongly correlated with the overall utility for communication (as they were). What was unexpected was the lack of a relationship between the utility of E-mail discussion lists and the overall utility of communication – and for that matter, to the overall utility for research. It was not clear why these relationships were not correlated – although the low numbers of students using E-mail discussion lists noted above may have something to do with it. This suggests the need for further investigation of this in a future study.

6.2.4 Other Significant Findings No significant relationships were found between training and any of the 12 scales considered. This was not expected, as much has been written about the impact of training on usage. Additionally, the raw survey results presented in Table 6.2.4.1 (Appendix E) confirmed that for the students who did not use the Net in this study, training issues – including a lack of training, and that the Net was too difficult to use – were the most important deterrents to usage, listed as even more important as deterrents than access issues. I had expected to find that training would impact on value and utility, but other than the relationship between training and the utility of

226 Newsgroups noted above, no other correlations were confirmed. One reason for this could be that many students now learn how to use the Net through informal tutoring provided by their peers, as opposed to formal course-based Internet training sessions. For this study, the survey questions relating to training combined both formal and informal training in the same category. In light of the results, further exploration of the separate aspects of formal and informal training could be pursued.

Few significant relationships were found between age and the 12 scales. Although there were differences in age along some of the internal elements of the scales (specifically views of the different advantages and disadvantages of the Net for research and communication), the only relationship to one of the other scales was with the usage of communication services. This was somewhat surprising in that given the relatively large percentage of older students in the sample, more differences along age lines were expected. One possible reason for this is that the post-graduates (as older students) have skewed the usage, value and utility results. However, further analysis (controlling for the post-graduate students) did not yield any significantly different results. The findings regarding age are important because they challenge other studies that reveal that generational gaps in post-secondary student usage of the Net still exist (Jones, et al. 2002).

As noted above, there were differences in student views of the overall utility of the Net for research along rural and urban lines. I had expected that due to rural students lack of access to large libraries and extensive research material, they would find the Net more useful as a research tool than urban students. However, there were no significant differences between urban and rural students regarding the specific advantage of access to information. This was surprising, as logically, it should have been the reason for the differences in views between the two groups of students. However, a closer examination of the results showed that in fact these differences were the result of different usage patterns (similar to the descent and first language differences noted above). Specifically, rural students used the Net less for research than urban students, so they had yet to experience the down-side of extensive use (which shows up as higher utility ratings on their part). These findings have important implications

227 regarding institutional policies for designing campus infrastructure.

Predictably, perhaps, my study revealed that the four “comfort type” variables noted above were correlated with nine of the twelve scales – the main exception being with the utility of E-mail discussion lists, which appears to be an aberration from the rest of the study results. However, what was surprising was the fact that none of those four comfort type variables were related to the disadvantages for either research or communication. In other words, regardless of whether students were extremely comfortable in using the Net, spent many hours online each week, had been using the Net for a long period of time, and had access to technical support, they continued to experience difficulties when going online – especially the difficulties of both technical problems and access problems. This is another relevant finding for both campus infrastructure and technical support programs, and warrants further investigation, albeit in another study.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the inter-relationship of the concepts of usage, value and utility. As noted above, the 12 scales used to examine the three concepts were strongly correlated – with usage and value being most closely related, value and utility being the next most closely related, and usage and utility being the least closely related. These relationships are important because they shed light on how students are using the Net, and they outline specifically what makes the Net valuable and useful for both research and/or communication. For example, generally, as usage increased, so too did the number of both advantages and disadvantages for both research and/or communication. This is important because it highlights the fact that the use of this tool in post-secondary education – as Postman has noted above – is not without its drawbacks: there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of the tool, and these must be acknowledged and dealt with if it is to be used by students to its full potential.

228 6.2.5 The Importance of the Skill of Digital Literacy The skills that students need to research and communicate when online have previously been outlined through the Focus Group results (see Chapter 4). These skills are formalized here into the concept of digital literacy.

The definition of literacy has grown and evolved over time. I discuss several aspects of literacy in this section (which follows the development of first computers, then the Internet). These aspects include: regular literacy (pre-computers); computer literacy (pre-Internet); and digital literacy (Net). Traditionally, literacy has revolved around the “3 R’s”: Reading, ‘Rriting and ‘Rithmetic (Papert 1993b). If one could read, write and perform basic mathematical calculations, they were considered literate (Rafferty 1999; Iannone 1998). This was, however, prior to the development of computers and their entrance into the educational system in the 1970s (Selfe 1988; Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS] 1991).

With the advent of computers, a new component was added to the basic areas described above – that of “computer literacy” (Rosenberg 1991; Lewington 1996). This entailed being able to write computer programs (Rushkoff 1998), use specific educational programs (Barnes 1996), and solve problems (Howard & Kysela 1993). This period lasted from the 1970s until the 1990s, when computers started being hooked up to each other via networks (Collis & Anderson 1994). With the mainstreaming of the Internet and other information technologies in the 1990s, the notion of computer literacy again was transformed; and with this transformation came a variety of monikers: technological literacy (Hunter 1992; Kitagaki 1995; Cajas 2000), E-literacy (Kaplan 1995), Web literacy (Zhao, et al. 2000), on-line literacy (Tapper 1997), Internet literacy (Information Highway Advisory Council 1997), information literacy (Niederhauser 1996; Breivik 2000) and digital literacy (Pool 1997; Gilster 1997a). These terms – though different in name – have a common feature: moving beyond the traditionally narrow focus of computer literacy, and expanding it to include the broader application of critical thinking skills when using computers and the Internet. The most useful terms for the purposes of my investigation include information literacy and digital literacy:

229 Briefly defined, information literacy is an individual's ability to: recognize a need for information; identify and locate appropriate information sources; know how to gain access to the information contained in those sources; evaluate the quality of information obtained; organize the information; and use the information effectively (Doyle 1992).

Lepani has usefully identified the following steps in the information literacy process:

1. the use of computer-based services to search and find relevant information in a range of contexts for goal-oriented learning tasks; 2. the ability to retrieve information using a variety of media; 3. the ability to decode information in a variety of forms – written, statistical, graphic; 4. critical evaluation of information, including the use of systems thinking to explore the interconnectedness of different fields of knowledge in a context dependent manner; 5. use of computer-based services to analyse, write, present and communicate information to create knowledge and insight; and 6. use of information technologies to create/use networks of co-learners in the pursuit of knowledge and information sharing (Lepani 1995).

More recently, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, New Jersey reinforced these elements of information literacy, though they used a slightly different term – information and communications technology (ICT) literacy. ICT literacy is “using digital technology, communications tools, and/or networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information in order to function in a knowledge society” (ETS 2002: 2).

In their report “Digital Transformation: A Framework for ICT Literacy” , they outlined the five critical components of ICT literacy, which represent a set of skills and knowledge presented in a sequence that suggests increasing cognitive complexity:

230 1. Access - knowing about and knowing how to collect and/or retrieve information; 2. Manage - applying an existing organizational or classification scheme; 3. Integrate - interpreting and representing information. It involves summarizing, comparing and contrasting; 4. Evaluate - making judgments about the quality, relevance, usefulness, or efficiency of information; and 5. Create - generating information by adapting, applying, designing, inventing, or authoring information.

These offer a useful model for my own analysis. Taking these further, Gilster adopts the tenets of the concept of information and ICT literacy, then adds in the communication component of the Net (Gilster 1997b). I use his term to describe the skills that students now have to master to cope within technology-rich environments (Kinzer & Leu 1997).

The focus group data confirmed the importance of the skill of digital literacy for the students in this study. As well as confirming the specific components of digital literacy outlined above, special importance was placed on the skills of being able to manage large amounts of information (so as not be overwhelmed with the problem of information overload) and being able to properly cite online sources. Finally, the focus group discussions also highlighted the necessity of learning proper Netiquette. All of these digital literacy skills are important in that they are needed to cope with both the changes in students’ roles (especially in that they are now more responsible for determining quality of content) and the changes to research and/or communication processes brought on by computer mediation.

6.3 Recommendations In this chapter I have used the results and analysis of the preceding two chapters, and the discussion of the first part of this chapter, to show how the concepts of usage, value and utility can inform both practice and policy in post-secondary education. I do this by recommending an overall strategy which could be employed so as to get the

231 most out of the Net as a research and/or communication tool in post-secondary education (thus answering the last part of the final research question – RQ4iii). Based on the research findings and their implications, I suggest a strategy which includes several components: that students have sufficient access; that an appropriate infrastructure exists; that there is suitable technical support for all users; that students have adequate training; that use of the Net is integrated into the curriculum; and that the tool is used appropriately. This strategy is like a chain, with each component (or link) being no more or less important than the other. Although elements of this have been explored by previous research, what I offer here is a way of considering ways of creating an appropriate environment for using the Net, based on actual use by a student sample.

This overall strategy contributes to our understanding of the Net as an educational tool, and it outlines the ways that the tool could be better used in post-secondary education to reflect best practice. Additionally, this strategy is important because it could be used to help to address the issue of the digital divide. While much has been written about the “digital divide” between the technology rich and poor within general society (see section 2.3 for a sample), some researchers argue that this divide also exists within post-secondary education (Slate, et al. 2002). This is especially true between groups of students at any institution, and between institutions themselves – especially in light of funding cuts (Green 2003). While an in-depth exploration of this divide within post-secondary education is beyond the scope of this study, it is suggested that – if implemented – the six components of the strategy can address differences both between groups of students and between institutions.

Finally, the strategy will be useful to a number of specific groups within post- secondary education: training staff – who are designing training programs for students; post-secondary administrators – who are allocating funding for campus infrastructure and setting policies on student access to the Net; instructors – who wish to incorporate the Net into their classrooms so that it can be used efficiently and effectively as a research and/or communication tool; and finally by the students themselves – in that it confirms their access, technical support and training needs.

232 6.3.1 Sufficient Access Data from this study confirmed the importance of getting access to the Net. Access was most importantly related to student usage of the Net, specifically to the number and type of both research and communication services used. Additionally, the various aspects of access – whether restricted or unrestricted, either at a direct cost or gratis, with or without problems, and the very nature of those problems – all were related to how valuable and useful students found the Net for research and/or communication. Post-secondary institutions that wish to promote effective and efficient use of the Net as an educational tool must ensure sufficient access for their students. This includes ensuring that access to both the Web for research, and E-mail, Chat and Newsgroups for communication is convenient, unrestricted, free of cost, and is as problem free as possible. This may seem obvious, but student responses emanating from this study suggest that they are not being applied at the institutions under investigation here. Perhaps it is necessary for such institutions to return to basics before exploring possible advanced applications of the Net.

In order to make accessing the Net more convenient, many post-secondary institutions have “wired” their campuses, so that students can plug laptops in while in classrooms and so they can access the Net from their dorm rooms (Cameron 1997; Thomas 1997). Other institutions have increased the number of computers they have available in their computer labs (Tauz 1996). Although the students surveyed in this study did not have access to the Net in their dorm rooms, their responses show that making access as convenient as possible improves usage, value and utility.

Additionally, the survey data has shown that restricting access to the Net – by placing limits on the number of hours students can spend online, or by placing restrictions on the hours that they can log on – reduces time spent online (which in turn reduces the usage, value and utility of the Net as a tool for students). Reducing or eliminating restrictions on use will improve access levels for students.

233 The survey data has shown that providing access to the Net without a direct cost to the student increased students’ views of the value of the Net as a teaching and learning tool. However, the cost of access to the Net continues to be problematic. The cost of building and maintaining computer networks has risen steadily since the early 1990s, and often these costs are passed on to the students through a mandatory “Information Technology” fee (Carnevale 2003). Though both computer and personal Internet access prices have fallen in recent years, the end result is that some students are placed at a disadvantage: they can’t afford their own computer or to hook up to the Net from home, and risk becoming part of the digital “have-nots” (Frankland 1997). The task of many post-secondary institutions is to try to balance covering their costs – and for many, in the face of diminishing government support – while not disadvantaging any groups of students. Virtually all post-secondary educational institutions place students at the centre of the learning process and it becomes a policy decision as to where the balance might be found.

Finally, reducing the number of technical problems that students encounter when they access the Net is one important way to improve access levels, as these problems were directly related to students rating the Net both lower in value and utility as a tool in my investigation. Having sufficient technical support at post-secondary institutions to assist students would be one way to improve such access (and will be discussed more fully later in section 6.3.3).

6.3.2 Appropriate Infrastructure Data from the surveys and focus groups confirmed the importance of an appropriate infrastructure in order to use the Net effectively. Infrastructure issues relate most specifically to many of the disadvantages of both the research and communication dimensions of the Net (DIS-R and DIS-C). These include technical problems, information overload, time intensiveness, too much US information, security concerns, and the fact that the Net facilitates plagiarism. The various aspects of infrastructure all had an influence on how many research and/or communication services students used when they were online, and how valuable and useful they found those services. Post- secondary institutions that wish to promote effective and efficient use of the Net as an

234 educational tool must ensure an appropriate infrastructure is in place to support their students (Green 2002). This infrastructure encompasses several areas: improved hardware, improved software, and improved content.

Improvements to hardware take two forms: improvements made to networks and improvements made to computers. In regards to the former, the survey data has shown the importance of having adequate networks in place – as technical problems (such as slow downloads for research and E-mail going missing for communication) were rated by the students as the most important disadvantage to using the Net both for research and communication. In Canada, building new, improved networks continues with the deployment of CA*net 4, which is designed to deliver highspeed broadband services for academic/educational institution use (Canarie Inc. 2002). As well as giving academia dedicated network service, it eases congestion by separating educational from commercial users. Additionally, new transport protocols (HTTP-NG) have been developed by the WWW Consortium to upgrade from the current http protocol, and to allow for 2-8 times faster downloading (W3C 2003). Both the building of the new networks and the development of the protocols should improve network performance.

Improvements are being made to computers on many fronts: as well as becoming cheaper to buy (Brockhouse 1998) and becoming more portable (Church 1998), they are also becoming faster (Gwennap 1996). This increased speed of computer chips should assist with improved productivity when performing research and communication functions.

Additionally, there have been many recent improvements in the area of software development to help students cope with the infrastructure problems noted above. Improvements include:

1. the development of better search engines (Sternberg 1997) and better indexing schemes for the Web (Vizine-Goetz 1997); 2. the development of “intelligent agents,” which automatically perform custom designed research tasks (Mougayar 1998);

235 3. the development of the “push” style of media as opposed to the traditional “pull” style of the Net (Blackwell 1997); 4. the emergence of mail filters, which help users deal with E-mail information overload (Boyce 1998); 5. the development of improved network security software (Buckler 1999); and 6. the development of plagiarism detection software, such as EVE – the Essay Verification Engine (CaNexus 2002), CopyCatch (CFL Software Developments 2002), and WordCHECK (WordCHECK Systems 2002) to help instructors catch students who submit plagiarised work.

These developments in software should help to reduce the time students need to spend searching online, they should help to address both the problem of information overload and security concerns, and they should help to reduce plagiarism.

Finally, the survey data highlighted the problem of too much US information being online (and not enough “other” content). While the composition of online content is slowly changing over time – as more material from other countries and in other languages finds its way to the Net – this remains an important problem (United States Internet Council 2000).

One way to improve upon this situation is to increase the overall amount of information available online. Information “underload” is the flipside to information overload and addresses the issue of the lack of information available electronically over the Net. Information underload has arisen for two reasons. Though there is no disputing that the volume of information available on the Net is staggering, a great deal of it is of no value to the average researcher (Mackay 1995). The term “great breadth, but little depth” is sometimes associated with researching via the Net (M. Bates 1997: 47). Additionally, the amount of information available electronically is only a percentage of the total information available from all sources (print, graphics, video, etc.). Several factors determine how much information will be accessible via the Net. These include: how much older, print based information has been converted to digital

236 format; how much newer information is coming out in digital format; and whether electronic information is network accessible (John 1996). Though a great deal of older information is being converted into digital form (Moule 1997), and most newer information is being made available in electronic format, the information must still be made available to the outside world (and not reside solely on a workstation in a library, with the same effect of having to go to the library to access the information). Making the information available to networks takes both time and money – which is one reason why there isn’t more information available online now (John 1996).

Copyright remains one of the biggest obstacles to an even greater volume of information being made available over the Net (Johnston, et al. 1997). Most authors want to protect their intellectual property, and only once they can be reimbursed for their work, rather than have it distributed freely over the Net, will they allow it to be reproduced (Carroll & Broadhead 1997). The development of new technologies which allow for the protection of copyright and intellectual property – such as the Digital Object Identifier (Rosenblatt 1997) – may be the answer to getting more information online.

As well as increasing the overall volume of content on the Net, the quality of that content is also an issue. Quality was an issue raised by students both during the surveys and the focus group sessions. Again, this is slowly changing over time – as more quality content comes online from reliable sources such as academic institutions, governments, etc. (Sternberg 1998). Additionally, as users develop the skills needed to find the information they want and disregard that which is not useful, this will become even less of an issue.

6.3.3 Adequate Technical Support Data from the surveys confirmed the importance of adequate technical support for students. The various aspects of technical support – including whether students had problems when they accessed the Net, and the importance of technical support in increasing comfort levels (see Table 6.3.3.1 in Appendix E) – were related to how many services students used when they were online, and how valuable and useful they

237 found those services. Post-secondary institutions that wish to promote effective and efficient use of the Net as an educational tool must ensure adequate technical support is in place for their students (Cannon 1996; Chizmar & Williams 1998). This includes ensuring that this support is readily available, and effective in assisting students.

With the boom in technology (computers, networks, Internet, corporate Intranets) since the early 1990s, many organizations – post-secondary educational institutions included – routinely spent sizeable portions of their budgets on information technology. However, most of this tends to go into hardware: a corresponding importance towards technical support did not surface until after the networks had been installed and the computer labs were set up. As one observer noted: “I guess there was an assumption that the technology would support itself” (Barron 1999: 120). Estimates by some researchers are that between 50 and 70 per cent of the purchase price of a system should be set aside for technical support and training if the system is to be used to its full potential (Immen 1999). When this is not done, user support suffers. The good news is that post-secondary institutions are beginning to take technical support seriously, and have identified it as one of the top information technology issues to be addressed (McClure, et al. 1997; Yohe 1996; Green 1999).

As well as being readily available, technical support must also be effective in assisting students with the myriad of problems they encounter when using the Net – including difficulties in logging on to networks, problems with down or busy servers, and dealing with files (and E-mail attachments) downloaded from the Net.

6.3.4 Suitable Skills and Training Data from the surveys and focus groups confirmed the importance of the requisite skills needed to cope with researching and communicating via the Net. Digital literacy skills (and associated training) were related to how comfortable students were when they used the Net, which in turn was related to how many services they used when they were online, and how valuable and useful they found those services (see Table 6.3.4.1 in Appendix E) .

238 Post-secondary institutions that wish to promote effective and efficient use of the Net as an educational tool must ensure that their students are digitally literate. This includes ensuring that: the skill of digital literacy is taught, emphasized, and utilized; and that specific groups of students that would not normally use the Net (or who would not find it useful or valuable) are encouraged to use it and have the appropriate training to do so.

Training is required for students so that they can acquire needed skills (Rice 1995; Burwell 1997). The ability to quickly find useful information on the Web and to be able to send and receive E-mail are becoming more and more important in today’s increasingly electronic classroom. This includes both the basic skills of knowing how to browse and surf effectively (without wasting time), knowing where to find (and how to use) single search engines, and how to find E-mail addresses, as well as the more advanced skills of digital literacy, and knowing how to deal with information overload and online citation. In recognition of this, most universities and colleges are now incorporating electronic research into their curricula, and are offering E-mail and Web training to the students as part (or as a supplement to) the library tour provided with the orientation to the available educational resources offered at that particular institution (Pelton & Pelton 1996). Additionally, as the previous discussion on digital literacy showed, critical thinking skills for students is vitally important if the emerging problem of “research by googling” is to be avoided (Carlson 2003).

Additionally, the survey data has shown that specific groups of students – particularly students whose first language was not English, those who were of Aboriginal descent, part-time students, and newer (first year) students – did not use the Net as much for research and/or communication, and did not find the Net as valuable or useful when they used it as did other students. Providing specific and, where appropriate, culturally relevant training to these groups of students would ensure that they would use the Net more, and find it a more valuable and useful tool for research, communication and learning.

239 6.3.5 Integration Into the Curriculum Although no direct data was collected from post-secondary instructors regarding their views of the Net, the results from this study show how instructors can influence how students use the online environment. One of the most important information technology issue facing post-secondary institutions is “assisting faculty to integrate technology into instruction” (Green 1998). Individual instructors who wish to promote effective and efficient use of the Net as an educational tool first need to integrate this use into the current curriculum (Laurillard 1993; Bailey & Cotlar 1994). As Lander (1997a) has observed, “the new technologies will make a noticeable difference in the quality of education when they become fully integrated into the educational system, and not before”. Additionally, as Fraser has noted (in his response to the Dearing Report on the use of computers and information technology (C&IT) in higher education in the United Kingdom):

The use of C&IT in learning and teaching might result in a better quality of learning; it might result in a more efficient means of learning; it will always result in higher costs. The use of C&IT is too expensive to be used to merely enhance a course; where it is considered appropriate it requires proper integration if any benefits, qualitative or quantitative, are to ensue (Fraser 1997).

This includes ensuring that use of the Net becomes commonplace so that the focus will eventually shift away from the technology (and how to use it), and back to where it belongs – on learning outcomes (Guice 1997). For example, instructors who require students to use the Net as part of the course, who encourage students to spend time online each week, who encourage students to become more comfortable with the technology, and who offer students the opportunities to develop their digital literacy skills should have integrated the Net into the curriculum to such a degree that it becomes a valuable and useful learning tool.

6.3.6 Appropriate Use The framework I developed for this thesis is to view the Net as a research and/or communication tool. Any tool will be effective only if it is used properly, and this means recognizing that the Net is merely one tool to be used among many, and

240 that use should seek to maximize the particular advantages of the Net while trying to minimize the disadvantages inherent in the technology.

As noted above, sometimes researching or communicating via the Net would be the most appropriate tool; sometimes finding a book from the library or calling someone on the phone would be better uses of students’ time. Quint (1991) makes this point when she concludes:

Our greatest professional ethical responsibility is not to preserve any particular medium of information transfer – print or otherwise. We are not primarily defenders of books or any other information medium....We are librarians. We have a unique professional ethic. We inform. Our mission is to serve the minds of our clients, to provide the information and knowledge they want and need as effectively as our professional judgment and resources can achieve. Both electronic and print tools have their place in the array of tools we use to achieve our goals. But the tools do not set the goals. The goals set the tools.

Kozma (1992: 31) extends on this idea, arguing that using the tool inappropriately can actually harm (rather than enhance) best practice:

One of the more important conclusions from these studies is that the use of computer-based tools can on occasion improve student performance by assisting students in the process of knowledge construction and facilitating their reflection on that process. Just as important – perhaps more so – is the fact that there are situations where the use of computer-based tools can actually hurt performance. Tools can diminish performance when students have insufficient domain knowledge or experience with the tool to use its capabilities. In these situations, the use of the tool competes for limited cognitive resources that otherwise would be used for the primary task.

Additionally, use of the Net as a tool should seek to maximize the advantages of the Net while trying to minimize its disadvantages. As the survey and focus group data have shown, this would include a focus on increasing access to a wide range of information and people, to keep the costs of research and communication low, to increase speed and productivity when researching and communicating, and to improve the convenience of research and communication. Use of the Net should not be promoted when there is insufficient access for students, when students have not had

241 proper training, when there is insufficient technical support for students, and when students have not yet developed the digital literacy skills needed to cope with online research and communication. As Burge and Roberts (1998: 40) have noted:

Keep in mind that technology does not, in and of itself, promote learning. It all depends on (1) how well you understand and manage the unique features and strengths and weaknesses of each technology, and (2) how you define the ideal mix of learning strategies and activities required to gain the best possible learning outcomes.

6.4 Conclusions and Areas For Further Research The results presented in this study have both theoretical and practical importance. In regards to the theoretical side, I have identified the underlying dimensions of usage, value, and utility, and highlighted what makes the Net valuable and useful as a research and/or communication tool. Additionally, I have identified the factors which are related to usage, value, and utility, and explored the inter-related nature of those three concepts. I concluded my study with an outline of the importance of the skill of digital literacy so that students can cope effectively with the online environment. These findings are significant because they help to fill some specific gaps in the evaluation knowledge of the Net in post-secondary education.

In regards to the practical side, I have developed a strategy which suggests how the Net might be used most effectively by students as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction. The areas addressed by the strategy include access, infrastructure, technical support, training, integration into the curriculum, and appropriate use of the tool. This overall strategy contributes to our understanding of the Net as an educational tool, and it offers a way of addressing the digital divide within post-secondary education. It is hoped the strategy will be useful to training staff, post-secondary administrators, instructors, and students.

Additionally, this study has uncovered some questions which require and deserve further investigation. First, I focussed on student use of the Net for academic research and communication and did not consider students “non-academic” uses of the Net

242 (including Chatting with friends or using the Web for personal research). This non- academic use needs to be investigated further in light of other research which suggests continued (and increasing) overall high use of the Net, and the research presented earlier on the social aspects of learning (or “edutainment”). Second, this study raised the issue of formal versus informal training. While the methodology for the study did not allow for an examination of those separate aspects of how students learn their skills, they nonetheless warrant further attention because both have important implications for the design of student training programs and the allocation of university resources. Third, the study showed many differences between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal students in terms of the way they used the Net, and what they found valuable and useful about that usage. It was hypothesized that some of those differences exist because of the different usage levels (more extensive use versus more cursory use), because of differences in first language, and because of differences in access to computers at home. However, not all of those differences could be explained by those factors, so more investigation of those issues is required. Fourth, the fact that E-mail discussion lists proved to be related to only one of the 12 scales needs to be studied in more depth. Perhaps this is due to the low numbers of students who actually used those lists; but whatever the reason, this anomaly should be investigated further. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, was the fact that the four “comfort type” variables were not related to the disadvantages for either research or communication. This finding highlights the fact that despite high usage rates and high comfort levels, students are still experiencing drawbacks (as well as benefits) when they go online to use the Net as a research and/or communication tool in support of classroom-based instruction. These drawbacks must be addressed if the tool is to be used by students to its full potential.

243 Bibliography

Note: Two types of electronic sources were used for this thesis: WWW sites and electronic versions of journal articles (either purchased from subscription services over the Net or downloaded from CD Rom’s contained in libraries).

All WWW sites were verified for accuracy prior to completion of the thesis. If a site has moved since then, it might only be found through a Web-search. Electronic journal articles can be verified through a Web-search or through subscription services.

Additionally, page numbers of direct quotes for electronic sources has proved problematic. For example, the first quote in the thesis is from an online article – so providing a page number was not possible. This is equally true for direct quotes from articles accessed through subscription services (such as Emerald Full-text or CIOS). However, start pages are provided for the reference as a whole (where applicable).

411 . (1996). 13 December 1997.

Abdoulaye, K, and S Majid. "Use of the Internet for Reference Services in Malaysian Academic Libraries." Online-Information-Review 24, no. 5 (2000): 381-88.

Aberson, C.L, et al. "Evaluation of an Interactive Tutorial for Teaching the Central Limit Theorem." Teaching of Psychology 27 (2000): 289-91.

Abrahamson, David . "The Connected Classroom: Internet Applications for a Magazine Publishing Course." Electronic Journal of Communication 17, no. 4 (1997). < http://www.cios.org/ getfileAbraham_V7N497>. 21 October 1998.

Affleck-Asch, William . "Feminism and the Net." . 07 April 2000.

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Aken, Rob, and Mary Molinaro. "What I Really Want From the World Wide Web: How Do We Establish Access to Ever Expanding Resources." (1995). 11 September 1997.

Akhter, Syed H. "Digital Divide and Purchase Intention: Why Demographic Psychology Matters." Journal of Economic Psychology 24, no. 3 (June 2003): Start Page: 321.

Akst, Daniel. "Everybody's Talking at Me - If You Like to Shoot the Breeze, You'll Love Internet Relay Chat." NetGuide 01 August 1995: Start Page: 51.

244 Alamaki, Ari. "Technology Education in the Finnish Primary Schools." Journal of Technology Education 11, no. 1 (1999). . 23 November 1999.

Alaton, Salem. "Internet Transforms Libraries." The Globe and Mail July 23 1996: C6. al Bataineh, Adel, and Leanne Brooks. "Challenges, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Instructional Technology in the Community College Classroom." Community College Journal of Research and Practice [ 27, no. 6 (July 2003): Start Page: 473.

Allred, Robert, Nicole Howa Greenwood, and Stephen Ross. "Implementing Campus-Wide Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Phone Systems at Small Colleges." Campus - Wide Information Systems 19, no. 5 (2002): Start Page: 182.

AltaVista. AltaVist Search. 2003. 21 September 2003 .

Alreck, Pamela L., and Robert B. Settle. The Survey Research Handbook. Chicago: Irwin, 1995.

Althaus, Scott L. "Computer Mediated Communication in the University Classroom: An Experiment with On-Line Discussions." Communication Education 46, no. 3 (July 1997): 158-74.

Amaral, Maria Joao, and Maria Benedicta Monteiro. "To Be Without Being Seen: Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Identity Management." Small Group Research 33, no. 5 (October 2002): 575-89.

American Distance Education Consortium . "Distance Education is Spelled ADEC." . 10 January 2001.

Anandarajan, Murugan, Claire Simmers, and Magid Igbaria. Behaviour and Information Technology 19, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 69-85.

Anaya, Guadalupe, and Darnell G. Cole. "Latina Student Achievement: Exploring the Influence of Student-Faculty Interactions on College Grades." Journal of College Student Development; 42, no. 1 (January/February 2001): 3-14.

Anderson, Christopher. "The Accidental Superhighway." The Economist 01 July 1995: 5-20.

Anderson, Keith J. . "Internet Use Among College Students: An Exploratory Study." . 07 September 1999.

245 Anderson, Marshall. "Education City." The Times Educational Supplement (London), 09 March 2001, F23.

Anderson, Sheila. INFORMS: The Information Skills Project. September 2003. 10 October 2003 .

Anderson, Terry D.. "Using Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning." . 1996.

— . "Using Disruptive Technologies in the University." . 1999.

— . "The Emerging Online Education Business and Appropriate Institutional Responses." 24 May 2000a.

— . "Models For the Virtual University?" May 2000b.

Anderson, Terry D., and Werner B. Joerg. "Perceived Effectiveness of the World Wide Web to Supplement University Level Classroom Instruction." Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 25, no. 1 (1996): Start Page: 19.

Anderson, Terry D., and Heather Kanuka “On-line forums: New platforms for professional development and group collaboration.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3(3) (1997). . 23 November 1999.

Antolovic, Laurie G. "Budget." New Directions for Higher Education 115, no. 61-70 (Fall 2001).

Armstrong, C. J., et al. JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services. August 2001. 10 September 2003 .

Armstrong, C. J., et al. JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services. August 2000. 10 September 2003 .

Armstrong, Mary. "Models for Faculty-Student Interaction Outside the Classroom: The Duke University Faculty Associated Program." College Student Affairs Journal 19, no. 1 (Fall 1999): 4-16.

Arnaut, Gordon. "Are You Still Waiting for Desktop Video-Conferencing?" The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 02 September 1997: C5.

246 Arnett, Kirk P., Rodney A. Pearson, and Terry O. Pittman. "Student Faculty Contacts: Tradition Versus Technology." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 21, no. 1 (1992): 21-26.

Arsham, Hossein. "Impact of the Internet on Learning and Teaching." USDLA Journal 16, no. 3 March 2002 .

Ashbury, Doug. "Pulling the Plug on North of 60." News North [Yellowknife] 15 September 1997: A11.

Ask Aster. How Can Virtual Learning Environments Be Used Effectively in Small-Group Teaching? 20 July 2001. 15 October 2003 .

Ask Jeeves. Ask Jeeves. 2003 .

Atkins, Nancy Ellen, and Ellen Storey Vasu. "Measuring Knowledge of Technology Usage and Stages of Concern About Computing: A Study of Middle School Teachers." Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8, no. 4 (2000): 279-302.

AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication. "The Changing World of Scholarly Communication: Challenges and Choices for Canada." . 29 November 1996.

Aurora College. Aurora College Calendar 2003/2004. Yellowknife, 2003.

Austin, James T., and Robert A. Mahlman. "Using The Internet For Career - Technical Assessment:." Journal of Career and Technical Education 16, no. 2 (2000). . 21 August 2000.

Australian National Training Authority . "The Australian Flexible Learning (AFL) Framework." . 2002.

Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC). "The Networked Nation." . 12 September 1994.

Ayers, Edward, L. "A Historian in Cyber Space." American Heritage 51, no. 6 (October 2000).

Ayres, Jeffrey M. "From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566 (November 1999): Start Page: 132.

247 Bailey, Elaine K., and Morton Cotlar. "Teaching Via the Internet." Communication Education 43, no. 2 (April 1994): Start Page: 184.

Bakx, Anouke W.E.A., Klaas Sijtsma, and Johan M.M. van der Sanden. "Development and Evaluation of a Student-Centred Multimedia Self-Assessment Instrument for Social-Communicative Competence." Instructional Science 30, no. 5 (Sep 2002): Start Page: 5.

Barbagallo, David. "The Impact of the Internet and the World Wide Web on the Business of Government." Presented at the National Conference of the Royal Institute of Public Administration Australia. Brisbane, 01 December, 1995.

Barker, Anne M. "A Case Study in Instructional Design for Web-Based Courses." Nursing Education Perspectives 23, no. 4 (July/August 2002): 183-86.

Barker, T, and R. Pilkington. Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning Environments - An Interim Report. CBLU Technical Report no. 7. http://cbl.leeds.ac.uk/~tim/reports/technical-07-00.html: University of Leeds, 2000.

Barlow, John Perry. "It's a Poor Workman Who Blames His Tools." Wired Scenarios 1, no. 1 (30 November 1995). . 17 May 1996.

Barnes, Susan B."Literacy Skills in the Age of Graphical Interfaces and New Media." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 4, no. 3-4 (October 1996). . 01 November 1997.

Barrett, Daniel J. Net Research: Finding Information Online. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly and Associates Inc., 1997.

Barron, Kelly. "Johnny's Computer Doesn't Boot." Forbes 17 May 1999: 120-26.

Basch, Reva. "Find Anything Online." Computerlife August 1997: 58-73.

—. Secrets of The Super Net Searchers. Wilton, CT: Wilton Press, 1996.

Basinger, Julianne. "Wayne State U. Bans Internet Use That is not Related to University Purposes." The Chronicle of Higher Education 44, no. 13 (21 November 1997): A23.

Bates, Anthony W. . "The Future of Learning." . 30 November 1995.

— . "Restructuring the University for Technological Change." . 20 June 1997a.

248 — . "Technology, Distance Education and National Development." . 29-31 May 1997b.

Bates, Mary Ellen. "The Internet: Part of a Professional Searcher's Toolkit." Online 21, no. 1 (1997): 47-52.

Baym, Nancy K. "The Emergence of Community in Computer Mediated Communication." In Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community, edited by Stephen G. Jones, 138-63. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.

Bazillion, Richard J, and Connnie L Braun. "Classroom, Library and Campus Culture in a Networked Environment." Campus-Wide Information Systems 18, no. 2 (2001): 61-68.

Beatty, Ray. "Cyberphone Wars." The Bulletin 09 January 1996: 66.

Becker, Henry Jay, and Jason Ravitz . "The Influence of Computer and Internet Use on Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices and Perceptions." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 4 (1999). . 02 January 2000.

Beckman, Margaret. "Library Buildings, or Virtual Libraries?" Feliciter February (1996): 37-40.

Bee, Adrienne. "Vast E-Mail Directory Claims to Be "Error Free"." The Australian 13 August 1996: 13.

Belford, Terrence. "What Happens to Students with No Home PC?" The Globe and Mail 15 October 1996: C6.

Bell, Hope. "Digital Archives: Where Are They?" Information Highways April-May 1999: 9.

Beller, Michael, and Ehud Or . "The Crossroads Between Lifelong Learning and Information Technology: A Challenge Facing Leading Universities." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4, no. 2 (December 1998). . 21 March 1999.

Bercuson, David, Robert Bothwell, and JL Granatstein. Petrified Campus: The Crisis in Canada's Universities. Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1997.

Berge, Zane L. "Electronic Discussion Groups." Communication Education 43, no. 2 (April 1994): Start Page 102.

249 —. . "Barriers to Online Teaching in Post-Secondary Institutions." Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 1, no. 2 (Summer 1998a). .

—. "Guiding Principles in Web-Based Instructional Design." Educational Media International 35 (June 1998b): 72-76.

—. "Online Teaching." The Electronic Journal of Communication 9, no. 1 (1999).

Berge, Zane L, and Mauri P. Collins. "Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: An Introduction." In Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: Volume I: Overview and Perspectives, edited by Zane L. Berge and Mauri P. Collins, 1-10. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc., 1995a.

—. "Introduction: Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom in Higher Education." In Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: Volume II: Higher Education, edited by Zane L. Berge and Mauri P. Collins, 1-10. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc., 1995b.

Berge, Zane L, and Muilenburg, Lin Y. . "Barriers to Distance Education as Perceived by Managers Ands Administrators." . June 2000.

Bergen, Doris. "Education or Edutainment? Technology in the Classroom." Childhood Education 77, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 114-16.

Berghel, Hal. "Cyberspace 2000: Dealing with Information Overload." Communications of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 40, no. 2 (1997): 19-24.

—. "A Cyberpublishing Manifesto." Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 44, no. 3 (March 2001): 17-21.

Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Bernstein, Danielle R. . "Is Teaching Computer Science Different from Teaching Other Sciences?" . 29 October 1997.

Bernstein, Judith H. "The Tao of Usenets: Is Usenet Dying, Dead, or Just Headed for Yet Another Reincarnation?" Netguide: The Guide to Online Services and the Internet 01 September 1996: Start Page: 75.

250 Bier, Melinda, et al. "Personal Empowerment in the Study of Home Internet Use by Low-Income Families." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 28, no. 5 (1996). . 12 May 1997.

Blackboard Inc. Bb Blackboard. 2003. 07 November 2003 .

Blackwell, Gerry. "When Push Comes to Shove." Canadian Business Summer 1997: 27-29.

Blank, Marion, and Laura Berlin. The Parents Guide to Educational Software. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press, 1991.

Blitzblau, Rachel, and Mary Hanson. "Transforming Georgetown Through Technology. Campus Profile." Educause Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2001): 46-50.

Bolan, Christine M. "Incorporating the Experiential Learning Theory Into the Instructional Design of Online Courses." Nurse Educator January/February 2003.

Boling, Nancy, and Daniel Robinson. "Individual Study, Interactive Multimedia, or Cooperative Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (1999): 169-74.

Bontis, Nick, and Akemi De Castro. "The First World Congress on the Management of Electronic Commerce." Internet Research 10, no. 5 (2000): 365-73.

Bouma, Gary D. The Research Process. Melbourne: The Oxford University Press, 1996.

Bowers, Paul. "Secrets of Wireless Technology Planning: Simple Things Done Well." College Planning and Management; 4, no. 7 (July 2001): 38-41.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., J. Tobin Grant, and Scott R. Meinke. "Virtual Field Trips: Bringing College Students and Policymakers Together Through Interactive Technology." PS: Political Science & Politics 33, no. 4 (December 2000): Start Page: 829.

Boyce, Jim. "I Don't Like Spam!" Windows Magazine July 1998: 193-94.

Brandao, Christina. "Rewiring the Ivory Tower." Canadian Business Winter 1996: 61-64.

Brandt, D. Scott. "Constructivism: Teaching for Understanding of the Internet." Communications of the ACM 40, no. 10 (October 1997): 112-17.

251 Breivik, Patricia Senn. "Information Literacy and the Engaged Campus." AAHE Bulletin November 2000. . 13 January 2001.

British Columbia Open University . "BCOU: The British Columbia Open University." . 2002.

Brockhouse, Gordon. "Bargain Basement Computers." Sympatico NetLife September/October 1998: 16.

Brown, Ann L. "The Advancement of Learning." Educational Researcher 23, no. 8 (November 1994): 4-12.

Brown, David. Cybertrends: Chaos, Power and Accountability in the Information Age. London: Viking, 1997.

Bruce, Bertram . "Challenges for the Evaluation of New Information and Communication Technologies." Reading Online March 1999. . 17 February 2000.

Bruner, Jerome S. Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton, 1973.

—. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Buckler, Grant. "Network Intruders Nabbed by Detection Software." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 25 June 1999: R7.

Bunker, Alison, and Iris Vardi. "Why Use the Online Environment with Face-to-Face Students? Insights from Early Adopters." In Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2001). Melbourne, Australia, 2001.

Burdess, Neil. The Really Understandable Stats Book. New York: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Burge, Elizabeth J., and Judith M. Roberts. Classroom With a Difference: Facilitating Learning on the Information Highway. Montreal: Cheneliere/McGraw Hill, 1998.

Burkhart, Joyce. How Can St. Petersburg College Leverage Technology To Increase Access to Courses and Programs for an Expanded Pool of Learners? Project Eagle Evaluation Question #4. Benchmarking St. Petersburg College: A Report to Leadership. 2001 .

Burwell, Bonnie. "Training End Users: Maximizing Investments." Information Highways August-September 1997: 18-22.

252 Butler, Brian. "Using WWW/Mosaic to Support Classroom Based Education: An Experience Report." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 3, no. 1 (January 1995). . 12 August 1996.

Bush, Victoria, D, and Faye Gilbert, W. "The Web as a Medium: An Exploratory Comparison of Internet Users Versus Newspaper Readers." Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10, no. 1 (Winter 2002): Start Page: 1. Cajas, Fernando . "Research in Technology Education: What Are We Researching? A Response to Theodore Lewis." Journal of Technology Education 11, no. 2 (2000). . 18 March 2001.

Calashain, Tara. The Official Netscape Guide to Internet Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: Ventana, 1997.

California State University. "2001 CSU Student Technology Survey: Executive Summary." . 11 December 2001.

Cameron, Shelley. "WebFX: Wired to the World." St. F.X. Alumni News [Antigonish] Fall 1997: 2-4.

Campbell, Brian L. "Technology Use by Canadian Post-Secondary Students." In Research on the Sociology of Technology. 20 January 2002. 10 September 2003 .

Canadian Journal of Communication. . 11 May 2000.

Canarie Inc. About CA*Net 4. 2002. 01 November 2003 .

CaNexus. "EVE2 - the Essay Verification Engine." . 2002.

Cannon, John R. "The Infusion of Telecommunications and Word Processing Educational Technologies in the Primary Preservice Teachers' Science Teaching Course: An Action Research Project." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 4, no. 1 (January 1996). . 29 August 1997.

Caragata, Warren. "Information Overload." McLean's [Toronto] 19 September 1994: Start Page: 60.

253 Carlson, Scott. "New Allies in the Fight Against Research by Googling." The Chronicle of Higher Education 49, no. 28 (21 March 2003): A.33.

—. "Students and Faculty Members Turn to Online Library Materials Before Printed Ones, Study Finds." The Chronicle of Higher Education (03 October 2002).

Carnevale, Dan. "In a Reversal, Penn Limits Some Student Use of Network." The Chronicle of Higher Education 48, no. 5 (December 2001): Start Page: A29.

—. "Virginia's Community Colleges Mull Higher Technology Fee." The Chronicle of Higher Education 48, no. 33 (26 April 2003): A.38.

Carnie, Andrew. "How to Handle Cyber-Sloth in Academe." The Chronicle of Higher Education 47, no. 17 (January 2001): Start Page: B14.

Carpi, Anthony, and Yana Mikhailova. "The Visionlearning Project." Journal of College Science Teaching 33, no. 1 (September/October 2003): 12-15.

Carroll, Jim, and Rick Broadhead. The 1997 Canadian Internet Handbook. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1997.

—. The 1998 Canadian Internet Directory and Research Guide. Scarborough, ON.: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1998a.

—. The 1998 Canadian Internet Handbook. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1998b.

—. The 1999 Canadian Internet Directory and Research Guide. Scarborough, ON.: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1999a.

—. The 1999 Canadian Internet Handbook. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1999b.

—. The 1999 Canadian Internet Handbook: Educational Edition. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1999c.

—. The 2000 Canadian Internet Directory and Research Guide. Toronto: Stoddart, 2000.

Casey, Vicki. "Librarians in Cyberspace - Managing the Unmanageable." Information Highways April 1996a: 21.

—. "Managing the Internet." Information Highways February 1996b: 17.

254 Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. “Focus Group Data and Qualitative Analysis Programs: Coding the Moving Picture as Well as the Snapshots.” Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1 (1997).

Cavaliere, Frank J. "Communicating on the Web: Usenet, Bulletin Boards, Chat Rooms - Part One." Practical Lawyer September 1997a: 13-16.

—. "Communicating on the Web: Usenet, Bulletin Boards, Chat Rooms - Part Two." Practical Lawyer October 1997b: 12-14.

CFL Software Developments . "CopyCatch Gold." . 2002.

Chala, Carl . "Government of Canada Press Release." September 25 1995.

Chapin, Lyman A. "The Internet Architecture Board and the Future of the Internet." EDUCOM Review 27, no. 5 (September/October 1992): 42-45.

Chapman, D, and Pascarella E. "Predictors of Academic and Social Integration of College Students." Research in Higher Education 19 (1983): 295-322.

Charney, Tamar. "Uses and Gratifications of On-Line Services." . 28 April 1996.

Chernos, Saul. "Sex, Lies and the WWW." Information Highways December 1996-January 1997 1997: 33-35.

Chester, Andrea, and Gillian Gwynne . "Online Teaching: Encouraging Collaboration Through Anonymity." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4, no. 2 (December 1998). . 13 February 1999.

Chickering, Arthur W., and Stephen C. Ehrmann. "Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever." AAHE Bulletin October 1996. . 21 July 1999.

Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." AAHE Bulletin 39, no. 7 (March 1987): 3-7.

—. "Development and Adaptations of the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." New Directions for Teaching and Learning Winter (1999): 75-81.

Chidley, Joe. "Cybertime." McLean's 25 November 1996: 68-69.

255 Chiero, Robin T. "Teachers' Perspectives 0n Factors That Affect Computer Use." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 30, no. 2 (Winter 1997). . 16 May 1998.

Chiou, Guey-Fa. "Beliefs and Computer Based Learning." Educational Technology June 1995: 48-52.

Chizmar, John F., and David B. Williams. "Altering Time and Space Through Network Technologies to Enhance Learning." Cause/Effect 19, no. 3 (Fall 1996): 14-21.

Chohan, N., and T. Nichols. Using a VLE to Support Full Time Students at Leeds College of Technology. 31 July 2001. 21 September 2003 .

Chou, Chien. "Interactivity and Interactive Functions in Web-Based Learning Systems: A Technical Framework for Designers." British Journal of Educational Technology 34, no. 3 (June 2003): Start Page: 265.

Christie, Alice Atkinson. "Using E-Mail Within a Classroom Based on Feminist Pedagogy." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 30, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 146-76.

Chugh, Urmil, et al. "Impacts of the Learning Enhancement Envelope (LEE) on Alberta Post-Secondary Education." . May 2001.

Church, Elizabeth. "Unplugged MBA's Stay Connected." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 11 September 1998: B23.

Cipher, [email protected]. "E-Mail PIP (Periodic Information Post)." News.Newusers.Questions, 10 February, 1998. 18 February 1998.

Clark, Aaron C., and Robert E. Wenig . "Identification of Quality Characteristics for Technology Education Programs: A North Carolina Case Study." Journal of Technology Education 11, no. 1 (1999). . 03 September 2000.

Clark, Burton R., and Guy R. Neave. The Encyclopedia of Higher Education: Volume 2 - Analytical Perspectives. New York: Pergamon Press, 1992.

Clark, Keith D. . "Urban Middle School Teachers’ Use of Instructional Technology." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33, no. 2 (2000). . 22 April 2001.

256 Clemente, Peter. The State of the Net: The New Frontier. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Clyde, Laurel A., and Jane E. Klobas. "The First Internet Course: Implications of Increased Prior Participant Experience." Internet Research 11, no. 3 (2001): 235-45.

Coakes, Sheridan L., and Lyndall G Steed. SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

Codde, Joseph . "Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." . 12 April 1999.

Coffman, Steven. "We'll Take It from Here: Further Developments We'd Like To See in Virtual Reference Software." Information Technology and Libraries 20, no. 3 (2001): 149-53.

CogPrints: the Cognitive Sciences E-print Archive . . 1999. 17 July 1999.

Cohen, Joel A. "The Electronic Library in Higher Education: An Overview and Status Report." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 1, no. 1 (January 1993). . 14 April 1996.

Cole, James S., and Gypsy M. Denzine. "Comparing the Academic Engagement of American Indian and White College Students." Journal of American Indian Education 41, no. 1 (2002): 19-34.

Colley, Ann, and Chris Comber. "Age and Gender Differences in Computer Use and Attitudes Among Secondary School Students." Educational Research 45, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 155-65.

Collins, Mauri. "Internet Information Management Tools." Communication Education 43, no. 2 (April 1994): Start Page: 112.

Collis, Betty, and Ron Anderson. "Computer Literacy for the 1990's: Theoretical Issues for an International Assessment." Computers in the Schools 11, no. 2 (1994): 55-72.

Collis, B., and J. Moonen. Flexible Learning in a Digital World. London: Kogan Page, 2001.

Comber, C, et al. "The Effects of Age, Gender and Computer Experience Upon Computer Attitudes." Educational Research 39 (1997): 123-33.

257 Computer Mediated Communications Magazine . . 11 October 2000.

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Debra Wilcox Johnson, and Susan E. Searing. "Online Catalogs from the Users' Perspective: The Use Pf Focus Group Interviews." College & Research Libraries 58, no. 5 (September 1997): Start Page: 403.

Conte, Ron Jr. "Guiding Lights: There's a Lot of Info Out There, and Plenty of Tools for Finding It." Internet World 7, no. 5 (May 1996): 40-44.

Cooper, Peter A. "Paradigm Shifts in Designed Instruction: From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to Constructivism." Educational Technology May 1993: 12-19.

Coorey, Madeline. "Mounting Costs Limit Net Access." The Australian 11 September 1996: 25.

Cravotta, Dave. "How to Find (Almost) Anyone Online." The Net August 1996: 24-31.

Creer, Katrina. "Virtual Varsity Rushing Toward Reality." The Weekend Australian February 3-4 1996: 20.

Crews, Mike, and Martin Feinberg. "Perceptions of University Students Regarding the Digital Divide." Social Science Computer Review 20, no. 2 (Summer 2002): Start Page: 116.

Crosariol, Beppi. "Yourstruly.Com." The Globe and Mail 28 June 1997.

Culross, Rita R. "Applying a Model of Instructional Design to Web-Based Courses for Adult Learners." Journal of Continuing Higher Education 49 (2001): 33-39.

Cuneo, Carl, Brian Campbell, and Delsworth Harnish . "The Integration and Effectiveness of ICTs in Canadian Postsecondary Education." 19 December 2002.

Cuneo, Carl, Delsworth Harnish, and Laila Bastedo . "The Educational Value of FirstClass/LearnLink/Little Red School House - Part One. (EvNet Working1 Paper # 2) . 21 November 1999.

Cuneo,Carl and Delsworth Harnish . "The Pain of Innovation: FirstClass Collaborative Software Case Study (EvNet WP # 24). . 21 December 2001.

258 Cuneo,Carl, Delsworth Harnish and Kristina Trim . "The Little Red Schoolhouse Goes Electric: Collaborative, Open and Continuous Flow Learning Environments in the Computer-Mediated Classroom" (EvNet Working Paper # 25). . 21 December 2001.

Cuneo, Carl, Sue Inglis, Christopher Justice, William Lee, Stefania Miller, James Rice, Sheila Sammon, and Wayne Warry. "Turning The Page: Student Learning Through a Collaboratively Taught Social Sciences Inquiry Course". . 21 November 2000.

Cunningham, Wayne. "How Long Till the Web is Really World Wide?" The Net 2, no. 3 (1996): 12.

Curasi, Carolyn Folkman. "A Critical Exploration of Face-to-Face Interviewing Vs. Computer-Mediated Interviewing." International Journal of Market Research 43, no. 4 (4th Quarter 2001): Start Page: 361.

Curry, John R. "The Organizational Challenge." Educause Review 37, no. 2 (March/April 2002): Start Page: 40.

Daigle, Steve, and Sharleen Kim. Measures of Success I. 30 November 1999. 12 September 2003 .

—. Measures of Success II. 30 November 2000. 12 September 2003 .

—. Measures of Success III. 30 November 2001. 12 September 2003 .

—. Measures of Success IV. 30 November 2002. 12 September 2003 .

D'Souza, Patricia V. "Electronic Mail in Academic Settings: A Multipurpose Communications Tool." Educational Technology March 1992: 22-25.

—. "The Use of Electronic Mail as an Instructional Aid: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Computer Based Instruction 18, no. 3 (1991): 106-10.

259 Davis, Mike. "Fragmented by Technologies: A Community in Cyberspace." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 5, no. 1-2 (April 1997). . 14 August 1998.

De Brun, Steve. "Bandwidth." The Australian [Sydney] 16 July 1996: 52.

De Sola Pool, Ithiel. Technologies Without Boundaries: On Telecommunications in a Global Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

DeVellis, Robert F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. London: Sage Publications, 1991.

Dearing, R., Chair. "Higher Education in the Learning Society." London, 23 July, 1997.

December, John . "Units of Analysis for Internet Communication." . 03 March 1996.

Deemer, Charles . "The Humanities in Cyberspace: How the Internet is Changing Teaching and Scholarship in the Humanities." . 16 December 1996.

Deepwell, Frances. Introducing an Online Environment Across Coventry University. 2001. Coventry University. 15 October 2003 .

Diekhoff, George. Statistics for the Social and Behavioural Sciences: Univariate, Bivariate, Multivariate. Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1992. di Giantomasso, Tania. E-Commerce and Education: Graduate Paper Series on Electronic Commerce. 2000 .

Dietz-Uhler, Beth, and Cathy Bishop-Clark. "The Use of Computer-Mediated Communication To Enhance Subsequent Face-to-Face Discussions." Computers in Human Behavior 17, no. 3 (May 2001): 269-83.

Dillard, Mike, and Janet Hennard. "The Approaching Age of Virtual Nations." The Futurist 36, no. 4 (July/August 2002): Start Page: 24.

Dillon, Randy K., and Bradley J. Fisher. "Faculty as Part of the Advising Equation: An Inquiry Into Faculty Viewpoints on Advising." NACADA Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 16-23.

260 DiMaggio, Paul, et al. "Social Implications of the Internet." Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001): Start Page: 307.

Distance Education and Training Council. "The Distance Education and Training Council: Bringing Learning Opportunities to Millions." . 8 August 2000.

Distance Education Clearinghouse . "Welcome to the Distance Education Clearinghouse." . 3 January 2001.

Dogpile. . 14 June 2000.

Donovan, Deidre C. . "Computer Mediated Communication and the Basic Speech Course." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 3, no. 3 (July 1995). . 20 March 1997.

Dolin, R., et al. "Using Automated Classification for Summarizing and Selecting Heterogeneous Information Sources." D-Lib-Magazine January 1998 .

Doyle, Christina S. Outcome Measures for Information Literacy with the National Education Goals of 1990. Final Report to the National Forum on Information Literacy: Summary of Findings. ERIC Document: ED 351 033., 1992.

Dron, Jon, Richard Mitchell, and Phil Siviter. "From Answer Garden to Answer Jungle." Education + Training 40, no. 8 (1998). . 06 October 1999.

Duffy, Thomas M., and David H. Jonassen. "Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology." In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, edited by Thomas M. Duffy and David H. Jonassen, 1-16. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.

Dugan, Robert E. "Information Technology Plans." Journal of Academic Librarianship; 28, no. 3 (May 2002): 152-56.

Duncan, John, and Mary K. Wallace. "Assessing Online Technology." Delta Phi Epsilon Journal 44, no. 1 (Winter 2002): Start Page 25.

Dunn, Julie. "Lexis-Nexis: A Knowledge -Management Alternative." InfoWorld 17 November 1997: 126-28.

261 Durrington, Vance A., Judi Repman, and Thomas W. Valente . "Using Social Network Analysis to Examine the Time of Adoption of Computer-Related Services Among University Faculty." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33, no. 1 (2000). . 29 October 2000.

Dusick, Diane M. . "What Social Cognitive Factors Influence Faculty Members' Use of Computers for Teaching? A Literature Review." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 2 (1998). .29 October 2000.

Dyrli, Odvard Egil. "Rx for a Stressed-Out Internet." Technology and Learning 17, no. 8 (May/June 1997): 36-37.

Dyson, Esther. "Education and Jobs in the Digital World: The Next 50 Years - Our Hopes, Our Visions, Our Plans." Communications of the ACM 40, no. 2 (1997a): 35-36.

—. Release 2.0: A Design for Living in the Digital Age. New York: Broadway Books, 1997b.

Dysthe, Olga. "The Learning Potential of a Web-Mediated Discussion in a University Course." Studies in Higher Education 27, no. 3 (August 2002): 339-52.

Eager, William, et al. Net.Search: Quickly Find Anything You Need on the Internet. Indianapolis, IN.: Que. Corporation, 1995.

Eastmond, J. Nicholas, et al. "An Incremental Approach to Implementing a Web Course." Tech Trends 44, no. 3 (April 2000): Start Page: 40.

Easton, Valerie J., and John H. McColl. "Statistics Glossary v.1.1: Paired Data, Correlation and Regression." . 03 July 2000.

Ebbs, Geoff. "Net Burrowing." Internet Australasia April 1995: 88-89.

Edgell, Steve. "Dummy Coding in Regression." In Steve Edgell's Advanced Statistics III (Psyc 612) Web Page. 2003. 14 October 2003 .

Edwards, Mark E., Sheila Cordray, and Jon Dorbolo. "Unintended Benefits of Distance-Education Technology for Traditional Classroom Teaching." Teaching Sociology 28, no. 4 (October 2000): Start Page: 386.

Ehrmann, Stephen C. "Asking the Hard Questions About Technology Use and Education." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences: From Research to Practice 91, no. 3 (1999): 31-35.

262 —. New Ideas and Additional Reading. October 2003. 11 November 2003 .

Electronic Frontier Foundation ."EEF’s Guide to the Internet, v. 3.21" . 07 April 2000.

Electronic Journal of Communication . . 21 December 1998.

Elliott, Philip. "Uses and Gratifications Research: A Critique and a Sociological Alternative." In The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, edited by Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 249-68. London: Sage Publications, 1974.

Elliott, Ron. "Wireless Information Management." Information Management Journal 36, no. 5 (September/October 2002): Start Page: 62.

Ellis, Cathy. Getting Started with a VLE - The City of Sunderland College Experience. 30 June 2001. 21 October 2003 .

Elmer, Greg . "Web Rings as Computer-Mediated Communication." CMC Magazine 6, no. 1 (01 January 1999). . 13 May 1999.

Emley, Meredith . "Women and the Internet: A Brief Survey." . 22 April 1999.

Emmott, Stephen J. Information Superhighways. London: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995.

Engle, Shaena. College Freshman Spend Less Time Studying and More Time Surfing the Net, UCLA Survey Reveals. 27 January 2003. 21 October 2003 .

Ernst, Warren. Using Netscape. Indianapolis: Que Publishing, 1995.

Ertmer, Peggy, A, and Carole Hruskocy. "Impacts of a University-Elementary School Partnership Designed to Support Technology Integration." Educational Technology, Research and Development 47, no. 1 (1999): 81.

Espinoza, Sue, and LeAnn McKinzie. "Gopher Lessons: Theory and Practice." Computers in the Schools 12, no. ½ (1996): 153-70.

263 ETS. Digital Transformation. May 2002. A Framework for ICT Literacy. Educational Testing Service. 10 November 2003 .

Evans, James. "E-Mail Overload: Spam Haters Fight Back Against the Deluge of Get-Rich-Quick Offers." Internet World December 1997: 55-58.

EvNet: Network for the Evaluation of Training and Technology . "ABOUT US: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." . 11 January 1996a.

—.. "PART D: EVNET RESEARCH PROGRAM." . 11 January 1996b.

Ewing, Sylvia. "Using New Technologies to Improve Training - a Case Study on Leuven University." Training & Management Development Methods 14, no. 3 (2000): Start Page: 513.

Fan, Tai-Sheng, Yi-Ching Li, and Margaret L. Niess. "Predicting Academic Achievement of College Computer Science Majors." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 2 (Winter 1998): 155-72.

Fayter, Debra. "Issues in Training Lecturers to Exploit the Internet as a Teaching Resource." Education + Training 40, no. 8 (1998): 334-39.

Feenberg, Andrew. "No Frills in the Virtual Classroom." Academe 85, no. 5 (September/October 1999): Start Page: 26.

Fillmore, Laura. "Slaves of a New Machine: Exploring the For-Free/For Pay Conundrum." In Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths and Metaphors, edited by Mark Stefik, 207-16. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996.

Fink, Arlene. How to Analyze Survey Data. London: Sage Publications, 1995a.

—. How to Report on Surveys. London: Sage Publications, 1995b.

Finley, Michael. "It's In the Mail." I-Way November 1995: 54-55.

Finnane, Mark . "Remote Modem Access to Griffith University." 07 April 1998.

Fisher, Mercedes. "Design Guidelines for Optimum Teaching and Learning on the Web." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 29, no. 2 (2001): 107-18.

Fishman, Barry . "Characteristics of Students Related to Computer-Mediated Communications Activity." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 1 (1999). . 22 September 2000.

264 Fist, Stewart. "Net's Problems is not Bandwidth, but Profit." The Australian [Sydney] 26 March 1996: 30.

Flake, Janice L. "The World Wide Web and Education." Computers in the Schools 12, no. 1-2 (1996): 89-100.

Flexible Learning Australasia. "NCODE - Flexible Learning Australasia." . 2002.

Flowers, L, E Pascarella, and C Pierson. "Information Technology Use and Cognitive Outcomes in the First Year of College." Journal of Higher Education 71 (2000): 637 - 667.

Foddy, William. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Fortin, Andree, and Duncan Sanderson. "Espace Social Communautaire et Virtuel: Continuites et Discontinuites." The Canadian Geographer 43, no. 2 (Summer 1999): Start Page: 184.

Foss, Krista. "Museums, Art Galleries, Open Their Doors to the Web." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 26 August 1997: C4.

Foster, Clifton D. "A Wireless Future: College and University Libraries Unplugged." . 14 October 1996.

Fox, Marye Anne. "Profound, Rapid and Discontinuous." American Scientist 89, no. 5 (September/October 2001): Start Page: 386.

Frankland, Mark. "CAPA's Response to the Information Industries Taskforce." Gradchat [Brisbane] Spring 1997: 7-9.

Franklin, Ginny, and Ruth Stubbings. INFORMS: The Information Skills Project. September 2003. 10 October 2003 .

Franks, John. "The Impact of Electronic Publication on Scholarly Journals." Notices of the American Mathematical Society 40, no. 9 (November 1993): 1200-02.

Fraser, Michael . "Dearing & IT: Some Reflections." . 07 August 1997.

Fredrick, Christine Ann Nguyen. "Feminist Rhetoric in Cyberspace: The Ethos of Feminist Usenet Newsgroups." Information Society 15, no. 3 (July-September 1999): Start Page: 187.

265 Freiermuth, Mark R. "Internet Chat: Collaborating and Learning Via E-Conversations." TESOL Journal 11, no. 3 (Autumn 2002): 36-40.

French, Carey. "Net Surfers Fear Taking Cookies from Strangers." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 02 June 1998: C2.

Frey, Andy, Annajtie Faul, and Pamela Yankelov. "Student Perceptions of Web-Assisted Teaching Strategies." Journal of Social Work Education 39, no. 3 (Fall 2003): Start Page: 443.

Friedman, Matthew. Fuzzy Logic: Dispatches from the Information Revolution. Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1997.

Frizler, K. "The Internet as an Educational Tool in ESOL Writing Instruction." Master's Thesis, San Francisco State University. . 6 December 1995.

Fuller, Hester L. . "First Teach Their Teachers: Technology Support and Computer Use in Academic Subjects." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 4 (2000). . 20 December 2000.

Furger, Roberta. Does Jane Compute? Preserving Our Daughters Place in the Cyber Revolution. New York: Warner Books, 1998.

Gagnon, Roger J, and Ravi Krovi. "Internet Usage in Undergraduate Management Science and Operations Management Courses." The Internet and Higher Education 2, no. 2-3 (Spring 1999): 107-18.

Galbreath, Jeremy. "The Internet: Past, Present and Future." Educational Technology November-December 1997: 39-45.

Gallini, Joan K., and Daniel Barron. "Participants' Perceptions of Web-Infused Environments: A Survey of Teaching Beliefs, Learning Approaches, and Communication." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34, no. 2 (Winter 2002): 139-56.

Garson, David . "Reliability." In Quantitative Research in Public Administration. . 13 May 1999.

Garton, Laura, and Barry Wellman. "Social Impacts of Electronic Mail in Organizations: A Review of the Literature." Communications Yearbook 18 (1995): 434-53.

266 Gaudet, Donna. The Changing Role of (Internet) Technology in Teaching and Learning. 2001. 14 October 2003 .

Gay, Geri, et al. . "Document-Centered Peer Collaborations: An Exploration of the Educational Uses of Networked Communication Technologies." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4, no. 3 (March 1999). . 27 July 1999.

Geoghegan, William. Instructional Technologies & the Mainstream: The Risks of Success. (22 October 1997). 21 October 2003 .

—. "Whatever Happened to Instructional Technology." Presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association. Baltimore MD, 1994.

Gerson, Vicki. "Sharpening Your Focus Groups." Bank Marketing 30, no. 6 (June 1998): Start Page: 24.

Ghita, B.V., et al. "Network Quality of Service Monitoring for IP Telephony." Internet Research 11, no. 1 (2001): 26-34.

Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

Gibson, Susan, and Diane Oberg. "Case Studies of Internet Use in Alberta Schools: Emerging Issues." Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 26, no. 3 Winter 1997: 145-64 .

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. Glasgow: Sage Publications, 1986.

Gilbert, Anne, and Paul Villeneuve. "Social Space, Regional Development, and the Infobahn." The Canadian Geographer 43, no. 2 (Summer 1999): Start Page: 114.

Gillmor, Dan. "Get up and Gopher." I-Way November 1995: 29-33.

Gilster, Paul. The New Internet Navigator. Brisbane: John Wiley and Son's, Inc., 1995.

—. Finding It on the Internet. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.

— . "A Primer on Digital Literacy." . 11 August 1997a.

267 —. Digital Literacy. New York: John Wiley and Son's, 1997b.

Girard, Kim. "Internet Cuts Long Distance Phonebills." Computerworld 04 November 1996: Start Page: 70.

Glastonbury, Bryan, and Jill MacKean. "Survey Methods." In Handbook for Research Students in the Social Sciences, edited by Graham Allan and Chris Skinner, 225-47. London: The Falmer Press, 1991.

Gleeson, Richard. "Bring the Net Home: Community Access Key to Wiring the North, but Proving Problematic." The News North 08 September 1997: A3.

Golob, Thomas F, and Amelia C Regan. "The Perceived Usefulness of Different Sources of Traffic Information to Trucking Operations." Logistics & Transportation Review 38E, no. 2Start Page: 97 (April 2002).

Gonick, Lev. "Leadership: A New Role." EDUCAUSE Review 37, no. 4 (July/August 2002): Start Page: 8.

Gonsalves, Lisa M. "Making Connections: Addressing the Pitfalls of White Faculty/Black Male Student Communication." College Composition and Communication 53, no. 3 (February 2002): 435-65.

Gooderham, Mary. "America Online Emerges as Media Juggernaut." The Globe and Mail 25 October, 1997 1997b: C10.

—. "Higher Learning, but First Computers 101." The Globe and Mail 19 August 1997c: C5.

—. "Newspapers Enter the New, Wired World." The Globe and Mail 23 July 1996: C3.

—. "Schools Take a New Approach to Getting Wired." The Globe and Mail 26 August 1997a: C4.

Goodman, Danny. Living at Light Speed: Your Survival Guide to Life on the Information Superhighway. London: Arrow Books, 1995.

Goodwin, Keith. "Rural Netizens Get a Boost." NetGuide March 1996: 26.

Google. Google Search. 2003. 21 September 2003.

Government of the Northwest Territories. . 1999.

Graham, David T., and Jane MacNeil. "Using the Internet as Part of Directed Learning in Social Geography." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 23, no. 2 (July 1999): Start Page: 181.

268 Graham, Neill. The Mind Tool: Computers and Their Impact on Society. New York: West Publishing Company, 1983.

Graves, William H. "A Framework for Universal Intranet Access." Cause/Effect 20, no. 2 (Summer 1997): 48-52.

Gray, Kenneth C., and Xiaoli Holly Cao. "Computer and Internet Usage in Education: Theories, Practices, and Research Basics." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 29, no. 1 (2001): 41-48.

Green, Kenneth C. . "The 1994 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Information technology Moves Slowly into the Classroom." In The Campus Computing Project. . October 1994.

— . "The 1995 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Technology use Jumps on College campuses." In The Campus Computing Project. . November 1995.

— . "The 1996 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Instructional Integration and User Support Present Continuing technology Challenges" In The Campus Computing Project. . November 1996.

— . "The 1997 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: More Technology in the Syllabus, More Campuses Impose IT Requirements and Student Fees." In The Campus Computing Project. . November 1997.

— . "The 1998 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Colleges Struggle With IT Planning." In The Campus Computing Project. . November 1998.

— . "The 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: The Continuing Challenge of Instructional Integration and User Support." In The Campus Computing Project. . October 1999.

— . "The 2000 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Struggling With IT Staffing." In The Campus Computing Project. . October 2000.

269 — . "The 2001 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: eCommerce Slowly Comes to the Campus." In The Campus Computing Project. . October 2001.

— . "The 2002 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Campus Portals Make Progress; Technology Budgets Suffer Significant Cuts." In The Campus Computing Project. . December 2002 .

— . "The 2003 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education: Campus Policies Address Copyright Issues; Wireless Networks Show Big Gains." In The Campus Computing Project. . October 2003 .

Greenbaum, Thomas L. "Focus Group Research: A Useful Tool." HR Focus 71, no. 9 (September 1994): Start Page: 3.

Greenwood, Stephen. An Educationally Focussed Study of the University's Implementation of Blackboard. 2002. Learning Technology Support Service. 02 November 2003 .

Gregor, S.D., and E.F. Cuskelly. "Computer Mediated Communication in Distance Education." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 10 (January 1994): 168-81.

Gregson, Kimberly. "Conversation and Community or Sequential Monologues: An Analysis of Politically Oriented Newsgroups." Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting 35, no. 531-541 (1998).

Griffith University. Conditions of Use of Computing and Network Resources by Students. Griffith University: Griffith University Information Services, 1995.

—. "Welcome to Griffith University." . 2002.

Grimes, Brad."Some Cookies Aren't Yummy." PC World August 1997: 148.

Grubesic, Tony H. "Spatial Dimensions of Internet Activity." Telecommunications Policy 26, no. 7-8 (August/September 2002): Start Page: 363. Gruender, C. David. "Constructivism and Learning: A Philosophical Appraisal." Educational Technology May-June 1996: 21-29.

Gueldenzoph, Lisa E., Stan Guidera, and Darlene Whipple. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 28, no. 2 (2000): Start Page: 121.

Guffey, George R. and Mary Ellen Guffey. “Introduction to Telnet”. . 14 August 2000.

270 Guice, Jon. "Rethinking the Wired Classroom: An International Video-Conferencing Experiment." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 5, no. 4 (December 1997). . 03 July 1998.

Gurak, Laura. "Towards Broadening Our Research Agenda in Cyberspace." Computer Mediated Communications Magazine 3, no. 2 (01, February 1996). . 13 September 1997.

Gustafson, Brenda G., Patricia M. Rowell, and Sandra M. Guilbert . "Elementary Children's Awareness of Strategies for Testing Structural Strength: A Three Year Study." Journal of Technology Education 11, no. 2 (2000). . 02 February 2001.

GVU Center. "GVU's First WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. January 1994. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Second WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. October 1994. 5 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Third WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. April 1995. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Fourth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. October 1995. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Fifth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. April 1996. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Sixth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. October 1996. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Seventh WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. April 1997. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Eighth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. October 1997. 15 September 2003 .

271 —. "GVU's Ninth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. April 1998. 15 September 2003 .

—. "GVU's Tenth WWW User Survey." In GVU's WWW User Surveys. October 1998. 15 September 2003 .

Gwennap, Linley. "Birth of a Chip." Byte December 1996: 77-82.

Hafner, Katie. "Wiring the Ivory Tower." Newsweek 30 January 1995: 62-66.

Hagedorn, Linda Serra, et al. "Peer and Student-Faculty Relations in Community Colleges." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 24, no. 7 (August 2000): 587-98.

Hahn, Harley, and Rick Stout. The Internet Complete Reference. Berkeley, CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Hailes, Stephen, and Reza Hazemi. "Reinventing the Academy." In The Digital University, edited by Reza Hazemi, Stephen Hailes, and Steve Wilbur, 7-24. London: Springer, 1998.

Hakim, Catherine. Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman, 1987.

Hallam, Susan. "Misconduct on the Information Highway: Abuse and Misuse of the Internet." In Online Information 94 Proceedings, 593-602, 1994.

Hamilton, Tyler. "National Defence Internet Site Falls Prey to Attack by Hacker." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 03 November 1999: A5.

Hammond, Neil. "Tailoring Hypertext for the Learner." In Cognitive Tools For Learning, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 149-59. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Hannemyr, Gisle. "The Internet as Hyperbole: A Critical Examination of Adoption Rules." Information Society 19, no. 2 (April/June 2003): Start Page: 111.

Hansen, John W. "Student Cognitive Styles in Postsecondary Technology Programs." Journal of Technology Education 6, no. 2 (1995). .11 June 1997.

Hansen, Steve, and Graeme Salter. "The Adoption and Diffusion of Web Technologies Into Mainstream Teaching." Journal of Interactive Learning Research 12, no. 2-3 (2001): 281-99.

272 Hara, N., and R. Kling. "Students' Frustrations with a Web-Based Distance Education Course." First Monday 4, no. 12 December 1999. 10 September 2003 .

Harasim, Linda, et al. Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1995.

Hardy, Henry. "The History of the Net." . (1993) 28 September 1996.

Harmon, Amy. "The Internet Has Landed." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 19 July 1997: C8.

Harnad, Stevan . "Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry." (1990). 21 April 1996.

Harriman, Philip A., and Heather Moir Fitz-Gibbon. "Is IT Worth It?" Campus-Wide Information Systems 15, no. 4 (1998): 131-36.

Harris, Judi. "Who to Hook and How." Learning and Leading with Technology 24, no. 7 (April 1997): 54-57.

Harris, Lesley Ellen. "Libraries and E-Commerce: Improving Information Services and Beyond." Information Outlook 4, no. 3 (March 2000): 24-30.

Harrison, C., et al. ImpaCT2. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series no. 7. http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/ImpaCT2_strand1_report.pdf: Becta, 2002.

Hart, Anne. "Second Opinion." Internet World February 1996: 42-48.

Hartman, Diane B., and Karen Nantz. The 3 R's of E-Mail: Risks, Rights and Responsibilities. United States: Bawding Printing Company, 1996.

Hartman, Jackie, Jeffrey Lewis, S, and Karen Sterkel-Powell. "Inbox Shock: A Study of Electronic Message Volume in a Distance Managerial Communication Course." Business Communication Quarterly 65, no. 3 (September 2002): Start Page: 9.

Harvey, David A. "All the News That's Fit to Speak." NetGuide January 1996: 93-94.

Haskin, David. "Power Search." Internet World December 1997: 79-92.

Hatfield, Thomas H., and Gary W. Erbeck. "The Internet: Legitimate Educational Tool or Giant Electronic Sandbox?" Journal of Environmental Health 59, no. 8 (April 1997): 19-20.

273 Hattori, Fumio, Takeshi Ohguro, and Makoto Yokoo. "Socialware: Multiagent Systems for Supporting Network Communities." Communications of the ACM 42, no. 3 (March 1999): Start Page: 55.

Hawn, Matthew. "Seek and Ye Shall Find: Searching the Web." Macworld May 1996: Start Page: 123.

Hayek, John C., et al. "Triumph or Tragedy: Comparing Student Engagement Levels of Members of Greek-Letter Organizations and Other Students." Journal of College Student Development 43, no. 5 (September/October 2002): 643-63.

Haynie, W.J. "Cross-Gender Interaction in Technology Education: A Survey." Journal of Technology Education 10, no. 2 (1999). . 09 August 2000.

Haywood, Rodney. "Anonymous FTP." Internet Australasia December 1995: 70-71.

Hearit, Keith Michael. "Newsgroups, Activist Publics, and Corporate Apologia: The Case of Intel and Its Pentium Chip." Public-Relations-Review 25, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 291-308.

Heffernan, Michael. "Grasping the Runaway World: Historical Geography and the Internet." Journal of Historical Geography 26, no. 2 (April 2000): 159-61.

Heines, J.M. "Evaluating the Effect of a Course Web Site on Student Performance." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 12, no. 57-83 (2000).

Helms, Glen L, J Gregory Bushong, and Linda Nelms. "Security in Internet e-Commerce." Ohio CPA Journal 61, no. 3 (July-September 2002): Start Page: 12.

Hill, Ann Marie, and Howard A. Smith . "Practice Meets Theory in Technology Education: A Case of Authentic Learning in the High School Setting." Journal of Technology Education 9, no. 2 (1998). . 02 November 1998.

Hill, Jeanette R. . "Teaching Technology: Implementing a Problem-Centered, Activity-Based Approach." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 3 (1999). . 21 November 1999.

Hill, Robin . "What "Sample Size" is Enough in Internet Survey Research?" Interpersonal Computing and Technology 6, no. 3-4 (July 1998). . 16 September 1998.

274 Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, and Barry Wellman. "Asynchronous Learning Networks as a Virtual Classroom." Communications of the ACM 40, no. 9 (September 1997): 44-49.

Hilvert, John. "University Site Offers on-Line Legal Resources." The Australian [Sydney] 19 March 1996: 28.

Hobbs, Dan L. "A Constructivist Approach to Web Course Design: A Review of the Literature." International Journal on ELearning 1, no. 2 (April/June 2002): Start Page: 60.

Hobbs, Tim, Sheryl L. Day, and Anthony C. Russo. "The Virtual Conference Room: Online Problem Solving for First Year Special Educators." Teacher Education and Special Education 25, no. 4 (Fall 2002): Start Page: 352.

Hodges, Mark. "Videoconferencing for the Rest of Us." Technology Review February/March 1996: Start Page: 17.

Hodgson, Vivien, and David McConnell. "IT-Based Open Learning: A Case Study in Management Learning." Journal of Computer Assisted Instruction 1992, no. 8 (1992): 136-50.

Hoffman, Paul E. Netscape and the World Wide Web for Dummies. Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide Inc., 1995.

Holloway, Sarah L., and Gill Valentine. "Spatiality and the New Social Studies of Childhood." Sociology 34, no. 4 (November 2000): Start Page: 763.

Holt, Tim. "Statistical Analysis." In Handbook for Research Students in the Social Sciences, edited by Graham Allan and Chris Skinner, 258-73. London: The Falmer Press, 1991.

Honolulu Community College. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." <2000.http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/ committees/ FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm>.

Horey, Jeremy. "Browsers, Start Your Engines." The Australian [Sydney] 23 April 1996: 31.

Horton, Gerald T., and Kathryn M. Birmingham. "The Working Conditions Program Assessment: Highlights." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 26, no. 1 (January 2002): 25-34.

Howard, Dale C., and G.M. Kysela. "Computer Use in Education: Current Status and Emerging Issues in Research and Practice." In Contemporary Educational Issues: The Canadian Mosaic, edited by Leonard L. Stewin and Stewart J.H.McCann, 442-58. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 1993.

275 Howard, Jim. The Internet Voyeur. San Francisco: Sybex Inc., 1995.

Howe, Walt. "Walt's Navigating the Net Forum: Telnet FAQ." . 22 June 1998.

Hu, S., and G.D. Kuh. "Computing Experience and Good Practices in Undergraduate Education: Does the Degree of Campus "Wiredness" Matter?" Education Policy Analysis Archives 9, no. 49 (2001). 10 September 2003 .

Hughes, J, and King T. "VDML: Small Language Departments Collaborate Using a VLE." Association for Learning Technology Newsletter (ALT-N) 34, no. 6 (July 2001).

Hung, David W.L., and Der Thanq Chen. "Situated Cognition, Vygotskian Thought and Learning from the Communities of Practice Perspective: Implications for the Design of Web-Based E-Learning." Educational Media International 38 (Mar 2001): 3-12.

Hung, David Wei Loong, and Der-thanq Chen. "Understanding How Thriving Internet Quasi-Communities Work: Distinguishing Between Learning About and Learning to Be." Educational Technology 42, no. 1 (January/February 2002): Start Page: 23.

Hunter, Christopher D. . "The Uses and Gratifications of the World Wide Web." . 11 November 1997a.

—. . "The Uses and Gratifications of Project Agora." . 21 April 1997b.

Hunter, John O. "Technological Literacy: Defining a New Concept for General Education." Educational Technology March 1992: 26-29.

Hyman, Avi. "Twenty Years of ListServ as an Academic Tool." Internet and Higher Education 6 (2003): 17-24.

Iannone, Patrick V. "Just Beyond the Horizon: Writing Centred Literacy Activities for Traditional and Electronic Contexts." Reading Online February (1998). .

Ihator, Augustine, S. "Communication Style in the Information Age." Corporate Communications 6, no. 4 (2001): Start Page: 199.

Immen, Wallace. "Technical Support not on the Menu." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 21 June 1999: C7.

276 Information Highway Advisory Council . "The Impact of the Information Highway on the Workplace." Industry Canada. . 1997.

InfoSpace AccuMail . . 1996.

Ingram, Mathew. "How to Get What You Want on the Web." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 01 February 1997: C8.

Ingvarson, Daniel. "Classrooms Online." Internet Australasia April 1995: 22.

International Journal of Human Computer Studies . . 1997.

Internet Australasia. "Lenses for Learning," 70-74, August, 1995.

Internet Software Consortium . "Internet Domain Survey, January 2003." . January 2003.

Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal. . 1999.

Irizarry, C., A. Downing, and D. West. "Promoting Modern Technology and Internet Access for Under-Represented Older Populations." Journal of Technology in Human Services 19, no. 3 (2002): 13-30.

Iverson, B, Pascarella E, and Terenzini P. "Informal Faculty - Student Contact and Commuter College Freshman." Research in Higher Education 21 (1984): 123-36. Jackson, Aaron P., and Steven A. Smith. "Post-secondary Transitions Among Navajo Indians." Journal of American Indian Education 40, no. 2 (2001): 28-47.

Jacobs, Julie Henry, and Douglas H. Clements. "Challenges for Teachers Attempting to Integrate a Mathematics Innovation." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 3 (Spring 1999): Start Page: 240.

Jacobsen, Dawn Michele. Adoption Patterns and Characteristics of Faculty Who Integrate Computer Technology for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Doctoral Dissertation. September 1998 .

—. Examining Technology Adoption Patterns by Faculty in Higher Education. 06 July 2000 .

277 Jacobsen, D.M., and R. Kremer. "Online Testing and Grading Using WebCT in Computer Science." In WebNet 2000: World Conference on the WWW and the Internet, vol. Issue 1. San Antonio: http://dl.aace.org/49, 2000.

Jacobson, Robert L. "The 'Virtual' College." The Chronicle of Higher Education 27 January 1995: 21-25.

Jaffe, Michael J., et al. . "Gender, Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls." In J. Michael Jaffe, Ph.D. . May 1995.

Jaffray, Piper. "Vital Signs." Internet World December 1997: 24.

James, J. "Sustainable Internet Access for the Rural Poor? Elements of an Emerging Indian Model." Futures 35, no. 5 (June 2003): Start Page: 461.

Janes, Joe. "How To Think About Technology." Library Journal 127, no. 2 (01 February 2002): 50-52.

JISC. Managed Learning Environment Activity in Further and Higher Education in the UK. August 2003a. The Social Informatics Research Unit. 14 October 2003 .

—. Managed Learning Environments (MLE's) in Further Education. July 2000 .

—. MLEs for Lifelong Learning. 2003. 7 November 2003b .

Jog, Vijay. "Cost and Revenue Structure of Academic Journals: Paper Based Versus E-Journals." Industry Canada. . 20 June 1995.

John, Nancy R. . "Putting Content Onto the Internet: The Library's Role as Creator of Electronic Information." . April 1996.

Johnson, Keith, Philip Baczewski, and Melody Childs. Using Gopher. Indianapolis, IN.: Que. Corporation, 1995.

Johnson, Maryfran. "Opinion." Computerworld 18 August 1997: Start Page: 32.

Johnston, David, Sunny Handa, and Charles Morgan. Cyber Law: What You Need to Know About Doing Business Online. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co., 1997.

278 Johnston, David, Deborah Johnston, and Sunny Handa. Getting Canada Online: Understanding the Information Highway. Toronto: Stoddart, 1995.

Jonassen, David H. "Evaluating Constructivistic Learning." Educational Technology September 1991.

—. "Hypertext as Cognitive Tools." In Cognitive Learning Tools, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 147-48. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992b.

—. "Thinking Technology: The Trouble With Learning Environments." Educational Technology January 1993: 35-37.

—. "What Are Cognitive Tools?" In Cognitive Tools for Learning, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 1-6. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992a.

Jonassen, David H., Wallace H. Hannum, and Martin Tessmer. Handbook of Task Analysis Procedures. New York: Praeger, 1989.

Jonassen, David H., and Lucia Rohrer-Murphy. "Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments." Educational Technology 47, no. 1 (1999): Start Page: 61.

Jones, Rebecca. "New Technologies Demand New Roles: Resistence is Futile." Computers in Libraries 17, no. 7 (July/August 1997): Start Page: 32.

Jones, Steven G. "Understanding Community in the Information Age." In Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community, edited by Steven G. Jones, 10-35. London: Sage Publications, 1995.

Jones, Steve. The Internet Goes To College. 15 September 2002. The Pew Internet and American Life Project. 12 September 2003 .

Journal of Computer Mediated Communication . . 1999.

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia . . 1998.

Journal of Interactive Media in Education . . 01 December 1999.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education . . 2000.

279 Journal of Technology Education. . 1999.

Judd, Charles M., Eliot R. Smith, and Louise H. Kidder. Research Methods in Social Relations. Chicago: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1991.

Julian, Marti F., Mabel B. Kinzie, and Valerie A. Larsen. "Compelling Case Experiences: Performance, Practice, and Application for Emerging Instructional Designers." Performance Improvement Quarterly 13 (2000): 164-201.

Kaplan, Nancy . "E-Literacies." Computer Mediated Communications Magazine 2, no. 3 (01 March 1995). .

Kaplan, Rochelle. "You Are not Alone: Beware of What You Say on the Internet." Journal of Career Planning and Employment Winter 1997: 11-13.

Kang, Shumin. "Toward a Collaborative Model for the Design of Web-Based Courses." Educational-Technology 41 (March/April 2001): 22-30.

Karsten, Rex, and Roberta M. Roth. "The Relationship of Computer Experience and Computer Self-Efficacy to Performance in Introductory Computer Literacy Courses." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 1 (1998). .

Katerattanakul, Pairin. "Framework of Effective Web Site Design for Business-to-Consumer Internet Commerce." INFOR 40, no. 1 (February 2002): Start Page: 57.

Katsinas, Stephen G., and Pat Moeck. "The Digital Divide and Rural Community Colleges: Problems and Prospects." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 26, no. 3 (February/March 2002): Start Page: 207.

Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research." The Public Opinion Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1973): 509-23.

—. "Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual." In The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, edited by Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 19-32. London: Sage Publications, 1974.

Kaufman, Roger. "The Internet as the Ultimate Technology and Panacea." Educational Technology January-February 1998: 63-64.

Kawamoto, Kevin. "Wired Students: Computer Assisted Research and Education." Educational Technology September 1994: 43-48.

280 Kay, Robin H. "A Practical and Theoretical Approach to Assessing Computer Attitudes: The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM)." Journal of Research on Technology in Education Summer 1989: 456-63.

Kaye, Barbara K, and Thomas J Johnson. "Online and in the Know: Uses and Gratifications of the Web for Political Information." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46, no. 1 (March 2002): Start Page: 54.

Kaye, H. Stephen. "Computer and Internet Use Among People With Disabilities." . 29 March 2000.

Kearsley, Greg . "Constructivist Theory (J. Bruner)." In Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database. . 1994.

—. "Educational Technology: A Critique." Educational Technology March-April 1998: 47-51.

Kearsley, Greg, William Lynch, and and David Wizer. "The Effectiveness and Impact of Online Learning in Graduate Education." Educational Technology November-December 1995: 37-42.

Keil, Mark, and Roy D. Johnson. "Feedback Channels: Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Voice Mail to e-Mail." Journal of Information Systems Education 13, no. 4 (2002): Start Page: 295.

Ketcham, Lee, and Kathleen Born. "Projecting the Electronic Revolution While Budgeting for the Status Quo." Library Journal 15 April 1996: 45-51.

Killoran, John B. "Under Constriction: Colonization and Synthetic Institutionalization of Web Space." Computers and Composition 19, no. 1 (2002): Start Page: 19.

King, James W. . "Seven Principles of Good Teaching Practice." North Central Institute for Sustainable Systems. . 04 April 1997.

King, Stephen J., and Carol Taylor. "Scholarly Communication: A New Generation of Technology." In Cause/Effect. . 1993.

Kinzer, Charles, and Donald J. Jr. Leu. "Focus on Research - the Challenge of Change: Exploring Literacy Learning in Electronic Environments." Language Arts 74, no. 2 (February 1997): 126-36.

Kitagaki, Ikuo. "Technology Literacy in the Immediate Future and Educational Technology." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 23, no. 4 (1995): 369-81.

281 Kleiner, Jane P., and Charles A. Hamaker. College and Research Libraries 58, no. 4 (July 1997): 355-74.

Kling, Rob, and Eva Callahan. "Electronic Journals, the Internet, and Scholarly Communication." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 37 (2003): 127-77.

Knopper, Steve. "The E-Mail Files." Yahoo Internet Life May 1998: 68-71.

Knowlton, Steven R. "World-Wide Web of Confusion Snares Many an Unwary Researcher." The Globe and Mail 13 November 1997: C16.

Knuckey, J., L. Lawford, and J. Kay. Information Should Be Visual: New and Emerging Technologies and Their Application in the VET Sector for Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing. 2001 .

Koeckeritz, Jane, Judy Malkiewicz, and Ann Henderson. "The Seven Principles of Good Practice: Applications for Online Education in Nursing." Nurse Educator 27, no. 6 (November/December 2002): Start Page: 283.

Koljatic, Mladen, and George D. Kuh. "A Longitudinal Assessment of College Student Engagement in Good Practices in Undergraduate Education." Higher Education 42, no. 3 (October 2001): 351-71.

Kommers, Piet A.M. "Collaborative Communication Tools." In Cognitive Tools for Learning, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 183. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Kotkin, Joel. The New Geography: How the Digital Revolution Is Reshaping the American Landscape. New York: Random House Inc., 2000.

Kozma, Robert B. "Constructing Knowledge With Learning Tool." In Cognitive Tools for Learning, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 23-32. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Kraut, Robert, et al. "Internet Paradox." American Psychologist 53, no. 9 (1998): 1017-31.

Krebs, Arlene. "Building Your Campus Portal: Advice from the Field." Converge 4, no. 11 (November 2001): 24-28.

Kuh, G., M. Palmer, and K. Kish. "The Value of Educationally Purposeful Out-of-Class Experiences." In Involvement in Campus Activities and the Retention of First-Year Students, edited by T.L. and Argo Skipper, R. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Centre for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 2003.

282 Kuh, G.D. "Creating Campus Climates That Foster Student Learning." In Realizing the Educational Potential of Residence Halls, edited by P. Mable and C. Schroeder. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

—. "In Their Own Words." American Educational Research Journal 30 (1993): 277 - 304.

—. "The Other Curriculum." Journal of Higher Education 66 (1995): 123 - 155.

—. "Teaching and Learning After Class." Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 2 (1991): 35 - 51.

—. "Understanding Campus Environments." In Handbook on Student Affairs Administration (Second Edition), edited by M.J. Barr and M. Dessler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

—. "Working Together to Enhance Student Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom." In Assessing Impact: Evidence and Action, edited by B. Cambridge. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Association, 1997.

Kuh, G.D., et al. Student Learning Outside the Classroom. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report no. 8. Washington DC: The George Washington University School of Education and Human Development, 1994a.

Kuh, G.D., and S. Hu. "The Relationships Between Computer and Information Technology Use, Student Learning, and Other College Experiences." Journal of College Student Development 42 (2001a): 217 - 232.

Kuh, G.D., J.H. Schuh, and E.J. Whitt. "Some Good News About Campus Life." Change 23, no. 5 (1991a): 48 - 55.

Kuh, G.D., J.H. Schuh, and E.J. Whitt. Involving Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991b.

Kuh, G.D., and N. Vesper. "Do Computers Enhance or Detract from Student Learning?" Research In Higher Education 42 (2001): 87 - 102.

Kuh, G.D., N Vesper, and L Krehbiel. "Student Learning at Metropolitan Universities." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. IX, edited by J. Smart. New York: Agathon Press, 1994b.

Kuh, George D., and Shouping Hu. "The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction in the 1990s." Review of Higher Education 24, no. 3 (Spring 2001b): 309-32.

Kumari, Siva. "Technological Change and Its Impact on Teaching in Higher Education." The Electronic Journal of Communication 9, no. 1 (1999).

283 Kwok, Stepanie D. "A Tool For Learning: Internet Resources for Engineers and Geoscientists." Innovation April 1997: 14-15.

Lajoie, Susan P. "Computer Environments as Cognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning." In Computers as Cognitive Tools, edited by Susan P. Lajoie and Sharon J. Derry, 261-88. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.

Lam, Wan Shun Ewa. "L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet." TESOL Quarterly 34, no. 3 (Autumn 2000): Start Page: 457.

Landauer, Thomas K. The Trouble With Computers: Usefulness, Usability and Productivity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.

Lander, Denis . "Do We Need Online Teaching?" . February 1997a.

— . "Online Teaching: Applications." . February 1997b.

Lander, Denis, and Andrew Walta . "A Newsgroups Based Learning Activity." . 1995.

Landt, D., S. Knazze, and P. Sud. "Technology and Grease." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 25, no. 9 (October/November 2001): Start Page: 691.

Lang, Kurt, and Gladys Engel-Lang. "The Mass Media and Voting." In American Voting Behavior, edited by E. Burdick and A.J. Brodbeck, 217-35. Glenco, Il: Free Press, 1959.

LaRose, Robert, Dan Mastro, and Matthew S Easton. "Understanding Internet Usage." Social Science Computer Review 19, no. 4 (Winter 2001): Start Page: 395.

Lasarenko, Jane. Wired For Learning: Harness the Power of the Internet for Education. Indianapolis, IN: Que Corporation, 1997.

Lauman, Daylene J. . "Student Home Computer Use: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33, no. 2 (2000). .

Laurillard, Diana, et al. . "Interactive Media in the Classroom: Report of the Evaluation Study." In Multimedia, Education and Narrative Organization: Relevant Publications. . June 1994.

284 Laurillard, Diana . "Multimedia and the Learner's Experience of Narrative." In Multimedia, Education and Narrative Organization: Relevant Publications. . 1996.

—. Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge, 1993.

Laurillard, Diana, and Josie Taylor . "Designing the Stepping Stones: An Evaluation of Interactive Media in the Classroom." In Multimedia, Education and Narrative Organization: Relevant Publications. . 1994.

Lavin, Maud. "Confessions from the Couch." Afterimage 26, no. 1 (July/August 1998): Start Page: 6.

Laws, Rita, [email protected]. "The Alt.Education.Distance FAQ (Part 1 of 4)." Alt.Education.Distance, 18 January, 1998.

Leasure, A. Renee, Lisa Davis, and Susan L. Thievon. "Comparison of Student Outcomes and Preferences in a Traditional Vs. World Wide Web Based Baccalaureate Nursing Research Course." Journal of Nursing Education 39, no. 4 (April 2000): 149-55.

LeBlanc, Dee-Ann, and Robert LeBlanc. Using Eudora. Indianapolis, IN.: Que. Corporation, 1995.

Leigh, Douglas . "Learning on the Net." . 1995.

Leigh, Patricia Randolph . "Electronic Connections and Equal Opportunities: An Analysis of Telecommunications Distribution in Public Schools." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 1 (1999). .

Leiner, Barry M., et al. . "A Brief History of the Internet (Version 3.1)." . 20 February 1998.

Leiter, Richard. "Lexis/Westlaw Vs. the Internet." Legal Assistant Today 14, no. 6 (July/August 1997): 40-41.

Lembke, Roberta L., and Julia A. Rudy. "Top Campus IT Challenges for 2001." Educause-Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2001): 4-19.

285 Lemke, Karen A., and Michael E. Ritter. "Virtual Geographies and the Use of the Internet for Learning and Teaching Geography in Higher Education." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24, no. 1 (March 2000): 87-92.

Lenzner, R., and S.S. Johnson. "Seeing Things as They Really Are: An Interview with Peter Drucker." Forbes 10 March 1997: 122-28.

Lepani, Barbara. "Education in the Information Society." . July 1995.

Lesk, Michael. "Going Digital." Scientific American 97, no. 3 (March 1997). .

Levine, Daniel B. "First Class E-Mail: Six Tools That Get Your Internet Message Across." PC World August 1997: 169-84.

Levine, Tamar, and Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt. "Computer Use, Confidence, Attitudes, and Knowledge: A Causal Analysis." Computers in Human Behavior 14, no. 1 (January 1998): 125-46.

Lewington, Jennifer. "Graduates Earn More Than Diploma." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 15 August 1996: D7.

—. "Use of Computers Scrutinized." The Globe and Mail 26 June 1997: C5.

Lewis, Graham. "The Future of VLEs at Warwick." Interactions 5, no. 1 Spring 2001. 22 October 2003 .

Lindsay, W. "The Internet: An Aid to Student Research or a Source of Frustration?" Journal of Educational Media 25, no. 2 (2000): 115-29.

List, Karen K. "High-Tech Versus High-Touch Teachers." Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 56, no. 3 (Autumn 2001): 84-89.

Litan, Robert E., and Alice M. Rivlin. "Projecting the Economic Impact of the Internet." The American Economic Review 91, no. 2 (May 2001): 313-18.

Little, John R. "A Librarian's Perspective on Portals." Educause Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2001): 52-54.

Liu, Daonian, and David Fowler . "The Tool-Medium Distinction: Its Critical Importance in Instructional Technology." In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996. . 13 March 1996.

286 Liverpool, Saweda, and Cliff Missen. "Computer Fees in Universities." In WiderNet.Org - Casting a Wider Net. 2003. The Wider Net Project. 14 October 2003 .

Livingstone, Ian. "GeogNet: An Email Discussion List for UK Geographies in Higher Education." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21, no. 2 (July 1997): Start Page: 291.

Logan, Robert K. The Fifth Language: Learning a Living in the Computer Age. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, 1995.

Lohr, Steve. "The Fearless Virus Killers." The Globe and Mail 24 August 1996: D8.

Loiselle, Jean, et al. "Analyzing and Supporting Preservice Teachers' Practice Using Computer Mediated Communication." In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996. . 13 March 1996.

Long, Norton. "The Local Community as an Ecology of Games." American Journal of Sociology 64 (1958): 251-61.

Looney, Michael, and Peter Lyman. "Portals in Higher Education." Educause Review 35, no. 4 (July August 2000): Start Page : 28.

Lorraine, Sherry. "Internet and World Wide Web Usage in an Institution of Higher Learning." Computers in the Schools 17, no. 3-4 (2001): Start Page: 91.

Lovlie, Lars. "The Promise of Bildung." Journal of Philosophy of Education 36, no. 3 (August 2002): Start Page: 467.

Lubans, John. How First-Year University Students Use and Regard Internet Resources. (08 April 1998). 10 September 2003 .

—. Key Findings on Internet Use Among Students. (05 March 1999a). 10 September 2003 .

—. When Students Hit the Surf: What Do Kids Really Do on the Internet and What Are the Implications for Web Design. (02 December 1999b). 10 September 2003 .

—. Study 4: Internet Use (February 2000) Among 3rd Year Students at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. (09 March 2000a). 10 September 2003 .

287 —. Study 5: Graduate Student Internet Use. (22 May 2000b). 10 September 2003 .

Lunt, Peter. "Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communication Research." Journal of Communication 46, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 79-98.

Lycos Top 50. . 2000.

Lynch, Adrian. "Quantas Sends Virtual College Down the Line." The Australian [Sydney] 10 September 1996: 53.

Mabrito, Mark. "Computer Conversations and Writing Apprehension." Business-Communication-Quarterly 63, no. 1 (March 2000): 39-39.

Macchiusi, Lina, and Suzanne Trinidad. Information and Communication Technologies. 2001 .

MacColl. "Virtuous Learning Environments." Programs 35, no. 3 (July 2001): 227-39.

MacDonald, Steve. "Acadia Advantage: A Year Later." Campus Canada September 1997.

Mackay, Hugh. "Can We Know Too Much?" The Weekend Australian 11-12 November 1995: 27.

MacKinnon, Gregory R. "Practical Advice for First Time Online Instructors: A Qualitative Study." Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems 16, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 21-25.

MacPherson, David. Chapter 5: Multicollinearity. 1999. 14 October 2003 .

Maddux, Cleborne D. "The Internet: Educational Prospects - and Problems." Educational Technology September 1994: 37-42.

Malecki, Edward J. "Digital Development in Rural Areas: Potentials and Pitfalls." Journal of Rural Studies 19, no. 2 (April 2003): Start Page: 201.

Maloney, Wendy Hall. "Connecting the Texts of Their Lives to Academic Literacy: Creating Success for at-Risk First-Year College Students." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 46, no. 8 (May 2003): Start Page: 664.

Manes, Stephen. "The Age of Almost Information." PC World September 1999: 308.

Mann, Sarah J. "A Personal Inquiry Into an Experience of Adult Learning on-Line." Instructional Science 31, no. 1-2 (January/March 2003).

288 Marcus, John. "E-Text is Here to Stay." Database 20, no. 6 (1997): 66-68.

Marken, Andy. "Communication on Steroids: Use with Care." Computing Canada 23 June 1997: 27.

Markham, Scott, William Kordsmeier, and Rebecca Gatlin-Watts. "Computer Availability and Applications in Selected European Business Schools." Journal of Information Systems Education 14, no. 2 (July 2003): Start Page: 173.

Maroney, Denman. "In Praise of Hypertext." Journal of Advertising Research 37, no. 2 (March/April 1997): 7-9.

Marshall, Jonathan. "Technology Increasing Bandwidth." The Chronicle Herald [Halifax] 01 August 1997: B8.

Martell, Tony. "Have You Discovered Meta-Search Tools Yet?" The Globe and Mail 27 February 1998: C12.

—. "The Net Offers Vast Research Resources." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 26 August 1997: C2.

Martindale, Michael J. "Mental Models and Text Schemas: Why Computer Based Tutorials Should Be Considered a Communications Medium." Journal of Computer Based Instruction 20, no. 4 (Autumn 1993): 107-12.

Marttunen, Miika. "Electronic Mail as a Forum for Argumentative Interaction in Higher Education Studies." Journal of Educational Computing Research 18, no. 4 (1998): Start Page: 387.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The Guidelines for Appropriate Use of MIT's Campus Wide Information Systems." . 30 September 1999.

Matthews, Denise, and Lynne Schrum. "High-Speed Internet Use and Academic Gratifications in the College Residence." The Internet and Higher Education 6, no. 2 (2nd Quarter 2003): 125-44.

Maughan, George R. "Communication and Information Systems Infrastructure." New Directions for Higher Education 115 (Fall 2001): 17-27.

Maughan, George R., Karen R. Petitto, and Don McLaughlin. "Networks." New Directions for Higher Education 115 (Fall 2001): 41-49.

289 Maushak, Nancy J., Hui H. Chen, and Hung Sheng Lai. "Utilizing Edutainment to Actively Engage K-12 Learners and Promote Students' Learning." In Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development and Practice. National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, vol. 1. Atlanta, GA, 2001.

Mayes, J. Terry. "Cognitive Tools: A Suitable Case for Learning." In Cognitive Tools for Learning, edited by Piet A.M Kommers, David H. Jonassen, and J. Terry Mayes, 7-17. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Mazereeuw, Ric. "Finding the Right Stuff." Sympatico Net Life July-August 1997: 21-25.

McArthur, David. "Investing in Digital Resources." New Directions for Higher Education 119, no. 77-84 (Fall 2002).

McCabe, Nick. "Updated Eudora May Struggle to Compete." The Australian [Sydney] 22 October 1996.

McClelland, Jerry. "A New Twist on an Old Skill: Retrieving Information With Computers to Enhance Decision-Making Processes." In The Computer as an Educational Tool, edited by Jr. Henry F. Olds, 83-88. New York: The Haworth Press, 1986.

McClure, Polley A., John W. Smith, and Toby D. Sitko. "The Crisis in Information Technology Support: Has Our Current Model Reached Its Limit?" . Spring 1997.

McComb, Mary. "Benefits of Computer Mediated Communication in College Courses." Communication Education 43, no. 2 (1994): Start Page: 159.

McCormack, Marie Louise. "What Sex is the Internet? Internet and Web Technologies as Social Tools and Reflections of Our Inner Selves." Futures 30, no. 9 (November 1998): Start Page: 923.

McCreary, Faith A., Roger W. Ehrich, and Melissa Lisanti. "Chat Rooms as "Virtual Hangouts" for Rural Elementary Students." Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual; (2001): 105-23.

McFedries, Paul. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Usenet Newsgroups. Indianapolis, IN.: Alpha Books, 1995.

McIntosh, Trudi. "The Virtual Campus Nears Reality." The Australian [Sydney] 11 September 1996: 24.

McIver, John P, and Edward G. Carmines. Unidemensional Scaling. London: Sage Publications Inc., 1981.

290 McKenzie, Jamie. "Making Web Meaning." Educational Leadership 54, no. 3 (1996): 30-32.

—. Planning Good Change With Technology and Literacy. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press, 2001.

McLaughlin, Margaret L., Kerry K. Osborne, and Christine B. Smith. "Standards of Conduct on Usenet." In Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community, edited by Steven G. Jones, 90-111. London: Sage Publications, 1995.

McLeans. . 1999.

McLuskie, Steve. "Firms Join with College to Create Virtual Campus." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 15 October 1996: C4.

McQuail, Denis. "Is Media Theory Adequate to the Challenges of New Communications Technologies?" In Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use, edited by Jerry L. Salvaggio and Jennings Bryant, 1-17. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989.

—. Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications, 1994.

—. "With the Benefit of Hindsight: Reflections on Uses and Gratifications Research." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1, no. 1984 (1984): 177-93.

McQuail, Denis, and Michael Gurevitch. "Explaining Audience Behavior: Three Approaches Considered." In The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, edited by Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 287-301. London: Sage Publications, 1974.

Medved, Caryn E., and Jennifer Heisler. "A Negotiated Order Exploration of Critical Student-Faculty Interactions: Student-Parents Manage Multiple Roles." Communication Education 51, no. 2 (April 2002): 105-20.

Melloan, George. "Of the Internet, Civil Society and How They Mesh." Wall Street Journal 11 January 2000: Start Page: A.27.

Mendoza, Miguel Rafael, and Jose Alvarez Toledo . "Demographics and Behavior of the Chilean Internet Population." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3, no. 1 (02 June 1997). .

Meredyth, Denise, and Julian Thomas. "New Technology and the University: Introduction." Australian Universities Review 39, no. 1 (1996): 10-11.

291 MetaCrawler. . 2000.

Metz, P. "The View from a University Library." Change 27, no. 1 (1995): 29-33.

Miller, Greg. "Good, Bad, Ugly All Caught in Net." The Australian [Sydney] 22 October 1996: 15.

Mills, Bradford, F, and Brian Whitacre, E. "Understanding the Non-Metropolitan-Metropolitan Digital Divide." Growth and Change 34, no. 2 (Spring 2003): Start Page: 219.

Minium, Edward W., Bruce M. King, and Gordon Bear. Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1993.

Mirashi, Mandar, [email protected]. "IRC Undernet Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Part 1 of 2: Version 3.2.0." Alt.Irc.Undernet. http://www.landfield.com/faqs/irc/undernet-faq/part1/, 07 August, 1995.

Mitchell, Bruce, and Maureen Reed. "Using Information Technologies for Interactive Learning." Journal of Geography 100, no. 4 (July/August 2001): Start Page: 145.

Mitra, Ananda . "Categories of Computer Use and Their Relationships with Attitudes Towards Computers." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 30, no. 3 (Spring 1998). .

Mitra, Ananda, et al. . "Changes in Attitudes Toward Computers and Use of Computers by University Faculty." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 1 (1999). .

Mitra, Ananda, and Timothy Steffensmeier . "Changes in Student Attitudes and Student Computer Use in a Computer-Enriched Environment." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 3 (2000). .

Mojab, Shahrzad. "The Feminist Project in Cyberspace and Civil Society." Convergence 33, no. 1-2 (2000): Start Page: 106.

Monahan, Brian D., and Matthew Dharm. "The Internet for Educators: A User's Guide." Educational Technology January/February 1995: 44-48.

Moore, Michael G. . "The Global Distance Education Network." The American Journal of Distance Education 12, no. 3 (1998). .

292 — . "Institutional Restructuring: Is Distance Education Like Retailing?" The American Journal of Distance Education 13, no. 1 (1999). .

— . "Technology-Driven Change: Where Does It Leave the Faculty?" The American Journal of Distance Education 14, no. 1 (2000a). .

— . "Is Distance Teaching More Work or Less?" The American Journal of Distance Education 14, no. 3 (2000b). .

Moraes, Mark, [email protected]. "What is Usenet?" News.Announce.Newusers. http://www.landfield.com/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/, 16 January, 1998.

Morantz, Alan. "Little Wired Schoolhouse." Sympatico NetLife 10 September 1998: 20-24.

Morris, Merrill, and Christine Ogan . "The Internet as Mass Medium." Computer Mediated Communication 1, no. 4 (March 1996). .

Mosbacker, Barrett . "The Information Highway: Littered With Roadkill?" CMC Magazine 2, no. 6 (1 June 1995). .

Mougayar, Walid. "Goodbye Eyeballing, Hello Web Agents." Information Highways January 1998: 34-36.

Moule, Lawrence. "The Digital Library in Canada: Progress, One Page at a Time." Information Highways December 1996-January 1997: 21-27.

Moursund, Dave. "New Views of Computer Literacy: The Computer as Tool." The Practitioner December (1986): 1-12.

Muller, Christine. "Knowledge Between Globalization and Localization: The Dynamics of Female Spaces in Ghana." Current Sociology 51, no. 3-4 (May/July 2003): Start Page: 329.

Murphy, Arthur R. . "Web Usability and Technology." CMC Magazine 6, no. 1 (01 January 1999). .

293 Murphy, Karen L., and Lauren Cifuentes . "Accessing and Disseminating Instruction on the Internet." In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996. . 13 March 1996.

Murphy, Karen L., Renee. Drabier, and Mary Lu Epps . "Incorporating Computer Conferencing Into University Courses." In Online Articles and Papers by Karen Murphy. . 1997.

Murray, Peter J. "Using Virtual Focus Groups in Qualitative Research." Qualitative Health Research 7, no. 4 (November 1997): Start Page: 542.

Mustapha, Ramlee B. "IT and Multimedia in Technical and Vocational Education in Malaysia." Presented at the IVETA [International Vocational Education and Training Association] Conference, 2000.

Napoli, Philip M. "The Internet and the Forces of "Massification."" Electronic Journal of Communication 8, no. 2 (1998). .

Nassar, Nassib. "Searching with ISearch: Moving Beyond WAIS." Web Techniques May 1997: 51-53.

Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. Ryadalmere, NSW: Hodder and Stoughton, 1995.

Neuman, W. Lawrence. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997.

New York University. "Getting to Talk, IRC and Finger - Even Though They're not on the Menu." . 13 March 1997.

Newhagen, John, and Sheizaf Rafaeli . "Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet: A Dialogue." Computer Mediated Communication 1, no. 4 (March 1996). .

Newlin, Michael H., and Alvin Y. Wang. "Integrating Technology and Pedagogy: Web Instruction and Seven Principles of Undergraduate Education." Teaching of Psychology 29, no. 4 (Autumn 2002): Start Page: 325.

294 Newman, D.R., et al. "An Experiment in Group Learning Technology: Evaluating Critical Thinking in Face-to-Face and Computer Supported Seminars." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 4, no. 1 (January 1996). .

Newman, Frank, and Jamie Scurry. "Online Technology Pushes Pedagogy to the Forefront." The Chronicle of Higher Education 47, no. 4 (July 2001): Start Page: 7.

Ng, Vee Ming, and Khoon Yoong Wong. "Using Simulation on the Internet To Teach Statistics." Mathematics Teacher 92, no. 8 (November 1999): 729-33.

Nicaise, Molly, and David Barnes. "The Union of Technology, Constructivism, and Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher Education 47, no. 3 (May-June 1996): 205-12.

Niederhauser, Dale S. "Information Age Literacy: Preparing Educators for the 21st Century." . 13 March 1996.

Nieuwenhuizen, John. Asleep at the Wheel: Australia on the Superhighway. Sydney: ABC Books, 1997.

Noam, Eli. "Electronics and the Dim Future of the University." Science 270 (October 1995): 247-49.

Norman, Geoffrey R., and David L. Streiner. PDQ Statistics. Toronto: Mosby, 1997.

Norusis, Marija J. SPSS 12.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Notess, Greg R. "Telnet: The Forgotten Internet Tool." Online July/August 1996: Start Page: 22.

O'Connor, Rory. "Truth First Casualty in Hacker War." The Australian 27 August 1996: 13.

O'Neil, John. "On Technology and Schools: A Conversation With Chris Dede." Educational Leadership October 1995: 6-12.

Ohl, Todd Michael. "An Interaction-Centric Learning Model." Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 10, no. 4 (2001): 311-32.

Okan, Zuhal. "Edutainment." British Journal of Educational Technology 34, no. 3 (June 2003): Start Page: 255.

295 Olaniran, Bolanle. "Computer-Mediated Communication: A Test of the Impact of Social Cues on the Choice of Medium for Resolving Misunderstandings." Journal Of Educational Technology Systems 31, no. 2 (2003): 205-22.

Olcott, Kelly Chandler, and Donna Mahar. ""Tech-Savviness" Meets Multiliteracies: Exploring Adolescent Girls Technology-Mediated Literacy Practices." Reading Research Quarterly 38, no. 3 (July/September 2003): Start Page: 356.

Olds, Henry F. Jr. "Information Management: A New Tool for a New Curriculum." In The Computer as an Educational Tool, edited by Jr. Henry F. Olds, 7-21. New York: The Haworth Press, 1986.

On Call Online: the Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning . . 1998.

Open Learning Agency . "Open Learning Agency." . 2002.

Open Learning Australia. "Open Learning Australia." . 2002.

Oppenheimer, Todd. "The Computer Delusion." The Atlantic Monthly July 1997: 45-62.

Orton-Johnson, Kate. "If You Build It They Will Come? Evaluating Student Use of Web-Based Resources." In AOIR Toronto. 2003 .

Osborn, Viola. "Identifying at-Risk Students in Videoconferencing and Web-Based Distance Education." American Journal of Distance Education 15, no. 1 (2001): Start Page: 41.

Osborne, Larry N. "Topic Development in USENET Newsgroups." Journal of the American Society for Information Science; V49 N11 49, no. 11 (September 1998): 1010-16.

Owen, Trevor, Ron Owston, and Cheryl Dickie. The Learning Highway: A Student's Guide to Using the Internet in High School and College. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1995.

Owston, Ronald. "The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning?" Educational Researcher March 1997: 27-33.

Pachnowski, Lynne M. "Virtual Field Trips Through Video Conferencing." Learning and Leading with Technology 29, no. 6 (March 2002): Start Page: 10.

Paffenberger, Bryan. Web Search Strategies. New York: MIS Press, 1996.

296 Page, Michael S. . "Perils and Promises: Using the Internet in American Education." Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 1999 (1999). .

Pahl, Claus. "Managing Evolution and Change in Web-Based Teaching and Learning Environments." Computers & Education 40, no. 2 (February 2003): Start Page: 99.

Palmgreen, Philip. "The Uses and Gratifications Approach: A Theoretical Perspective." Media Panel Report No. 30 presented at the Lunds Universitet Sociologiska Instutionen, November, 1983.

—. "Uses and Gratifications: A Theoretical Perspective." In Competence in Communication: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Robert N. Bostrom. London: Sage Publications, 1984.

Pankratius, Willam J., and Martha W. Young. "Perspectives on Education: A Constructivist Approach to an Introductory Course." Education 115, no. 3 (Spring 1995): 363-68.

Papert, Seymour. The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: BasicBooks, 1993a.

—. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

—. "Obsolete Skill Set: the 3 R's." Wired 1, no. 2 (1993b). .

Pappas, Charles. "The A to Z of Internet Sleaze." Home Office Computing August 1997b: 70-74.

—. "Rx for Junk." Home Office Computing November 1997a: 110-14.

Parker, Anne . "Encouraging Student Use of Internet Technologies." . 21 January 1997.

Parker, Janet. "Tools for Thought." The Computing Teacher October 1986: 21-23.

Parkinson, Eric . "Talking Technology: Language and Literacy in the Primary School Examined Through Children's Encounters with Mechanisms." Journal of Technology Education 11, no. 1 (1999). .

297 Parr, Judy M. . "Extending Educational Computing: A Case of Extensive Teacher Development and Support." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 3 (1999). .

Pascarella E., and P. Terenzini. "Residence Arrangement, Student-Faculty Relationships and Freshman Year Educational Outcomes." Journal of College Student Personnel 22 (1981): 147-56.

Pascarella, E. "College Environmental Influences on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Critical Review and Synthesis." In Higher Education: Research, Volume 1, edited by J. Smart, 1 - 61. New York: Agathon Press, 1985a.

—. "The Influence of Living on-Campus Versus Commuting to College on Intellectual and Interpersonal Self-Confidence." Journal of College Student Personnel 26 (1985b): 292 - 299.

—. "Reassessing the Effects of Living on Campus Versus Commuting to College: A Causal Modelling Approach." Review of Higher Education 7 (1984): 247-60.

Pascarella, E, et al. "Cognitive Impacts of Living on Campus Versus Commuting to College." Journal of College Student Development 34 (1993): 216 - 220.

Pascarella, E. "Student-Faculty Informal Contact and College Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 50 (1980): 545-95.

Pascarella, E, et al. "Student-Faculty Relationships and Freshman Year Intellectual and Personal Growth in a Non-Residential Setting." Journal of College Student Personnel 24 (1983): 395-402.

Pascarella, E, et al. "Effects of on-Campus and Off-Campus Work on First-Year Cognitive Outcomes." Journal of College Student Development 35 (1994a): 364 - 370.

Pascarella, E, P Terenzini, and G Blimling. "The Impact of College Residence Halls on Student Development." In Realizing the Educational Potential of College Residence Halls, edited by P. Mable and C. Schroeder. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994b.

Pelton, Leslee Francis, and Timothy W. Pelton. "Teaching by Example: Using WWW, Usenets, and E-Mail in a Pre-Service Course." In Technology and Teacher Education Annual. . 13 March 1996.

298 Perrone, Corrina, et al. . "Computers in the Classroom: Moving from Tool to Medium." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 2, no. 3 (December 1996). .

Peters, Richard, and Robert Sikorski. "How to Use Usenet." Science 276 (20 June 1997): 1893-95.

Philliber, Susan G., Mary R. Schwab, and and G. Sam Sloss. Social Research. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1980.

Piaget, Jean. The Mechanisms of Perception. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1969.

—. The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. New York: Grossman, 1970.

Pierce, Jean W., Robert Blomeyer, and T. Michael Roberts. "Surfing the Internet: A Whale of an Information Source for Educational Researchers." Educational Researcher 24, no. 5 (June/July 1995).

Pierson, Melissa E. "Technology Integration Practice as a Function of Pedagogical Expertise." Journal of Research on Technology in Education; V33 N4 Sum 2001 33, no. 4 Summer 2001. 07 November 2003 .

Pike, Mary Ann, and Noel Estabrook. Using FTP. Indianapolis, IN.: Que. Corporation, 1995.

Pinto, Giles. "Video-Conferencing for the Rest of Us." The Yellowknife [Yellowknife] 24 January 1996: 12.

Plant, Philip . "Introducing Internet Talk v.1.74." . 2000.

Poling, Don J. "E-Mail as an Effective Teaching Supplement." Educational Technology May-June 1994: 53-55.

Pollock, Phillip H, and Bruce M Wilson. "Evaluating the Impact of Internet Teaching." PS: Political Science and Politics 35, no. 3 (September 2002): Start Page: 561.

Pool, Carolyn R. "A New Digital Literacy: A Conversation with Paul Gilster." Educational Leadership 55, no. 3 (November 1997). .

299 Porter, Lynnette R. Creating the Virtual Classroom. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1997.

Poster, Mark. The Second Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

—. Technopoly: The Surrender of Technology to Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Postmes, Tom, et al. "Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior." Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin 27, no. 10 (2001): 1243 - 1254.

Provan, James W. "The PLNet." Innovation April 1997: 8-10.

Psycoloquy . . 1999.

Pugalee, David K., and Rich Robinson . "A Study of the Impact of Teacher Training in Using Internet Resources for Mathematics and Science Instruction." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 1 (1998). .

Pyra, Marianne. Using Internet Relay Chat. Indianapolis, IN.: Que. Corporation, 1995.

Quarterman, John S. The Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide. Burlington, MA: The Digital Press, 1990.

Quint, Barbara. "Wars, Roses, and Standards." Wilson Library Bulletin 65 (February 1991). .

Rafaeli, Sheizaf. "Interactivity: From New Media to Communication." In Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, edited by R. Hawkins, 110-34. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

Rafferty, Cathleen D. "Literacy in the Information Age." Educational Leadership 57, no. 2 (October 1999): Start Page: 22.

Rajani, Rakhi, and Duska Rosenberg . "Usable? Or Not?: Factors Affecting the Usability of Web Sites." CMC Magazine 6, no. 1 (01 January 1999). .

300 Rauch, Arden . "Beyond the Hype: Planning for Computer Telecommunications in the Classroom." CMC Magazine 2, no. 6 (1 June 1995). .

Reed, W. Michael, and John Oughton. "Computer Experience and Interval-Based Hypermedia Navigation." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 30, no. 1 (Fall 1997). .

Reichard, Kevin. "Push the E-Mail Envelope." NetGuide January 1996: 61-75.

Retkwa, Rosalyn. "Financial Pages: You Can Now Obtain Investment Intelligence That Rivals That of Professional Traders." Internet World February 1996: 66-74.

Reushle, Shirley, and Jacqueline McDonald. "Web-Based Student Learning: Accommodating Cultural Diversity." Indian Journal of Open Learning September 2000: 351-59.

Reynolds, Joe. "What the Instructional Designer Needs To Know About HTML." International Journal of Instructional Media 25 (1998): 161-69.

Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Surfing the Internet. Melbourne: The Australian Print Group, 1995.

Ricadela, Aaron. "The e-Commerce X Factor." Information Week 911 (21 October 2002): Start Page: 63.

Rice, Marion. "Issues Surrounding the Integration of Technology Into the K-12 Classroom: Notes From the Field." Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century 3, no. 1 (January 1995). .

Rice, Ronald E, and James E Katz. "Comparing Internet and Mobile Phone Usage: Digital Divides of Usage Adoption and Dropouts." Telecommunications Policy 27, no. 8-9 (September/October 2003): Start Page: 597.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labour Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1995.

Rintel, Sean E., and Jeffrey Pittam. "Strangers in a Strange Land: Interaction Management on Internet Relay Chat." Human Communication Research 23, no. 4 (June 1997): 507-34.

Rintel, Sean E., Joan Mulholland, and Jeffery Pittam. "First Things First: Internet Relay Chat Openings." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6, no. 3 (2001). 11 November 2003 .

301 Ritter, Michael E., and Karen A. Lemke. "Addressing the 'Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education' with Internet-Enhanced Education." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24, no. 1 (March 2000): 100-09.

Roach, Ronald. "American 'Net Users Rank Privacy as High Concern." Black Issues in Higher Education 18, no. 12 (02 August 2001): Start Page: 35.

Robbins, Nancy, Yen-hai Lo, and Feng-heiung Hou. "Computer Mediated Communication and University International Students." Journal Of Educational Technology Systems 30, no. 3 (2002): 323-31.

Robertson, Heather-Jane. "Son of One." Phi Delta Kappan 81, no. 1 (September 1999): 91-93.

Robertson, Michael. "Wireless Technology in the Library: The RIT Experience: Technical Considerations." 27, 5, June/July, 2001.

Robin, Bernard. "Electronic Scholarly Publishing: Today's Technical Alternatives." In Educom 95. . 1 November 1995.

Robin, Bernard, Elissa Keeler, and Robert Miller. Educators Guide to the Web. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1997.

Robinson, Evan T. "No Small Change: E-Commerce in Distance Education." Syllabus February 2002 .

Robinson, Mike. "Improving Science Teaching with E-Mail." Computers in the Schools 11, no. 1 (1994): 95-107.

Robison, Kristopher Kyle, and Edward Crenshaw, M. "Post-Industrial Transformations and Cyber-Space: A Cross-National Analysis of Internet Development." Social Science Research 31, no. 3 (September 2002): Start Page: 334.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations (5th Ed.). New York: The Free Press, 2003.

Rogers, Everett M., et al. "In Response: Four Viewpoints." Change 28, no. 2 (March/April 1996): Start page 29.

Rogers, Everett M, and Marcel M Allbritton. "Interactive Communication Technologies in Business Organizations." Journal of Business Communication 32, no. 2 (April 1995): 177-95.

302 Rohe, Terry Ann. "How Does Electronic Publishing Affect the Scholarly Communication Process?" The Journal of Electronic Publishing 03, no. 03 (March 1998). .

Ropp, Margaret Marilyn . "Exploring Individual Characteristics Associated with Learning to Use Computers in Preservice Teacher Preparation." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 4 (1999). .

Rose, Gerald. Deciphering Sociological Research. London: MacMillan, 1982.

Rosenberg, Ronni. "Debunking Computer Literacy." Technology Review 58-65 (January 1991).

Rosenblatt, Bill. "Solving the Dilemma of Copyright Online." The Journal of Electronic Publishing 3, no. 2 (December 1997). .

Rosengren, Karl Erik. "Uses and Gratifications: A Paradigm Outlined." In The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, edited by Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 269-86. London: Sage Publications, 1974.

Rourke, Liam, and Terry Anderson . "Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions." Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2002 (1) (14 March 2002). .

Rovers, Perry. "Anonymous FTP: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List." . 05 May 1997.

Rowland, Robin, and Dave Kinnaman. Researching on the Internet: The Complete Guide to Finding, Evaluating, and Organizing Information Effectively. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1995.

Ruben, Barbara. "Access Denied: Inequality in Access to Information Networks." Environmental Action Magazine 27, no. 3 (Fall 1995): 18.

Rubin, Alan M, and Sven Windahl. "Mass Media Uses and Dependency: A Social Systems Approach to Uses and Gratifications." Presented at the International Communication Association Convention. Boston, May, 1982.

Ruffini, Michael F. "The Impact of Undergraduate Preservice Teachers' Use of Hypermedia to Review Lecture Notes." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 3 (1999): 292-304.

Rushkoff, Douglas. "Computer Literacy not What It Used to Be." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 24 October 1998: C11.

303 —. Media Virus: Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture. New York: Ballantyne Books, 1994.

Rutkowski, A F, et al. "Group Support Systems and Virtual Collaboration: The HKNET Project." Group Decision and Negotiation 11, no. 2 (March 2002): Start Page: 101.

Ryder, Brad. "A Description of Gopher, Jughead, and Veronica: What is FTP?" . 14 June 1996.

Ryder, Martin, and Brent Wilson . "Affordances and Constraints of the Internet for Learning and Instruction." . 11 September 1997.

— . "From Local to Virtual Learning Environments: Making the Connection." . 1995.

St. Amant, Kirk. "Integrating Intercultural Online Learning Experiences Into the Computer Classroom." Technical Communication Quarterly 11, no. 3 (Summer 2002): Start Page: 289.

Saeta, Peter N. "Using WebQuiz and the College Intranet to Enhance Class Time and Support Independent Investigation." Campus-Wide Information Systems 19, no. 1 (2002): Start Page: 14.

Salus, Peter H. Casting the Net: From ARPANET to the Internet and Beyond. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1995.

Sandlund, Chris. "Phone for Free?" Home Office Computing August 1997: 110-12.

Santoro, Gerald M. "What is Computer Mediated Communication." In Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: Volume I: Overview and Perspectives, edited by Zane L. Berge and Mauri P. Collins, 11-27. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc., 1995.

Saunders, G., A. Rumpus, and D. McShane. "An Evaluation of the Use of the WWW for Module Delivery." In Internet Based Teaching and Learning, edited by P. Marquet, et al., 545-50. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999.

Saunders, Gunter. Getting Started With Online Learning. Winchcombe: Learning Partners, 2000.

Saunders, Gunter, and Fredrik Klemming. "Integrating Technology Into a Traditional Learning Environment." Active Learning in Higher Education 4, no. 2 (2003): 74-86.

304 Savitz, Kevin. "Tomorrow's Multimedia Today." I-Way November 1995: 65-67.

Schantz, Jeffrey D. "Educating Students About the Limits of Internet Research." Black Issues in Higher Education 16, no. 21 (December 1999): 32.

Schlack, Mark. "Peace on the Wired Planet." Byte December 1996: 14.

Schneider, Kay . "The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." . 17 June 1999.

Schofield, Janet Ward. "Computers and Classroom Social Processes - A Review of the Literature." Social Science Computer Review Spring (1997): 27-39

Schumacker, Randall E., Jon I. Young, and Karen L. Bembry. "Math Attitudes and Achievement of Algebra I Students: A Comparative Study of Computer-Assisted and Traditional Lecture Methods of Instruction." Computers in the Schools 11, no. 4 (1995): 27-33.

Schumer Chapman, Fern. "Web of Deceit: How to Separate Information from Infomercials on the Net." PC World August 1997: 145-52.

Schuster, Judy. "Reflections of an E-Mail User." Electronic Learning 14, no. 2 (October 1994): 18-21.

Scisco, Peter. "Gopher - It Was King of the Internet Before the Web, and It's Still Going Strong." Netguide: The Guide to Online Services and the Internet 01 August 1995: Start Page: 47.

Scoffield, Susan. "The Changing Face of the Higher Education Student: Proceedings of an Internet Conference." Education + Training 41, no. 4-5 (1999): 253-59.

Scott, Peter . "Hytelnet: 1st Directory of Internet Resources." . 04 September 1997.

Search.Com . . 2001.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). What Work Requires of Schools. Department of Labor (1991).

Sefton-Green, J., and D. Parker. Edit-Play. London: British Film Institute, 2000.

Seibert, Larry J. "Using the Net, E-Mail in Marketing Education." Marketing News 30, no. 17 (12 August 1996): 10.

Selfe, Cynthia L. "The Humanization of Computers: Forget Technology, Remember Literacy." English Journal October 1988: 69-71.

305 Seng, Lee Chye, and Suliman Al Hawamdeh. "New Mode of Course Delivery for Virtual Classroom." Aslib Proceedings 53, no. 6 (June 2001): Start Page: 238.

Serim, Ferdi, and Melissa Koch. NetLearning: Why Teachers Use the Internet. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1996.

Sethuraman, Sheela. "An Expectancy-Value Analysis to Determine the Attitude of Web Users Towards Recommending a Site to a Friend." . 28 April 1996.

Sevcik, Peter. "Accelerating Ecommerce." Business Communications Review 32, no. 11 (November 2002): Start Page: 8.

Severin, Werner J., and James W. Tankard. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. Longman, 1992.

Sexton, Randall S., Richard A. Johnson, and Michael A. Hignite. "Predicting Internet/E-Commerce Use." Internet Research 12, no. 5 (2002): 402-10.

Seymour, Jim. "Web Follies: Checking E-Mail at 2 AM." PC Magazine 25 March 1997: 93-94.

Shabazz, Daaim, and Marcelo Alonso. "Internet Politics and the Creation of a Virtual World." International Journal on World Peace 16, no. 3 (September 1999): 27-45.

Shade, Lesley Regan. "Review Essay: Gender and the Internet." Canadian Journal of Communication 28, no. 3 (2003): 359-63.

Shauf, Michele S. "The Problem of Electronic Argument." Computers and Composition 18, no. 1 (2001): Start Page 33.

Sheehan, Kim . "E-Mail Survey Response Rates: A Review." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6, no. 2 (January 2001). .

Shenk, David. Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.

Sherer, Pamela, and Timothy Shea. "Designing Courses Outside the Classroom: New Opportunities with the Electronic Delivery Toolkit." College Teaching 50, no. 1 (Winter 2002): Start Page: 15.

Sherman, Richard C, et al. "The Internet Gender Gap Among College Students: Forgotten but not Gone?" CyberPsychology-and-Behavior. 3, no. 5 (October 2000): 885-94.

306 Shermis, Mark, D, and Danielle Lombard. "A Comparison of Survey Data Collected by Regular Mail and Electronic Mail Questionnaires." Journal of Business and Psychology 14, no. 2 (Winter 1999): Start Page: 341.

Shim, Jaehong, Kangbin Yim, and Kyunghee Choi. "An On-Line Frame Scheduling Algorithm for the Internet Video Conferencing." IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 49, no. 1 (February 2003): Start Page: 80.

Shippensburg University. Internet Use Survey - Analysis. 2000. 10 September 2003 .

Shoalts, David. "Jury Still Out on Value." The Globe and Mail 26 June 1997b: C8.

—. "Virtual Campus: New Brunswick Project Leading Way." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 26 June 1997a: C4.

Siegal, Fred, and Joel Kotkin. Digital Geography: The Remaking of City and Countryside in the New Economy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2000.

Silvey, Jonathan. Deciphering Data: The Analysis of Social Surveys. London: Longman, 1975.

Simpson, Carol. "Internet Relay Chat." Educational Media and Technology Yearbook; V25 (2000): 62-65.

Simpson, John E. "An FTP Primer." Practical Windows August 1997a: 52-56.

—. "UU Send Me." Practical Windows October 1997b: 53-56.

—. "WebNow Reviews: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Mailing Lists, but Were Afraid to Ask." Practical Windows August 1997c: 57-59.

Sims, Roderick C. "Computer-Based Training and Education: An Australian Perspective." Educational Technology September 1993: 11-15.

Singh, Amarendra, and David Lidsky. "All Out Search." PC Magazine 03 December 1996: 213-49.

Singhal, Meena . "The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Challenges." The Internet TESL Journal III, no. No. 6 (June 1997). . 21 November 1999.

Slate, John R, Margaret Manuel, and Kenneth H Jr. Brinson. "The Digital Divide: Hispanic College Students Views of Educational Uses of the Internet." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 1 (2002): 75-93.

307 Slater, Michael D. "Alienation, Aggression, and Sensation Seeking as Predictors of Adolescent Use of Violent Film, Computer, and Website Content." Journal of Communication 53, no. 1 (March 2003): Start Page: 105.

Smink, Anna. "Information Literacy: A Plan and a Practice." Knowledge Quest 28, no. 4 (March/April 2000): Start Page: 40.

Smith, Alisa. "From E-Mail to the Virtual Classroom." University of Victoria Alumni Magazine [Victoria] Autumn 1997: 6-8.

Smith, Marc. "Tools for Navigating Large Social Cyberspaces." Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 45, no. 4 (Apr 2002): Start Page: 51.

Smith, Matthew J. "Strands in the Web: Community-Building Strategies in Online Fanzines." Journal of Popular Culture 33, no. 2 (Fall 1999): Start Page: 87.

Smoyak, S.A. "Crossing the Digital Divide. On-Line in 2003." Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 41, no. 6 (April 2003): Start Page: 6.

Snow, Richard E. "Aptitudes and Symbol Systems in Adaptive Classroom Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan 78, no. 5 (January 1997): 354-60.

Spence, Laura J. "Like Building a New Motorway': Establishing the Rules for Ethical Email Use at a UK Higher Education Institution." Business Ethics 11, no. 1 (January 2002): Start Page: 40.

Spender, Dale. Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. Melbourne: Spiniflex Press Ltd., 1995.

SPSS Inc. SPSS Base 8.0 Applications Guide. Chicago: Marketing Department, SPSS Inc., 1998.

SSI Micro . . 10 August 1999.

Stainfield, John, et al. "International Virtual Field Trips: A New Direction?" Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24, no. 2 (July 2000): 255-62.

Staninger, Steven W. "Hypertext Technology: Educational Consequences." Educational Technology July/August 1994: 51-53.

Starr, Robin M., and William D. Milheim. "Educational Uses of the Internet: An Exploratory Survey." Educational Technology September-October 1996: 19-28.

308 Statsoft Inc. "Multiple Regression." In Electronic Textbook. 2003. 14 October 2003 .

Stefik, Mark. Internet Dreams. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996.

Stein, Lincoln D. "Sifting the Wheat from the Chaff." Web Techniques May 1997: 8-15.

Sternberg, Sam. "Consumers Rule: Users Are Restructuring Internet Information Services." Information Highways February - March 1998: 22-25.

—. "Web Search Tools: The Next Generation." Information Highways October-November 1997: 18-21.

Stoll, Clifford. Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway. London: Pan Books, 1995.

Strauss, Stephen."Librarians Take on the Internet." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 06 November 1996: A6.

Stubley, P. "Going Beyond Resource Discovery." Update 1, no. 6 (2002): 52-54.

Stueck, Wendy. "Virtual City Hall Aimed at Easing Municipal Chores." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 06 May 1997: C12.

Sturr, Natalie Oakes. "WAIS: An Internet Tool for Full-Text Indexing." Computers in Libraries 15, no. 6 (June 1995): Start Page: 52.

Sudweeks, Fay, Mauri Collins, and John December. "Internetworking Resources." In Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: Volume I: Overview and Perspectives, edited by Zane L. Berge and Mauri P. Collins, 193-212. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 1995.

Sunal, Cynthia, et al. "Using the Internet to Create Meaningful Instruction." The Social Sciences 89, no. 1 (January-February 1998): 13-18.

Sutherland, Patrick J. "Diffusion of Courses with World Wide Web Features." Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 57, no. 4 (Winter 2003): Start Page: 384.

Swartz, Dave, and Ken Orgill. "Higher Education ERP: Lessons Learned." Educause Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2001): 20-27.

Swickert, Rhonda J., et al. "Relationships Among Internet Use, Personality, and Social Support." Computers in Human Behavior 18, no. 4 (July 2002): Start Page: 437.

309 Takacs, James, et al. . "The Effects of Online Multimedia Project Development, Learning Style, and Prior Computer Experiences on Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Internet and Hypermedia." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 31, no. 4 (1999). .

Talbott, Stephen L. The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1995.

Tan, Alexis S. Mass Communication Theories and Research. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1986.

Tapper, Joanna. "Integrating On-Line Literacy Into Undergraduate Education: A Case Study." Higher Education Research & Development 16, no. 1 (1997): 25-40.

Tapscott, Don. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

—. Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1998a.

—. "Reinventing the University." Policy Options July-August 1998b: 67-71.

Tapscott, Don, and Art Caston. Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993.

Tauz, Andrew. "Students and Their New Best Friends." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 15 October 1996: C6.

Taylor, Jonathan S. "Using the World Wide Web in Undergraduate Geographic Education: Potentials and Pitfalls." Journal of Geography 99, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 11-23.

Taylor, Peter G. "Open Learning and Post-Compulsory Education: Access - How, To What, Why?" Presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training. Brisbane, 21-23 November, 1995.

Taylor, Robert P. The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980.

Tebbutt, Dan. "The Perils of the Deep." Australian Personal Computer February 1995: 64-67.

310 Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA) . "Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA): First Thematic Area - Evaluating and Enabling Technology Based Learning." In Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA). . 1995a.

— . "Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA): Third Thematic Area - Post Secondary Learning in Distributed and Virtual Environments." In Technology Based Learning Network Canada (TBL.CA). . 1995b.

Teich, Jeffrey, Hannele Wallenius, and Jyrki Wallenius. "World-Wide-Web Technology in Support of Negotiation and Communication." International Journal of Services Technology and Management 1, no. 1 (2000): Start Page: 83.

Terenzini, P, E Pascarella, and G Blimling. "Students' Out-of-Class Experiences and Their Influence on Learning and Cognitive Development." Journal of College Student Development 37 (1996): 149 - 162.

Terenzini, P, E Pascarella, and Lorang W. "An Assessment of the Academic and Social Influences on Freshman Year Educational Outcomes." Review of Higher Education 5 (1982): 86-109.

Terenzini, P, et al. "Academic and Out-of-Class Influences Affecting the Development of Students' Intellectual Orientations." Review of Higher Education 19 (1994): 23 - 44.

Thach, Liz. "Using Electronic Mail to Conduct Survey Research." Educational Technology March-April 1995: 27-31.

The Economist. "Searching for Sense Among Chaos." The Australian [Sydney] 24 September 1996: 38.

The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. "The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning: A Refereed e-Journal to Advance Research, Theory and Best Practice in Open and Distance Learning Worldwide." . 2002.

The Internet Society . "Frequently Asked Questions: What is the Internet?" . 23 February 1995.

The Macquarrie University Centre for Flexible Learning . "The Macquarrie University Centre for Flexible Learning." . 2002.

311 The National Survey of Student Engagement. The NSSE 2000 Report. 2000. 12 September 2003 .

—. NSSE 2001 Overview. 2001. 12 September 2003 .

—. NSSE 2002 Overview. 2002. 12 September 2003 .

—. NSSE 2003 Overview. 2003. 12 September 2003 .

The Open University. "The Open University." . 2002.

The TLT Group. The Seven Principles of Good Practice. 2003. 11 November 2003 .

Thomas, Don. "Laptops Pushed as Essential." The Edmonton Journal [Edmonton] 13 September 1997: B6.

Thompson, Christine. "Information Illiterate or Lazy: How College Students Use the Web for Research." Portal: Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 2 (April 2003): Start Page: 259.

Thompson, Michael D. "Informal Student-Faculty Interaction: Its Relationship to Educational Gains in Science and Mathematics Among Community College Students." Community College Review; 29, no. 1 (Summer 2001): 35-57.

Thornam, Christine L., and Sally Phillips. "Interactivity in Online and Face-to-Face Sections of a Graduate Nursing Course." TechTrends 45, no. 1 (January/February 2001): Start Page: 34.

Thurston, Catherine O., Evangeline D. Secaras, and James A. Levin. "Teaching Teleapprenticeships: An Innovative Model for Technology Integration in Teacher Education." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 28, no. 5 (1996). .

Tidwell, Lisa Collins. "Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time." Human Communication Research 28, no. 3 (July 2002): 317-48.

Time Digital. "Seek and Yahoo! Shall Find," 22-23, 23 September, 1996.

312 Trokeloshvili, David A., and Neal H. Jost . "The Internet and Foreign Language Instruction: Practice and Discussion." The Internet TESL Journal III, no. No. 8 (August 1997). . 21 July 1999.

Tsai, ChinChung. "A Typology of the Use of Educational Media, with Implications for Internet-Based Instruction." Educational Media International; 37, no. 3 (September 2000): 157-60.

Tuck, Simon, Natalie Southworth, and Ann Gibbon. "Companies Scramble to Fight E-Mail Virus That Erases Files." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 11 June 1999: B1.

Turnbull, Paul. "Conversational Scholarship in Cyberspace: The Evolution and Activities of H-Net, the Online Network for the Humanities." Australian Universities Review 39, no. 1 (1996): 12-15.

Turner, Sandra, and Michael Land. Tools For Schools: Application Software for the Classroom. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1986.

Tuthill, Gail, and E Barbara Klemm. "Virtual Field Trips: Alternatives to Actual Field Trips." International Journal of Instructional Media 29, no. 4 (2002): Start Page: 453.

Twigg, Carol A. "Improving Quality and Reducing Cost." Change 35, no. 4 (July/August 2003): Start Page: 22.

Udell, Jon. "E-Mail's Special Power." InfoWorld 25, no. 36 (15 September 2003): Start Page: 40.

Ulfelder, Steve. "Lies, Damn Lies, and the Internet." Computerworld 14 July 1997: 75-77.

Underwood, Jean, Sue Cavendish, and Tony Lawson. "Technology as a Tool for the Professional Development of Teachers." In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996. . 13 March 1996.

United States Internet Council . "State of the Internet 2000." . 11 November 2000.

University of Delaware. " ECCE - The Electronic Community Citizenship Examination." . 18 October 1995.

313 University of Kansas. "KU Centre for Teaching Excellence: Seven Principles for Good Practice: Enhancing Student Learning " . 2000.

University of South Australia Flexible Learning Centre . "Welcome to the Flexible Learning Centre of the University of South Australia." . 2002.

University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Activate Waisman Network Account." . 18 April 2000.

Van Fossen, Phillip, J. "Degree of Internet/Www Use and Barriers to Use Among Secondary Social Studies Teachers." International Journal of Instructional Media 28, no. 1 (2001): Start Page: 57.

Valentine, Gill, and Sarah Holloway, L. "Cyberkids? Exploring Children's Identities and Social Networks in on-Line and Off-Line Worlds." Association of American Geographers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, no. 2 (June 2002): Start Page: 302.

Varshney, et al. "Voice Over IP." Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 45, no. 1 (January 2002): Start Page: 89.

Velayo, Richard S. "Supplementary Classroom Instruction Via Computer Conferencing." Educational Technology May-June 1994: 20-26.

Venditto, Gus. "Search Engine Showdown." Internet World 7, no. 5 (May 1996). .

Visscher, Adrie J, and P.P.M. Bloemen . "Evaluation of the Use of Computer-Assisted Management Information Systems in Dutch Schools." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 1 (1999). .

Vizine-Goetz, Diane. "From Book Classification to Knowledge Organization: Improving Internet Resource Description and Discovery." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 24, no. 1 (October-November 1997): Start Page: 24.

Vos, W, K Javaras, and A Roddam. Linear Models (Continued). 2002. 14 October 2003 .

Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

314 —. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Vygotsky, Lev S., and Aleaxander Luria. "Tool and Symbol in Child Development." In The Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner, 99-171. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.

W3C. HTTP - Hypertext Transfer Protocol. 2003. 01 November 2003 .

Wallace, F. Layne, and Susan R. Wallace. "Electronic Office Hours: A Component of Distance Learning." Computers and Education; 37, no. 3-4 (December 2001): 195-209.

Wallace, Wendy. "Access for All." The Times Educational Supplement 17 January 2003: Start Page: F12.

Walsh, Liam. "Alone and Lost? Then Try a List." The Weekend Independent [Brisbane] 22 September 1995: 7.

—. "Snail Mail Not Yet in Danger of Extinction." The Weekend Independent [Brisbane] 05 April 1996: 16.

Walther, J.B. "Interpersonal Effects in Computer Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective." Communication Research 19, no. 1 (1992): 52-90.

Wang, Quanyi, and Michael W. Ross. "Differences Between Chat Room and e-Mail Sampling Approaches in Chinese Men Who Have Sex with Men." AIDS Education and Prevention 14, no. 5 (October 2002): 361-66.

Ward, Douglas R., and Esther L. Tiessen. "Adding Educational Value to the Web: Active Learning with AlivePages." Educational Technology September-October 1997: 22-30.

Watson, David. "Accessible College Opens Line on Sharing Knowledge." The Australian [Sydney] 4 June 1996: 5.

Watson, Deryn M. "The Reality Behind the Rhetoric of Information Technology Policy for Schools." Policy Options July-August 1998: 71-75.

Weaver, Warren. "The Mathematics of Communication." Scientific American 181, no. 1 (July 1949): 11-15.

Webb, Wendy. "The New One Room Schoolhouse." Web Guide Magazine 1997: 20-26.

WebCT. WebCT. 2003. 07 November 2003 .

315 Weeks, A.D. "Closing the Digital Divide. Reality May not Be So Rosy." BMJ 326, no. 7397 (10 May 2003): Start Page: 1035.

Weigel, Van. "E-Learning and the Tradeoff Between Richness and Reach in Higher Education." Change 33, no. 5 (September/October 2000): 10-15.

Weil, Nancy. "Holidays Exacerbate ISP's E-Mail Problems." InfoWorld 20, no. 1 (1998): 48-49.

Weiner, Emily. "Virtual Internet Degrees Get Real." The Australian [Sydney] 18 September 1996: 34.

Weise, Elizabeth. "Is the Holey Net Stretching Itself Too Thin?" The Australian [Sydney] 29 October 1996: 13.

Wells, John G., and Daniel K. Anderson. "Learners in a Telecommunications Course: Adoption, Diffusion, and Stages of Concern." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 30, no. 1 (Fall 1997): Start Page: 83.

West, Richard P. . "The Changing Economics of Scholarly Information." Cause/Effect 20, no. 2 (1997). .

— . "Library Budgets: Re-Orienting Where We Spend Our Money." Cause/Effect 17, no. 2 (1994). .

— . "Real Savings - Real Benefits." Cause/Effect 19, no. 4 (1996). .

Whitehouse, Gillian. "Employment Equity and Labour Organization: The Comparative Political Economy of Women and Work." Ph. D. Diss., School of Government, University of Queensland, 1995.

Whitmire, Ethelene. "The Relationship Between Undergraduates' Background Characteristics and College Experiences and Their Academic Library Use." College and Research Libraries 62, no. 6 (November 2001): 528-40.

Wiebe, Eric N, Eric Shaver, and Michael S Wogalter. "Attitudes About the Internet: Implications for Use in Education." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 31, no. 2 (2003): 143-56.

Williams, Hilda Lee, and Eunice M. Merideth. "On-Line Communication Patterns of Novice Internet Users." Computers in the Schools 12, no. 3 (1996): 21-31.

316 Williams, Peter. "The Learning Web." Active Learning in Higher Education 3, no. 1 (2002): 40-53.

Willis, Jerry. "Bridging the Gap Between Traditional and Electronic Scholarly Publishing." . 1996.

Wilson, Carol W. Portrait of the Early-Adopter: Survey of Instructors of WWW Courses, Spring 1998. Spring 1999. 11 October 2003 .

Windahl, Sven. "A Uses and Effects Model: Some Suggestions." Presented at the 4th Nordic Conference for Mass Communication Research (UMEA 1979), 1979.

Windschitl, Mark. "The WWW and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take?" Educational Researcher January-February 1998: 28-33.

Winona State University. "The Seven Principles For Good Practice." . 2000.

Witmer, Diane F. . "Staying Connected: A Case Study of Distance Learning for Student Interns." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4, no. 2 (December 1998). .

Witt, Paul L. "Enhancing Classroom Courses with Internet Technology: Are Course Web Sites Worth the Trouble." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 27, no. 5 (June 2003): Start Page: 429.

Wolfradt, Uwe, and Jorg Doll. "Motives of Adolescents to Use the Internet as a Function of Personality Traits, Personal and Social Factors." Journal of Educational Computing Research 24, no. Start Page: 13 (2001).

Woods, Robert H. "How Much Communication Is Enough in Online Courses?- Exploring the Relationship Between Frequency of Instructor- Initiated Personal Email and Learners Perceptions of and Participation in Online Learning." International Journal of Instructional Media 29, no. 4 (2002): Start Page: 377.

Woodson, Becky. Student Use of the Internet and Their Attitudes on Computer Ethics, With Regard to Internet Use. Spring 2002. http://www.polsci.swt.edu/public_administration/applied_research_projects/AR P_HTM_files/woodson.html.

WordCHECK Systems . "WordCHECK - Keyword Software." . 2002.

317 Wotring, C. Edward, Joseph Kayany, and Edward J. Forrest. "From Mass to Multimedia Research: New Paradigms and Future Directions." In Issues in Interactive Communications: The Impact of the New Technologies on Society. . 1996.

Yaffee, Robert A . "Common Correlation and Reliability Analysis with SPSS for Windows." . 16 May 1999.

Yahoo. Yahoo Canada. 2003. 21 September 2003 .

Yildirim, Soner . "Effects of an Educational Computing Course on Preservice and Inservice Teachers: A Discussion and Analysis of Attitudes and Use." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 4 (2000). .

Yohe, J. Michael. "Information Technology Support Services: Crisis or Opportunity?" Cause/Effect 19, no. 3 (Fall 1996). .

Yoshitake, Dawn, and Yardena Arar. "Information is Food for the Sacred Dow." The Australian 6 February 1996: 46.

Young, Betty J. . "Gender Differences in Student Attitudes Toward Computers." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33, no. 2 (2000). .

Yu, Byeong Min, and Sungwook Han. "An Empirical Comparison of Navigation Effect of Pull-Down Menu Style on the World Wide Web." In Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development and Practice. National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, vol. 1. Atlanta, GA, 2002.

Yu-Lan, Yuan, Gretzel Ulrike, and Daniel Fesenmaier, R. "Internet Technology Use by American Convention and Visitors Bureaus." Journal of Travel Research 41, no. 3 (February 2003): Start Page: 240.

Yumuk, Ayse. "Letting Go of Control to the Learners." Educational Research 44, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 141-56.

Zabinski, Toby. "Surfing with Veronica." Electronic Learning 15, no. 3 (November 1995): Start page: 17.

Zgodzinski, David. "Cybertherapy." Internet World February 1996: 50-53.

318 Zhao, Yong, et al. "The Development of a Web-Based Literacy Learning Environment: A Dialogue Between Innovation and Established Practices." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 32, no. 4 (2000). .

Zubey, Michael L., William Wagner, and James R. Otto. "A Conjoint Analysis of Voice Over IP Attributes." Internet Research 12, no. 1 (2002): 7-15.

319 APPENDIX A: STUDENT USAGE OF THE INTERNET

(Tick the box or fill in the blank).

A. User Profile:

1. Age:

9 15-19 9 35-39 9 55-59 9 20-24 9 40-44 9 60-64 9 25-29 9 45-49 9 65+ 9 30-34 9 50-54

2. Sex:

9 female 9 male

3. First Language: ______

4. Birthplace:

9 Australia 9 Europe 9 North America 9 South East Asia 9 NZ/South Pacific 9 South America 9 Middle East Islands 9 Africa

5. Descent:

9 Aboriginal 9 Torres Strait Islander 9 neither

6. Are you an:

9 Undergrad 9 Postgrad

7. Which campus are you studying at:

9 Nathan 9 Mt. Gravatt 9 Gold Coast

8. What is your current year of study?

9 year 1 9 1 year 9 year 2 of a 9 2 year program 9 year 3 9 3 year 9 year 4 9 4 year 9 year _____ 9 _____ year

9. Course: ______

A-1 10. Program: ______

11. Faculty: ______

12. Student status:

9 full-time 9 part-time

13. Which type of high school did you attend?

9 public 9 private

14. Do you (or have you used) the Net for research and communication? (ie. browsing the Web or sending e-mail)

9 yes (if Yes, then skip to Question 17) 9 no

15. If no, why not? (you can pick more than one)

9 too difficult to use 9 takes too much time 9 I haven’t received any training 9 getting access to the Net is difficult 9 cost too much 9 other (specify)______

16. Would you use the Net if you had access and training?

9 yes 9 not sure 9 no

17. Is using the Net a required part of this (or another) course?

9 yes 9 no

If you answered NO to question 14, please skip to Question 51 on the last page.

18. How long have you been using the Net?

9 just begun 9 a few months 9 a year or more to a year

19. How many hours per week do you spend online?

9 less than 1 9 between 3 and 5 9 between 1 and 3 9 more than 5

A-2 20. How comfortable are you in using the Net?

Extremely Comfortable Somewhat Not Somewhat Uncomfortable Extremely Comfortable Comfortable Sure Uncomfortable Uncomfortable

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

B. Access:

21. What type of Internet account do you have?

9 SNAP 9 SNAP and other Net access 9 Postgrad 9 Other Net access

22. Where do you access the Net?

9 library 9 home 9 computer lab 9 office 9 business 9 friends place (service provider, cyber-cafe, etc.) 9 other (specify):______23. Is your Net access......

9 restricted 9 unrestricted (to certain times or days) (available any time, any day)

24. Do you have to pay for Net access (eg. per-hour online or per page downloaded, etc)?

9 yes 9 no

25. Have you had problems getting access to the Net?

9 yes 9 no (if No, then skip to Question 27)

26. If yes, what types of access problems?

9 the lab/library was closed 9 local network was down 9 all terminals were busy 9 the dial in modems were busy 9 other (specify)______

C. Training and Technical Support:

27. Have you received training on how to use the Net? (either a formal course or an informal tutorial by a friend)

9 yes 9 no (if No, then skip to Question 29)

A-3 28. If you have received training, has it increased your confidence in using the Net?

9 yes 9 no

29. Do you have access to technical or peer support?

9 yes 9 no (if No, then skip to Question 31)

30. If yes, has this support increased your confidence in using the Net?

9 yes 9 no

D. Using the Net for Research

31. Which Internet services do you use for research? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the service most used, a “2" beside the one used next most, etc)

Service Ranking

9 web (browsing) _____ 9 ftp (downloading files) _____ 9 telnet (logging onto remote computers) _____ 9 gopher (menu based info service) _____ 9 wais (wide area information search) _____ 9 specialist services _____ (Lexus-Nexus, Reuters News, etc) 9 other ______9 don’t use the Net for research (then skip to question 37)

32. Please rank each type of research service according to its usefulness. Rank only the services you use; leave the one’s you don’t blank. The scale is as follows:

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless web 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ftp 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 telnet 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 gopher 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 wais 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 specialist services 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (Lexus-Nexus, Reuters News, etc) other ______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ______

A-4 33 What is the name of the Web browser you use?

9 Netscape Navigator 9 Mosaic 9 Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 Links 9 not sure 9 other (specify):______

34 Is your browser...

9 Windows based 9 Unix based 9 Mac based 9 DOS based 9 not sure 9 other (specify):______

35. How do you find information on the Web? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the service most used, a “2" beside the one used next most, etc).

Method Ranking

9 single web search-engines (Yahoo, Lycos, etc.) _____ 9 web meta searchers (Fast-find; Savvy, etc) _____ 9 subject directories _____ 9 browsing around or “surfing” _____ 9 saw the web address on tv/newspaper/magazine _____ 9 someone told me where to find the address _____ 9 other (specify):______

36. Please rank each method of finding info on the Web according to its usefulness. Rank only the ones you use; leave the one’s you don’t blank. The scale is as follows:

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless single search-engines 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 meta search-engines 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 subject directory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 browsing/surfing 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 saw address 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 someone told me 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 other ______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ______

A-5 E. Using the Net for Communication:

37. Which Internet services do you use for communications? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the service most used, a “2" beside the one used next most, etc).

Service Ranking

9 e-mail _____ 9 newsgroups _____ 9 irc (net “chat”) _____ 9 talk (net “talk”) _____ 9 internet phone _____ 9 video conferencing _____ 9 other (please fill in): ______9 don’t use the Net for communication (then skip to question 43)

38. Please rank each type of communication service according to its usefulness. Rank only the ones you use; leave the one’s you don’t blank. The scale is as follows:

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless e-mail 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 newsgroups 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 irc (net “chat”) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 talk (net “talk”) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 internet phone 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 video conferencing 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 other ______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ______

39. What is the name of your e-mail program?

9 Netscape E-mail 9 Eudora 9 Microsoft Exchange 9 Pine 9 Lotus cc:Mail 9 not sure 9 Pegasus Mail 9 other (specify):______9 don’t use E-mail ______(then skip to Question 43)

40. What type of E-mail system do you use?

9 Windows based 9 Unix based 9 Mac based 9 DOS based 9 not sure 9 other (specify):______

A-6 41. Are you subscribed to an e-mail discussion list?

9 yes 9 no (if No, then skip to Question 43)

42. If yes, is it/are they useful?

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

F. Utility:

43. What are the advantages to using the Net for research? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the advantage which is most important, a “2" beside the next most important, etc).

Advantages Ranking

9 low (or no) cost _____ 9 access to a wide range of information _____ 9 convenience _____ (eg. you can do your research from home) 9 increased speed/productivity in doing my research _____ 9 ease of use _____ 9 can access timely/current info _____ 9 other (please fill in): ______9 no advantages to using the Net for research 9 don’t use the Net for research (then skip to Question 45)

A-7 44. What are the disadvantages to using the Net for research? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the disadvantage which is most important, a “2" beside the next most important, etc).

Disadvantages Ranking

9 too time intensive for what I get in return _____ 9 lack of access _____ 9 too expensive _____ 9 too difficult to use _____ 9 technical problems _____ (eg. down or busy servers; slow access lines) 9 information overload _____ (eg. too much irrelevant information) 9 too much US content, _____ not enough other or local content 9 unreliability of the content _____ 9 other (please fill in): ______9 no disadvantages to using the Net for research

45. What are the advantages to using the Net for communication? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the advantage which is most important, a “2" beside the next most important, etc).

Advantages Ranking

9 low (or no) cost _____ 9 access to a wide range of people _____ 9 convenience _____ (eg. you can do your communicating from home) 9 increased speed/productivity in communicating _____ 9 ease of use _____ 9 direct communication _____ (by-passes secretaries, etc.) 9 other (please fill in): ______9 no advantages to using the Net for communication 9 don’t use the Net for communication (then skip to Question 47)

A-8 46.What are the disadvantages to using the Net for communication? You can pick more than one. And if you picked more than one, please rank your choices (put a “1" beside the disadvantage which is most important, a “2" beside the next most important, etc).

Disadvantages Ranking

9 too time intensive for what I get in return _____ 9 lack of access _____ 9 too expensive _____ 9 too difficult to use _____ 9 technical problems _____ (eg. down or busy servers; e-mail goes missing) 9 information overload _____ (eg. lots of junk e-mail) 9 replies often don’t come in a timely fashion _____ 9 insecure transmissions _____ 9 difficult to find E-mail addresses _____ 9 other (please fill in): ______9 no disadvantages to using the Net for communication

47. Overall, is the Net a useful research tool? (ie. would you use it for research even if not required to do so as part of a course?).

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Don’t Use for Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless Research

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

48. Overall, is the Net a useful communications tool? (ie. would you use it for communication even if not required to do so as part of a course?)

Extremely Useful Somewhat Not Somewhat Useless Extremely Don’t Use for Useful Useful Sure Useless Useless Communication

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

49. What do you think would make the Net a more useful research tool? ______

A-9 50. What do you think would make the Net a more useful communications tool? ______

51 Comments: Are there specific things not covered by the questions that you feel are important about your use of the Net for research and communications? ______

Thank you for your time!

A-10 APPENDIX B: CODING FRAMEWORK

Survey Section Question # Description Code Measurement Variable Analysis AC GU/FG

A. User Profiles ø 1 1 Age 1-11 Interval IV1 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 2 2 Gender 0-1 Nominal IV2 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 3 3 First Language 0-1 Nominal IV3 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 4 4 Birthplace 0-1 Nominal IV4 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 5 5 Descent 0-1 Nominal IV5 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 6 6 Student Type 0-1 Nominal IV6 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 7 7 Campus 0-1 Nominal IV7/8 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 8 8 Year of Study 0-1 Nominal IV9 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 9 9 Course Name 1-4 Nominal IV10 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 10 10 Program Name 1-4 Nominal IV11 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø --- 11 Faculty 0-1 Nominal IV12 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 11 12 Student Status 0-1 Nominal IV13 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø --- 13 High School 0-1 Nominal IV14 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL)

12 14 Use the Net 0-1 Nominal DV1 Descriptive (user profile)

B-1 Survey Section Question # Description Code Measurement Variable Analysis AC GU/FG

13 15 Why Not 1-7 Nominal DV1 Descriptive (user profile)

14 16 Would you Use 0-2 Nominal DV1 Descriptive (user profile) ø 15 17 Required 0-1 Nominal IV15 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 16 18 Length using 1-3 Ordinal IV16 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 17 19 Hours online per 1-4 Ordinal IV17 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) week ø 18 20 Comfort level 1-7 Ordinal DV2/IV18 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) B. Access ø --- 21 Type of account 1-4 Nominal IV19 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 19 22 Where access 0-2 Nominal IV20 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 20 23 Type of access 0-1 Nominal IV21 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 21 24 Pay for access 0-1 Nominal IV22 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 22 25 Access problems 0-1 Nominal IV23 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) ø 23 26 Types of access 0-2 Nominal IV24 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) problems

B-2 Survey Section Question # Description Code Measurement Variable Analysis AC GU/FG

C. Training & Tech Support ø 24 27 Training 0-1 Nominal 1V25 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL)

25 28 Training and 0-1 Nominal DV2 Descriptive (user profile) confidence ø 26 29 Tech support 0-1 Nominal IV25 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL)

27 30 Tech support 0-1 Nominal DV2 Descriptive (user profile) and confidence

D. Use for Research

28 31 Services used 1-6 Ordinal DV3 USE-R1 (6-Point Forced Ranking Scale) for research

29 32 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV11 UTIL-R1 (7-Point Likert Scale) services ø 30 33 Name of Web 0-2 Nominal IV27 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) browser ø 31 34 Type of Browser 0-2 Nominal IV28 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) System

32 35 Methods to find 1-6 Ordinal DV4 USE-R2 (6-Point Forced Ranking Scale) info on the Web

B-3 Survey Section Question # Description Code Measurement Variable Analysis AC GU/FG

33 36 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV12 UTIL-R2 (7-Point Likert Scale) methods

E. Use for Communication

34 37 Services used 1-6 Ordinal DV5 USE-C1 (6-Point Forced Ranking Scale) for communication

35 38 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV13 UTIL-C1 (7-Point Likert Scale) services ø 36 39 Name of E-mail 0-2 Nominal IV29 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) package ø 37 40 Type of E-mail 0-2 Nominal IV30 Descriptive (user profile); Inferential ( USE, ADV/DIS, UTIL) system

38 41 Subscribed to 0-1 Nominal DV6 USE-C2 (Yes/No) discussion list

39 42 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV14 UTIL-C2 (7-Point Likert Scale) discussion list

B-4 Survey Section Question # Description Code Measurement Variable Analysis AC GU/FG

F. Utility

40 43 Advantages for 1-6 Ordinal DV7 ADV-R (6-Point Forced Ranking Scale) research

41 44 Disadvantages 1-8 Ordinal DV8 DIS-R (8-Point Forced Ranking Scale) for research

42 45 Advantages for 1-6 Ordinal DV9 ADV-C (6-Point Forced Ranking Scale) communication

43 46 Disadvantages - 1-9 Ordinal DV10 DIS-C (9-Point Forced Ranking Scale) communication

44 47 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV11 UTIL-R1 (7-Point Likert Scale) Net for research

45 48 Usefulness of 1-7 Ordinal DV13 UTIL-C1 (7-Point Likert Scale) Net - communication

46 49 Net improved as is ------Open ended for research

47 50 Net improved as is ------Open ended for communication

48 51 Comments as is ------Open ended Note: Codes include some variables which have been collapsed for analysis. For a description of which variables were collapsed, and how the raw data was transformed into the present variables, see Table 4.2.1 in Appendix F. Additionally, all nominal variables with more than 2 categories were re-coded into dummy variables for correlation analysis.

B-5 KEY:

IV = Independent Variables (IV1 - IV30)

DV = Dependent Variables (DV1 - DV14)

DV1 = Whether Student are Using the Net

DV2 = Comfort Level

DV3-6 = Net Usage = USE-R1; USE-R2; USE-C1; USE-C2

DV7-10 = Net Value = ADV-R; DIS-R; ADV-C; DIS-C

DV11-14 = Net Utility = UTIL-R1; UTIL-R2; UTIL-C1; UTIL-C2

B-6 APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

Impacts/Implications on Research:

1. What are the differences between traditional research and Net Research

A) when comparing the print medium versus the digital environment?

B) in terms of access to information?

C) in terms of quality of information?

D) any other differences?

2. What changes take place when one moves between the two mediums?

3. What are the challenges that exist that must be overcome before the Net can be improved as a research tool?

Impacts/Implications on Communication:

4. What are the differences between traditional communication and Net communication?

A) when comparing participation rates?

B) in terms of quality of communication?

C) any other differences?

5. What changes take place when one moves between the two mediums?

6. What are the challenges that exist that must be overcome before the Net can be improved as a communications tool?

Overall Impacts/Implications on Education

7. What are the impacts on the student/instructor relationship?

8. What are the skills needed by students to research and communicate on the Net?

C-1 APPENDIX D: NVIVO NODE SUMMARY

Project: Bernie's project User: Michael Meadows Date: 11/12/03 - 11:29:23 AM NODE LISTING

Nodes in Set: All Free Nodes Created: 11/10/03 - 11:03:27 AM Modified: 11/10/03 - 11:03:27 AM Number of Nodes: 48 Coded passages 1 Low cost - research 3 2 Access to info 10 3 Convenience - research 6 4 Increase speed - research 2 5 Ease of use - research 5 6 Current info 3 7 Advantages hypertext 2 8 Time intensive – research 1 9 Lack access – research 4 10 High cost - research 6 11 Tech problems - research 6 12 Difficult use - research 13 13 Info overload - research 2 14 US content 3 15 Unreliable content 5 16 Not stable 9 17 Citing sources - research 11 18 Plagiarism 15 19 Procrastination 8 20 Info underload 8 21 Low cost - communication 3 22 Access people 5 23 Convenience - communication 5 24 Increase speed – communication 5 25 Ease of use - communication 1 26 Direct communication 2 27 Informal communication 7 28 Empowerment 7

D-1 29 Time intensive - communication 1 30 Lack access - communication 3 31 High cost - communication 1 32 Tech problems - communication 6 33 Difficult use - communication 1 34 Junk e-mail 21 35 Slow replies 7 36 Security 3 37 Difficult find e-mail address 1 38 Miscommunication 7 39 Flaming 5 40 Lack intimacy 5 41 Sterile communication 5 42 Scrolling skills 6 43 Finding information 5 44 Evaluating information 5 45 Managing information 5 46 Discussion thread 4 47 Discussion list 4 48 Netiquette 6

D-2 APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TABLES

Table 5.1.2: Multicollinearity - Where, Type, and Pay for Access

Table 5.1.3: Non Multicollinearity - Age and Gender

E-1 Table 5.2.1.1: USE-R1 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q31A Web Usage 2. Q31B FTP Usage 3. TELNET Telnet Usage 4. Q31D Gopher Usage 5. Q31E Wais Usage 6. SPECIAL Specialist Services Usage 7. USE_R1 USE-R1

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .7905

E-2 Table 5.2.1.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-R1 Scale

E-3 Table 5.2.1.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-R1 Scale

E-4 Table 5.2.1.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-R1 Scale

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

TELNET SPECIAL LEVEL

TELNET 1.0000 .2955 .4186 ( 0) ( 213) ( 213) P= . P= .000 P= .000

SPECIAL .2955 1.0000 .1360 ( 213) ( 0) ( 213) P= .000 P= . P= .046

LEVEL .4186 .1360 1.0000 ( 213) ( 213) ( 0) P= .000 P= .046 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

TELNET LOCATE

TELNET 1.0000 -.1918 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .005

LOCATE -.1918 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .005 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

E-5 Table 5.2.2.1: USE-R2 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q35A Single Search Engine Usage 2. Q35B Meta Search Engine Usage 3. Q35C Subject Directory Usage 4. Q35D Browsing/Surfing Usage 5. Q35E "Saw Address" Usage 6. Q35F "Being Told the URL" Usage 7. USE_R2 USE-R2

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .8124

E-6 Table 5.2.2.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-R2 Scale

E-7 Table 5.2.2.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-R2 Scale

E-8 Table 5.2.3.1: USE-C1 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q37A E-mail Usage 2. Q37B Newsgoups Usage 3. Q37C Chat Usage 4. Q37D Talk Usage 5. Q37E Net Phone Usage 6. Q37F Net Video Conferencing Usage 7. USE_C1 USE-C1

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 228.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .8106

E-9 Table 5.2.3.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-C1 Scale

E-10 Table 5.2.3.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the USE-C1 Scale

E-11 Table 5.3.1.1: ADV-R Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q43A Adv-R: Low Cost 2. Q43B Adv-R: Access to Information 3. Q43C Adv-R: Convenience 4. Q43D Adv-R: Increased Speed 5. Q43E Adv-R: Ease of Use 6. Q43F Adv-R: Current Information 7. ADV_R ADV-R

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .7869

E-12 Table 5.3.1.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the ADV-R Scale

E-13 Table 5.3.1.4 (continued): Correlations - Individual Components of the ADV-R Scale

E-14 Table 5.3.1.4 (continued): Correlations - Individual Components of the ADV-R Scale

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

Q43F LOCATE

Q43F 1.0000 .2691 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .000

LOCATE .2691 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .000 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

E-15 Table 5.3.2.1: DIS-R Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q44A DIS-R: Time Intensive 2. Q44B DIS-R: Lack of Access 3. Q44C DIS-R: High Cost 4. Q44D DIS-R: Difficult to Use 5. Q44E DIS-R: Technical Problems 6. Q44F DIS-R: Information Overload 7. Q44G DIS-R: Too Much US Information 8. Q44H DIS-R: Unreliable Content 9. DIS_R DIS-R

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 9

Alpha = .8213

E-16 Table 5.3.2.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the DIS-R Scale

E-17 Table 5.3.2.4 (continued): Correlations - Individual Components of the DIS-R Scale

E-18 Table 5.3.3.1: ADV-C Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q45A ADV-C: Low Cost 2. Q45B ADV-C: Access to People 3. Q45C ADV-C: Convenience 4. Q45D ADV-C: Increases Speed 5. Q45E ADV-C: Ease of Use 6. Q45F ADC-C: Direct Communication 7. ADV_C ADV-C

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 147.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .8152

E-19 Table 5.3.3.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the ADV-C Scale

E-20 Table 5.3.4.1: DIS-C Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q46A DIS-C: Time Intensive 2. Q46B DIS-C: Lack of Access 3. Q46C DIS-C: High Cost 4. Q46D DIS-C: Difficult to Use 5. Q46E DIS-C: Technical Problems 6. Q46F DIS-C: Information Overload 7. Q46G DIS-C: Slow Replies to E-mail 8. Q46H DIS-C: Security Problems 9. Q46I DIS-C: Difficult to Find E-mail Addresses 10. DIS_C DIS-C

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 147.0 N of Items = 10

Alpha = .7871

E-21 Table 5.3.4.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the DIS-C Scale

E-22 Table 5.3.4.4 (continued): Correlations - Individual Components of the DIS-C Scale

E-23 Table 5.3.4.4 (continued): Correlations - Individual Components of the DIS-C Scale

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

Q46I LOCATE

Q46I 1.0000 -.2618 ( 0) ( 144) P= . P= .001

LOCATE -.2618 1.0000 ( 144) ( 0) P= .001 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

E-24 Table 5.4.1.1: UTIL-R1 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q32A Web Usefulness 2. Q32B FTP Usefulness 3. Q32C Telnet Usefulness 4. Q32D Gopher Usefulness 5. Q32E Wais Usefulness 6. Q32F Specialist Services Usefulness 7. UTIL_R1 UTIL-R1

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .8406

E-25 Table 5.4.1.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the UTIL-R1 Scale

E-26 Table 5.4.1.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the UTIL-R1 Scale

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LOCATE

Q32C Q32F LEVEL

Q32C 1.0000 .3938 .3941 ( 0) ( 213) ( 213) P= . P= .000 P= .000

Q32F .3938 1.0000 .1820 ( 213) ( 0) ( 213) P= .000 P= . P= .007

LEVEL .3941 .1820 1.0000 ( 213) ( 213) ( 0) P= .000 P= .007 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

Q32C LOCATE

Q32C 1.0000 -.1574 ( 0) ( 213) P= . P= .021

LOCATE -.1574 1.0000 ( 213) ( 0) P= .021 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

E-27 Table 5.4.2.1: UTIL-R2 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q36A_NU Single Search Engine Usefulness (NU-R2) 2. Q36B_NU Meta Search Engine Usefulness (NU-R2) 3. Q36C_NU Subject Directory Usefulness (NU-R2) 4. Q36D_NU Browsing/Surfing Usefulness (NU-R2) 5. Q36E_NU "Saw Address" Usefulness (NU-R2) 6. Q36F_NU "Being Told the URL" Usefulness (NU-R2) 7. UTIL_R2 UTIL-R2

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 216.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .8301

E-28 Table 5.4.2.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the UTIL-R2 Scale

E-29 Table 5.4.2.4 (continued):

Correlations - Individual Components of the UTIL-R2 Scale

P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S

Controlling for.. LEVEL

BROWSE LOCATE

BROWSE 1.0000 -.1953 ( 0) ( 143) P= . P= .019

LOCATE -.1953 1.0000 ( 143) ( 0) P= .019 P= .

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

" . " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

E-30 Table 5.4.3.1: UTIL-C1 Reliability Analysis

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. Q38A E-mail Usefulness 2. Q38B Newsgroups Usefulness 3. Q38C Chat Usefulness 4. Q38D Talk Usefulness 5. Q38E Net Phone Usefulness 6. Q38F Net Video Conferencing Usefulness 7. UTIL_C1 UTIL-C1

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 147.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .7998

E-31 Table 5.4.3.4: Correlations - Individual Components of the UTIL-C1 Scale

E-32 Table 6.2.4.1: Reasons Why Students Did Not Use The Net

E-33 Table 6.3.3.1: Correlations - Comfort Level and Technical Support

Table 6.3.4.1: Correlations - Comfort Level and Training

E-34