Digital divide and Student Home Computer Access

Introduction:
The Lehigh Valley Campus of Penn State University attracts local Lehigh Valley-area students to attend this campus location for the first two years or the full four-years of a baccalaureate program. The diversity of the Lehigh Valley Campus population reflects the social, economic and ethnic diversity of the area, including a diverse immigrant population. Three primary factors for enrollment in this campus are the Penn State reputation, the small campus size and the economic savings (minimal housing costs for at-home students; students retain their jobs upon entrance to college). Due to one of these factors, the economic savings factor, our campus attracts lower income students for whom a Penn State education would otherwise be unattainable.
Although current statistics can be obtained on the exact income status of the student population, little is known about the extent to which students lack in-home computer access. The research of Beltran and Fairlie (2007, March) suggests a positive relationship between in-home computer and Internet access and educational outcomes. The study of immigrant youth and the digital divide by Fairlie, London and Rosner (2006, September) found that while it is true that lower income students are less likely than higher income student to have home computers, within this group, immigrants are less likely to have home computers than their U.S. born counterparts. Despite secondary school computer access among both higher-income and lower-income students, Becker( 2003) reports the computer use by lower-income students to be limited to basic skills remediation, where as their higher-income counterparts’ computer use gains them mastery with higher-order skills. He predicts an increasingly wider divide between low and high-income students due to the difference in the way the computer is used to access information between the two groups. Other research suggests “in-home expertise is crucial to successful use of the Internet for educational purposes” (Cleary, Pierce & Trauth, 2005, December). The first element necessary to access the Internet, where available, is a basic computer.

The Penn State Lehigh Valley campus provides public computer labs and library computers, as do the public libraries in all of the students’ home communities; however, there are factors that hinder students from fully utilizing these resources:
• Students must be on campus to access the open student labs. That means longer time spent on campus to complete coursework.
• Use of the open labs also requires the student to drive to the campus (there is no public transportation access) or to drive/use public transportation to the public library.
• The lab hours are limited to the hours that the campus is open (8a-9p with more limited weekend hours; the public libraries’ hours are further limited)
• Students are reporting difficulty “getting on a computer” during the campus’ high volume class days, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
With research suggesting the correlation of home computer use with positive educational outcomes, it is in the campus community’s interest to research the extent to which current students lack home computer access.

Issue to be addressed:
Due to the presence of low-income and immigrant students in the campus population, it is possible that a percentage of these students do not have access to home computers. Since research suggests a positive relationship with home computer use and educational outcomes, it is in the best interest of this campus community to research the extent of the issue and find a means to mitigate the gap in students’ in-home computer access.

Background:
The campus currently equips open computer labs, laptop classrooms and all full-time faculty and staff with a standardized set of computer equipment which is replaced every three-four years according to the warranty agreements. Standard University policy has the replace units returned to University salvage. Individual colleges, departments, or campuses may determine the use/distribution of life-cycled equipment that remains in operating condition. There no warranties or service agreements associated with this equipment; therefore, the local IT staff does not support further use. In some cases, faculty have been granted permission to personally retain life-cycled laptops and desktops. In other cases, especially when a full lab of equipment is replaced, the usable equipment is offered to faculty and staff to purchase for personal use at a moderate fee.

Recommendation:
1. Laptop computers that are retired from university business due to life-cycle expiration and are operational will be available, for little or no-cost, to students for whom an in-home computer is unavailable. The students will be qualified to receive these units by the Office of Financial Aid and the Office of Student Services.
2. A task force made up of members from the campus Office of Student Services, Student Activities and Information Technologies will be charged with creating, conducting and compiling the results of a study which will determine to what extent PS-LV students lack access to in-home computers.
3. Based on the results of this survey (is it a large percentage? Is it a small percentage?), the task force will seek policy recommendations to further close the gap between home computer owners and non-home computer owners, if necessary

Pros:
• Students who receive a computer will have autonomy in their computer use for coursework completion that requires word processing and other software resources. They will also have autonomy to access the wireless Internet in public access locations (LV campus and public libraries, among others) without having to rely on availability of equipment and defined time use restrictions (pubic libraries).
• Students will have greater access to computer to practice and use essential computer skills and increase skill proficiency.
• The access to an in-home computer can have a positive effect on the student’s educational outcome.

Cons:
• The campus Information Technology Services Department will not realize the income of $250 per unit that staff, faculty and /or students pay to receive the life-cycled computer.
• Providing the student with a computer does not guarantee home internet access.
• The standard PSU computer support will be available. There will be no technical support or extended warranty available on the issued computers.

Alternative Recommendation:
1. A task force made up of members from the campus Office of Student Services, Student Activities and Information Technologies will be charged with creating, conducting and compiling the results of a study which will determine to what extent PS-LV students lack access to in-home computers.
2. Based on survey results, the task force will research and prepare an application for government and/or other foundation grant opportunities that will fund the acquisition of computers for low-income students who lack in-home computer access.
3. The task force, working with the LV campus Office of Alumni Affairs and the Development Office, will seek sponsorship from alumni and area businesses to provide the in-home computer access.

Pros:
• Students will receive new computers that will carry at least the standard manufacturer’s warranty.
• Technical support service and/or extended warranty can possibly be provided from a grant allocation.

Cons:
• The campus donor pool is already taxed with attempting to fund seriously-needed capital building projects and improvements.
• The grant research and application process is not a guarantee of fund allocation.
• A grant process requires personnel resources.