Access And Technology

Community colleges are well positioned to provide
underserved student populations with access to computer
technology. This chapter explores the issues of access
and technology from multiple perspectives in the
community college, and explains how community colleges
can develop a foundation for their technology plan.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES, no. 128, Winter 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 31
4
Access and Technology
Lemuel W. Watson
America has never provided equal access to technology for all individuals.
Limited resources and market-driven demand consistently help create gaps
in access to new goods. As Light (2001) asserts, “From electricity to the
telephone and the automobile, most technologies did not enter U.S. society
equitably” (p. 711). Higher education has been no exception. Once consid-
ered a luxury, access to higher education has become widely available with
the proliferation of open admissions community colleges. However, a new
and different gap has developed—a “digital divide,” or disparity in access
to technology.
In a society increasingly shaped by technology, students who are con-
strained by time and place, or are otherwise disadvantaged, are being left
behind (Matthews, 1999). According to Moore (2002), “Access [to higher
education] was originally thought of as the ability to gain entrance to an
institution or program. The concept gradually shifted from one of equity in
admissions to equity in outcomes, or the ability of a student or group of stu-
dents to succeed once admitted” (p. 1). Thus, gaining entrance to a college
or program, although necessary, is no longer sufficient, because in addition
to traditional academic skills, students now need technology skills to com-
pete in a changing job market.
This chapter examines the role of the community college in bridging the
digital divide and providing access to technology for disadvantaged popula-
tions. Although bridging the digital divide promises many benefits for indi-
viduals, institutions, and communities, evidence of success should be
examined carefully, because “technology is not a neutral tool with universal
effects, but rather a medium with consequences that are significantly shaped
by the historical, social, and cultural context of its use” (Light, 2001, p. 711).

32 FROM DISTANCE EDUCATION TO E-LEARNING
The Digital Divide Personified
New users of technology usually exhibit four stages of readiness to access
and use educational technology. The first stage is recognizing that technol-
ogy could enhance the efficiency, productivity, or quality of their personal
and professional lives. The second stage is becoming open to learning about
information technology and learning to apply hardware and software to the
task at hand. In the third stage, users seek physical access to an appropriate
technological infrastructure. In stage four, users actively follow through on
the decision to use technology.
There are many disparities between students at the first stage of readi-
ness and those at the fourth. A student at the fourth stage may feel com-
fortable using a computer for an assignment or taking a distance learning
course, but a student at the first stage may not feel comfortable with or able
to take advantage of either opportunity. Take the example of a student liv-
ing in a rural area of a southern state. This single mother of two, who works
full time in a textile mill, decides to go back to school at the local commu-
nity college. She has not had any exposure (access) to technology other than
cable television. Her first college assignment is to write a one-page bio-
graphical sketch and to send it to the instructor as an e-mail attachment.
The student writes her biographical sketch longhand and gives it to the
instructor at the next class. He gives her a C. He also indicates on the paper
that she is to repeat the assignment, type it, and send it to him via e-mail
before the next class. She feels lost. Why? Because she has never used a
computer. Compounding that feeling, she does not even know where to get
an e-mail account or how to use an e-mail software program. Computers
were not a part of her last academic experience some twenty years earlier.
This student is at the first stage of technology readiness and access, and
personifies the far edge of the digital divide. She must be encouraged and sup-
ported in building her ability to use technology to complete her courses and
degree. Although she is provided with access to technology through her col-
lege’s computer labs, she did not even think to utilize this resource. This stu-
dent will have to invest an enormous amount of effort and time to become
efficient and productive in the basic technology skills needed for success in
her coursework. How quickly she will acclimate to technology and become
productive depends on her initial experiences, motivation, and support. Will
she find the funds to purchase a computer for her home? Or will she have to
find time to use the computer lab between work and caring for her children?
Will she have the time to take a basic computer course in order to learn how
to efficiently use technology, even though it will not count toward her degree?
The community college is one of the few institutions that gives disad-
vantaged students a chance to obtain a college education and provides adult
learners with affordable opportunities to continue lifelong learning.
Providing access to technology is complex because people have varying

needs and levels of exposure to technology. However, one consequence of
the digital divide is that many people are not fully aware of the benefits
of technology and how it might enhance their personal and working lives.
Educating these learners, and providing them with access to and support
for technology, is the first step in bridging the digital divide.
The Relationship Between Demographics and Access
Patterns of Internet usage reveal significant disparities in access to technol-
ogy along demographic lines. For example, a Pew Foundation survey
(Madden, 2003) indicated that half of all adults eighteen years and older in
the United States (ninety-four million) do not have Internet access at home.
These individuals are more likely to be nonwhite and less likely to be finan-
cially well-off. Only 31 percent of Americans whose households earn less
than $30,000 per year have access to the Internet at home. Conversely,
more than three-quarters (78 percent) of those living in households earn-
ing more than $75,000 per year have Internet access (Madden, 2003).
In addition, whites are more likely than any other racial or ethnic
group to have Internet access at home. Roughly 50 percent of whites have
access to the Internet, compared with 36 percent of blacks and 44 percent
of Hispanics. In most respects, however, ethnic and racial variances can be
explained by differences in income. Wealthier whites, blacks, and Hispanics
are online at roughly the same rates in households earning more than
$75,000 (78 percent of whites, 79 percent of Hispanics, and 69 percent of
blacks). Similarly, 32 percent of whites in households earning less than
$30,000 are online, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 26 percent of
Hispanics (Madden, 2003).
Access to technology also varies by level of educational attainment:
more than two-thirds (71 percent) of those who do not have Internet access
at home have only a high school diploma or less. In contrast, only one-third
(32 percent) of Internet users have only a high school diploma or less. Thus,
individuals without Internet access usually report having lower levels of
educational attainment than Internet users.
Where one lives in the country also appears to influence one’s place in
the digital divide. Regions with the highest rates of Internet penetration are
the Pacific Northwest (68 percent of residents have access to the Internet),
New England (66 percent), and California (65 percent). Internet usage lags
somewhat in the southeastern states (57 percent), and in the industrial
Midwest (55 percent). The South (48 percent) demonstrates the lowest lev-
els of Internet usage (Madden, 2003). According to Tapscott (1998), a great
deal of this disparity can be attributed to socioeconomic status. Despite the
various reasons for disparities in access, however, community colleges must
work to build an infrastructure that supports access to technology for
all students.
ACCESS AND TECHNOLOGY 33

Building an Infrastructure to Provide Access
Presently, community colleges are facing critical decisions about how infor-
mation technology fits within their organizations. Administrators and tech-
nology leaders must ask: How will or should technology be used in our
college? Who will need access and for what? What are our short- and long-
term goals? Colleges that are successful in answering these questions are bet-
ter able to integrate technology into their instructional and administrative
life. Effective leadership and solid strategic planning help ensure success in
this effort (Rush, 1996; Ryland, 2000; Wenger, 1996). Good planning
includes conducting research, examining external resources, facilitating
internal discussion, detailing specifics, and setting timetables and deadlines.
Create an Information Technology Plan. An information technology
(IT) plan should be driven by the college’s mission and should build on
institutional commitments to other financial, educational, and human
resource plans. IT plans should be descriptive, detailed, and institution-
specific, and they should address issues of organizational change, technol-
ogy upgrades, cost, and the involvement of constituents, experts, and
necessary human resources. IT plans should also discuss how technology
will be integrated into the college’s overall infrastructure (Wenger, 1996).
Electronic Data Systems, an information technology services provider,
has developed what it calls a System Life Cycle (SLC), which helps organi-
zations integrate technology into their infrastructure. The SLC uses the fol-
lowing questions to develop an IT plan for clients: What are the processes
the institution engages in each day? Should the processes be automated or
not? What are the benefits of automating? Are the investments worth the
cost? What are the basic hardware, software, and training needs to operate
the system efficiently? Have we asked the right people and the right ques-
tions so that the organization fully understands how to develop a system
that will address its needs? Although these questions are simple, they ensure
that an institution understands the complex and intertwined maze of peo-
ple and processes involved. In addition, community colleges need to ask for
the perspective of students, faculty, and staff in order to implement a suc-
cessful technology access plan.
Provide Access. In addition to developing a strong technology plan,
community colleges must provide what Wenger (1996) identifies as the four
main levels of access to technology. First, the college must develop and pro-
vide technological resources and support services for students. These may
include dial-up services or a help desk. A resource center that offers basic
skills courses and training is often very helpful for students who are not
familiar with technology.
Second, faculty need to be provided with access to technology so they
can create curriculum and course materials for both on- and off-campus
courses. In addition, faculty must be given access to institutional hardware
and software if they are to help students negotiate the system. Faculty

should have a voice in the development and maintenance of any technol-
ogy system to ensure that it meets their needs.
Third, administrators should be provided with broad levels of access
so that they can obtain information from all systems in the institution and
use that data in their reporting and decision making. Fourth, a central com-
puter network technology process should be designed and implemented in
order to manage administrative and instructional processes for staff, faculty,
and students. In addition to these four levels of access, community colleges
should allow for feedback whenever possible. Student and faculty feedback
on access issues should be directed to the administrator in charge of main-
taining and improving technology systems.
Best Practices
Many community colleges have profited from good planning and leadership
in developing access to technology. The Community College of Denver has
developed a state-of-the-art internal network system that has considerably
increased access. Similarly, Macomb Community College (Georgia) has put
its entire enrollment process online. Waubonsee Community College
(Illinois) offers private tutors for students, faculty, or staff who are not as
technologically literate as they would like to be, and the North Carolina
Community College System has introduced a very detailed, deadline-
oriented technology plan that contains fifteen goals and objectives. As well,
Miami-Dade College is making changes that will allow more synchronicity
between the college and the state reporting system, enabling better com-
munication between state and educational leaders.
Illinois has also taken steps to build an infrastructure for technology
access, and has planned to have its forty-eight community colleges share
courses and resources (Carnevale, 2000). The state has established the Illinois
Community Colleges Online (ILCCO) initiative, a statewide online degree or
certificate program. Its mission is to expand access to learning opportunities
for all residents of Illinois, independent of location or time. ILCCO provides
a wide range of online learning opportunities to Illinois residents at a rea-
sonable cost and allows students at any community college to access, through
their home campus, online courses and programs delivered by other com-
munity colleges in the state (http://www.iccb.state.il.us/ilcco/faq.html).
Common to ILCCO and the other colleges mentioned here are a strong tech-
nology plan and experts who can assist in developing a system that is adapt-
able and flexible enough to deal with a dynamic technological environment.
Concluding Thoughts and Suggestions
Because of the variety of funding configurations for community colleges, it
is difficult to provide universally applicable recommendations to improve
access to technology. However, the following suggestions, derived from my

experiences with technology as well as my understanding of the literature
on technology in community colleges, may be helpful to those colleges con-
cerned about providing access to technology for all students.
Work to Narrow the Digital Divide. Community colleges should
“monitor progress toward equal access” (Gladieux and Swail, 2002, p. 535).
Maintaining access will continue to be a key issue for two-year colleges.
They are the nation’s gateway to higher education and must remain com-
mitted to the open door policy, even as educational standards change and
associated requirements increase. Although improving access sometimes
conflicts with increasing institutional productivity (Gilbert, 1996), com-
munity colleges should commit themselves to a basic standard for access
to technology.
Make Access the Core of Systems Design. Community colleges
should “consider broad access in the development of products and the expan-
sion of markets” (Gladieux and Swail, 2002, p. 535). Access for those who
use, maintain, and develop technology should be one of the most important
components of a community college system. Therefore, colleges should fre-
quently evaluate and enhance access for students, faculty, administrators, and
staff. Because information doubles every seven years, workers must be con-
stantly retrained, companies must be reengineered, and colleges must help
prepare a workforce that is technologically competent. Colleges must also be
flexible, enlist community partners, and emphasize learning outcomes instead
of teaching inputs (Oblinger, 1996). Community colleges must attempt to
understand and resolve the complex problems and potentials associated with
providing access in an era of technological change.
Develop Leaders Who Understand How to Manage Information
Technology. Community colleges must develop leaders who understand
how to use technology to enhance student learning, enhance the produc-
tivity of faculty and staff, and increase the efficiency of the college in gen-
eral. This type of leadership is needed if colleges are to reap the benefits of
technology (Rush, 1996). The initial step in this process is philosophical,
and should include reflection on beliefs about learning (Desjardins, 2001)
as well as acknowledgment of the potential impact of technology.
Keep the Promise of Technology in Perspective. Community col-
leges should “learn from the distance-learning pioneers” (Gladieux and
Swail, 2002, p. 535) and plan carefully for cost, access, and usage. They
must be patient and allow the pioneer institutions to be the first to test new
technologies. They must be sure to discover and resolve any problems
before taking on the expense of purchasing new software or hardware.
Evaluate Accountability to the Community. Community colleges are
renowned for their ability to adapt quickly to changing technology and
community needs. However, with increasing calls for educational account-
ability, it is necessary for institutional leaders to ask themselves difficult
questions as they plan, maintain, and enhance access to technology for stu-
dents and the community. For example, what role will the college play in

providing access to technology in a community? If ensuring community
access to technology is one of its roles, who should bear the costs? What are
the educational gains or outcomes? Finally, what minimum level of access
to technology should the college provide? To stay true to their missions,
when community colleges work to provide access to technology they must
make every effort to ensure that quality and cost work together to enhance
educational outcomes (Fleit, 1994). In other words, technology is not an
end in and of itself. Rather it is a means by which community colleges can
better fulfill their responsibility to provide access to all students and to the
community at large.
References
Carnevale, D. “Community Colleges in Illinois Seek to Share Their Courses Online.”
Chronicle of Higher Education, Mar. 24, 2000, 46(29), A52. http://chronicle.com/prm/
weekly/v46/i29/29a05201.htm. Accessed Aug. 13, 2004.
Desjardins, C. The Leading Edge: Competencies for Community College Leadership in the
New Millennium. Mission Viejo, Calif.: League for Innovation in the Community
College, 2001.
Fleit, L. H. Self-Assessment for Campus Information Technology Services. CAUSE
Professional Paper Series, No. 12. Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1994.
Gilbert, S. “Double Visions: Paradigms in Balance or Collision?” Change, 1996, 28(2),
8–11.
Gladieux, L. E., and Swail, W. S. “The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity:
Issues of Equity and Access for the Next Generation.” In L. Foster, B. L. Bower, and
L. W. Watson (eds.), ASHE Reader—Distance Education: Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education (pp. 526–543). Boston: Pearson Custom, 2002.
Light, J. S. “Rethinking the Digital Divide.” Harvard Educational Review, 2001, 71(4),
709–733.
Madden, M. “America’s Online Pursuits: The Changing Picture of Who’s Online and
What They Do.” In L. Rainie (ed.), Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2003. http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/pew_
internet_yearend_2003.pdf. Accessed Aug. 16, 2004.
Matthews, D. “The Origins of Distance Education and Its Use in the United States.”
Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 1999, 27(2), 54–67.
Moore, P. L. Access and Success in Web Courses at an Urban Multicultural Community
College: The Student’s Perspective. Unpublished research report, Northern Arizona
University, 2002. (ED 465 402)
Oblinger, D. G. “Creating a Learning Culture.” In L. Johnson and S. T. Lobello (eds.),
The 21st Century Community College: Technology and the New Learning Para-
digm. Mission Viejo, Calif.: League for Innovation in the Community College,
1996.
Rush, S. C. “The Importance of Process Innovation to the Community College.” In L.
Johnson and S. T. Lobello (eds.), The 21st Century Community College: Technology and
the New Learning Paradigm. Mission Viejo, Calif.: League for Innovation in the
Community College, 1996.
Ryland, J. N. Technology and the Future of the Community College. New Expeditions:
Charging the Second Century of Community Colleges. Issues Paper No. 10. Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges, 2000. (ED 439 744)
Tapscott, D. Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1998.

Wenger, G. E. “Planning to Take Advantage of Technology.” In L. Johnson and S. T.
Lobello (eds.), The 21st Century Community College: Technology and the New Learning
Paradigm. Mission Viejo, Calif.: League for Innovation in the Community College,
1996.
LEMUEL W. WATSON is professor of higher education and chair of the depart-
ment of counseling, adult, and higher education at Northern Illinois University
in DeKalb. He recently spent time as a Fulbright Scholar at the National
Institute of Higher Education at Belarusian State University.

Access And Technology

More Related Content

Similar to Access And Technology (20)

More from Claire Webber (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Access And Technology