Journalism Students, Web 2.0 and the Digital Divide
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Fall 12-2009 Journalism Students, Web 2.0 and the Digital Divide Mary Elizabeth Green University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Green, Mary Elizabeth, "Journalism Students, Web 2.0 and the Digital Divide" (2009). Dissertations. 1080. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1080 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi JOURNALISM STUDENTS, WEB 2.0 AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE by Mary Elizabeth Green A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2009 The University of Southern Mississippi JOURNALISM STUDENTS, WEB 2.0 AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE by Mary Elizabeth Green Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2009 ABSTRACT JOURNALISM STUDENTS, WEB 2.0 AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE by Mary Elizabeth Green December 2009 The purpose of this study was to find out if students were utilizing Web 2.0 applications. Since the applications in question are often employed by the media industry, the study aspired to find out if students majoring in mass communication and journalism utilized the applications more often than other students. The “digital divide” is a term used to describe the difference in skill levels in using computer technology and the Internet. Some of the variables typically associated with the digital divide include gender, age, ethnicity, lack of a broadband connection and previous experience using the technology. This study looks at the variables associated with the digital divide to determine if they make a difference in the frequency of use of the Web 2.0 applications. Instead of finding out why students utilize the application, this study aspires to find out if students are utilizing the applications for academic and integrative purposes, which have a potential of enhancing one’s chances of upward social mobility. Do the factors associated with the digital divide make a difference in the use of the applications for academic and integrative purposes? Overall, the study found that some of the Web 2.0 applications which include uploading photos, uploading videos, blogging, and creating web pages, were utilized more than creating podcasts, using wikis, social bookmarks and collaborative suites. Of the applications that were utilized more frequently, less than half of the users utilized them for academic and integrative purposes. Although a much higher percentage of the total users of wikis, social bookmarks, collaborative suites, and creating podcasts utilized ii the applications for integrative and academic purposes, the number of users overall was very low. The variables associated with the digital divide made some difference but not a significant one. Ethnicity was the only construct that made a significant difference in the frequency of uploading videos and blogging. Finally, the study found that mass communication and journalism students did utilize the applications more frequently than other students; however, the difference was not significant. iii COPYRIGHT BY MARY ELIZABETH GREEN 2009 The University of Southern Mississippi JOURNALISM STUDENTS, WEB 2.0 AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE by Mary Elizabeth Green A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved: _Dr. Kim M. LeDuff__________________ Director _Dr. Chi-Yin Yeun____________________ _Dr. Jae-Hwa Shin____________________ _Dr. Fei Xue_________________________ _Dr. Mary N. McNeese________________ _Dr. Susan A. Siltanen_________________ Dean of the Graduate School December 2009 DEDICATION The present study is dedicated to my sister Ann Marie Fischer who was working on her dissertation when she died of cancer in 1992. This study is also dedicated to Dr. Author J. Kaul who made communication history interesting with his excitement, expertise and passion for the subject matter. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the assistance of many people, this research would not have been completed. Special appreciation goes to Dr. Kim LeDuff for chairing my committee and for her guidance through the process of conducting the study and writing the manuscript. I want to thank Dr. Gene Wiggins for working with me and advising me throughout my doctoral studies. Very special thanks go to Dr. Mary Nell McNeese who assisted me in the statistical analyses of the research and also co-authored two articles with me. I have learned so much from her. I want to thank Dr. Steve Yuen for his encouragement and the many professional opportunities that he has afforded me throughout my employment at The University of Southern Mississippi. I am also grateful to Dr. Shin and Dr. Xue who agreed to serve on my committee and for all of the advice and guidance that they provided. I am truly grateful to Dr. Kim LeDuff, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Curtis Austin for allowing me to survey their classes and for all of the students who participated in the study without any compensation. My heartfelt appreciation goes out to my family, friends, and coworkers for all of their words of encouragement and especially to my husband for working with me throughout the entire process. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1 Research Questions Operational Definitions Web 2.0 Applications Definitions Delimitations Assumptions Why This Study Is Important II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................20 Historical Overview of the Internet Effects of the Internet on the Journalism Profession The Use of Web 2.0 in Educational Environments Internet as a Distraction to Academic Pursuits The Digital Divide The Relationship Between Computer Experience and Computer Use Connection Between Journalism, Motivation and the Digital Divide III. METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................64 Research Questions Research Design Participants The Research Instrument Sampling and Data Collection Limitations Data Analyses vi Independent and Dependent Variables IV. RESULTS .........................................................................................82 V. DISCUSSION .................................................................................126 Overall Frequency of Use Mass Communication and Journalism Students The Digital Divide Convenience Access to a Broadband Connection Conclusion Limitations of the Study Future Research APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................................163 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................172 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographics ..................................................................................................83 2. Use of Applications..........................................................................................85 3. Frequency of Use .............................................................................................86 4. Academic Use of Web 2.0 Applications .........................................................87 5. Use of Web 2.0 Applications for Personal Integrative Purposes .....................88 6. Comparison of Mass Communication and Non-Mass Communication Majors’ Use of Web 2.0 Applications .............................................................90 7. Comparison of Mass Communication and Non-Mass Communication Majors’ Use of Web 2.0 Applications for Academic Purposes .......................92 8. Comparison of Mass Communication and Non-Mass Communication Majors’ Use of Web 2.0 Applications for Personal Integrative Purposes .......93 9. Comparison of the Means of Male and Female Frequency of Use of Web 2.0 Applications.......................................................................................95 10. Comparison of the Means of Male and Female Use of Web 2.0 Applications for Academic Purposes ..............................................................97 11. Comparison of the Means of Male and Female Use of Web 2.0 Applications for Personal Integrative Purposes ...............................................98 viii 12. Comparison of the Means of Caucasian and African-American Frequency of Use of Web 2.0 Applications ..................................................100