Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 286–308 | Cite as

The influence of academic discipline, race, and gender on web-use skills among graduate-level students

  • Jennifer Owens
  • Flavius Lilly
Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is a paucity of research on the digital literacy of graduate-level students. The study examined whether academic discipline, age, gender, race, parental education, international status, GPA, and self-perceived skills is associated with web-use skills among this population. Hargittai and Hsieh’s 27-item Web-use Skills Index was used to measure web-use skills. The Kruskal–Wallis H test with post hoc Fisher’s least significant difference test was used to determine statistical differences between groups of independent variables. Academic discipline, race/ethnicity, and gender had a greater number of statistically significant differences (p < .05) with 12, 15, and 20 variables respectively. Few web-skill variables were significantly different by age, GPA, international status, and parental education with 4, 3, 2, and 3 variables respectively. Gender plays a large role in the digital literacy of graduate and professional students compared to other demographic factors. This may be due to factors influenced by gender including family life, self-efficacy, and access to technology. The high web proficiency of Asian/Pacific Islander students is consistent with past research. However, African American students were more web-proficient than Caucasian students, which is inconsistent with previous research. Academic discipline may be independently associated with varying levels of web-use scores.

Keywords

Digital literacy Web-use skills Graduate and professional students Socioeconomic factors Digital natives 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices, and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories (1st ed.). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). London and Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S. J., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 960–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2005). School quality and family background in Italy. Economics of Education Review, 24(5), 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevalier, A., & Lanot, G. (2002). The relative effect of family characteristics and financial situation on educational achievement. Education Economics, 10(2), 166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, B. R. (1999). Small world, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of American academic professions. In J. L. Bess, D. S. Webster, & B. A. Jones (Eds.), Foundation of American higher education (pp. 180–191). Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Correa, T. (2010). The participation divide among “online experts”: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Correa, T. (2016). Digital skills and social media use: how Internet skills are related to different types of facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information, Communication and Society, 19(8), 1095–1107. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Correa, T., & Jeong, S. (2011). Race and online content creation: Why minorities are actively participating in the web. Information, Communication and Society, 14(5), 638–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demirbilek, M. (2015). The ‘digital natives’ debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of university students. Eurasia Journal Of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 115–123.Google Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Social Inequality Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Fry, J. (2004). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: Corpus based linguistics as a case study. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: A domain analytical approach. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal, 42(1), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guidry, K. R., & BrckaLorenz, A. (2010). A comparison of student and faculty academic technology use across disciplines. Educause Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/9/a-comparison-of-student-and-faculty-academic-technology-use-across-disciplines.
  20. Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review. 23 (3):371–379. Retrieved February 11, 2013 from http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai-SSCORE05.pdf.
  21. Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Science Computer Review, 30(1), 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics, 34(4–5), 250–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes, D. (2011). Predicting parental home and school involvement in high school African American adolescents. The High School Journal, 94(4), 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. He, J., & Freeman, L. A. (2010). Are men more technology-oriented than women? The role of gender on the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 203–212.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 686–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, L., Yong, Z., Kolenic, A., III, Fitzgerald, H., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(4), 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). America’s next achievement test: Closing the black-white test score gap. American Prospect, 40, 44–53.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, C., & Cross, S. (2009). Is there a new generation coming to university? In ALT-C 2009 in dreams begins responsibility: Choice, evidence and change, 8–10 September 2009, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  34. Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., et al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In Proceedings of ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, from Singapore 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First-year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinksi, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024.Google Scholar
  38. Kitano, M. K. (1984). Early education for Asian-American children. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Understanding the multicultural experience in early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google Scholar
  39. Köse, R. (2007). Effects of school and private courses on the academic achievement of students taking the high school entrance exams from the aspect of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the family. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 5(17), 46–77.Google Scholar
  40. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people, and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9(4), 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Madigan, E., Goodfellow, M., & Stone, J. (2007). Gender, perceptions, and reality: Technological literacy among first-year students. Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, March 7–11 (pp. 410–414). KY: Covington.Google Scholar
  42. McMillan, S. J., & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media and Society, 8, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mordkowitz, E., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1987). Early academic socialization of successful Asian-American college students. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9, 85–90.Google Scholar
  44. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the net generation (ebook). Educause. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf.
  45. O’Donnell, V. L., Tobbell, J., Lawthom, R., & Zammit, M. (2009). Transition to postgraduate study: Practice, participation and the widening participation agenda. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orji, R. (2010). Effect of academic discipline on technology acceptance. In International conference on education and management technology (ICEMT) (pp. 617–621).Google Scholar
  47. Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K., & Efreom, Y. (2005). Predicting parental involvement in children’s schooling within an economically disadvantaged African American sample. Psychology in Schools, 42, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ritzhaupt, A., Feng, L., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 45(4), 291–307.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenblatt, Z., & Peled, D. (2002). School ethical climate and parental involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothstein, J., & Wozny, N. (2013). Permanent income and the black-white test score gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 510–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sexton, R., Hignite, M., Margavio, T. M., & Margavio, G. W. (2009). Identifying predictors of achievement in the newly defined information literacy: A neural network analysis. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1084.Google Scholar
  53. Sherman, R., End, C., Kraan, E., Cole, A., Campbell, J., Birchmeier, Z., et al. (2000). The Internet gender gap among college students: Forgotten but not gone? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slate, J., Manuel, M., & Brinson, K., Jr. (2002). The “digital divide”: Hispanic college students’ views of educational uses of the internet. Assessment and Education in Higher Education, 27(1), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  57. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world (1st ed.). Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  58. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008). Generational myth: Not all young people are tech-savvy. The Chronicle Review, 55(4), B7.Google Scholar
  59. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers and Education, 51, 1392–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Webster, K. (2004). No parent left behind: Evaluating programs and policies to increase parental involvement. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 10, 117–126.Google Scholar
  61. Weisenfeld, U., & Ott, I. (2011). Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study. Research Policy, 40, 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weng, T., Lin, H. (2007). The Study of e-learning for geographical information curriculum in higher education. In Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS international conference on applied computer science Hangzhou, China.Google Scholar
  63. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang, Y. (2002). Comparison of internet attitudes between industrial employees and college students. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 5(2), 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options