The Use of Technology to Increase Access to USHE:. Leveling the Playing Field, or Widening the Socio-economic Chasm?. Week 5 Assignment: DRAFT 2 Initial Dissertation Prospectus HEOC 803: Dissertation Seminar Benedictine University John Smith-Coppes 7/29/2012. Prospectus Outline.
The Use of Technology to Increase Access to USHE:
Leveling the Playing Field,
or Widening the
Week 5 Assignment: DRAFT 2
Initial Dissertation Prospectus
HEOC 803: Dissertation Seminar
Chapter 1: Introduction
“We found that access to American higher education is unduly limited by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about college opportunities, and persistent financial barriers.” (Spellings, p.1)
Although many questions have been raised regarding the impact of technology on the actual processes surrounding the student life, learning framework, economic impact, and educational outcomes “on the campus,” relatively little has been addressed regarding the actual impact of technological vehicles being utilized by USHE (specifically, colleges and universities across the nation) for increasing real vs. perceived access to disparate bodies of college-bound student populations, often-times referred to as “awareness.”
Technology is rapidly reshaping the landscape of higher education. (Altbach, et al, 2005) Although USHE has focused collectively on the exploration of the utilization of technological applications for improving access, affordability, graduation rates, economies of scale, and learning outcomes in today’s higher education realm, the issue of equitably increasing transparent accessibility for the college-bound student has yet to be demonstrated; contrary to popular belief, technological advances and utilization of certain communication and information systems may be causing a greater social divide between geographically and economically disparate college-bound families, rather than actually bridging the information gap between families of varied socio-economic standards.
The purpose of this qualitative, interpretive ethnographic study is to explore the phenomena of whether an increased institutional web-focus on admissions processes is creating the assumed dynamic of equitable and increased access for all, or rather is creating declining and disparate enrollments, as well as a perceived barrier to entry, for incoming USHE students from low socio-economic backgrounds, ultimately not bridging the information gap between families of varied socio-economic standards as initially expected.
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
“Findings suggest that low-income students do have access to computers but lack the knowledge and support needed to navigate the financial aid resources available online.” (Venegas, 2006)
Chapter 3: Proposed Methodology
“How will the current wave of information and communication technologies affect the future of higher education? Will technological advances allow universities to provide a higher quality education to more people? Or will advances result in a net decrease in educational quality and accentuate the divide between the haves and have-nots? (Altbach, 2005)
“Although access does not guarantee understanding, access must come first before literacy can be addressed. Further research is needed in order to better understand the role played by parents in preparing their children for the digital age.” (Madigan, 2005)
Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (2005). American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bettinger, E., Long, T., & Oreopolus, L. (2009). The Role of Simplification and Information in College Decisions: Results form the H&R Block FAFSA Experiment; NBER working paper 15361. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Bowman, P.J. (2011). Need for a 21st Century Merit Agenda. In P.J. Bowman & E.P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, Merit, and Higher Education: Towards a Comprehensive Agenda for the 21st Century (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: AMS Press.
Burkum, K., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. (2011). Admissions, Academic Readiness, and Student Success: Implications for growing a diverse education pipeline. In P.J. Bowman & E.P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, Merit, and Higher Education: Towards a Comprehensive Agenda for the 21st Century (pp. 207-232). New York, NY: AMS Press.
Carter, D.F. (2002). College Students’ Degree Aspirations: A Theoretical Model and Literature Review with a focus on African American and Latino Students. In J. Smart (Ed.) Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research. Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.
Cedja ,M. (2006). Understanding the Role of Parents and Siblings as Information Sources in the College Choice Process of Chicana Students. Journal of College Student Development, 47 (1), 87-104.
College Board .(2011). Complexity in College Admission: The Barriers Between Aspiration and Enrollment for Low-Income Students. Washington D.C.: College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/11b-4062_AdmissComplex_web.pdf
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall (Chapter 11, “Experimental designs”).
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.
Engberg, M.E., & Wolniak, G.C. (2009). Navigating Disparate Pathways to College: Examining the Conditional Effects of Race on Enrollment Decisions. TC Record, 111 (9), 2255-2279.
Eun-Ok, B., & Freehling, S. (2007). Using Internet Communication Technologies by Low-Incomes High School Students in Completing Educational Tasks Inside and Outside the School Setting. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 33-55. doi:10.1300/J025v24n01̱04
Goode, J. (2010). Mind the Gap: The Digital Dimension of College Access. Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 583-618. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Griffin, K.A., Yamamura, E., Kimura-Walsh, E.F., & Allen, W.R. (2007). Those who left, those who stayed: The educational opportunities of high-achieving Black and Latina/o students in magnet and non-magnet Los Angeles high schools. Educational Studies, 42(3), 229-247.
Holland, N. (2011). The power of peers: Influences on postsecondary education planning and experiences of African American students. Urban Education, 46, 1029-1055.
Kennamer, M. A., Katsinas, S. G., Hardy, D. E., & Roessler, B. (2010). Closing Doors of Opportunity? Trends in Enrollment, College Costs, and Direct Grant Aid at Community Colleges in the United States, 2000-2001 to 2005-2006. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 34(1/2), 7-24. doi:10.1080/10668920903388115.
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512-1520. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005
Madigan, E., and Goodfellow, M. (2005). The Influence of Family Income and Parents Education on Digital Access: Implications for First-Year College Students. Sociological Viewpoints, 2153-62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
McDonough, P.M. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of new York Press.
McPherson, M., and Schapiro, M.O. (2007). The Spelling Commission Report, One Year Later.Forum for the Future of Higher Education. 2008. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp ?id=HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1
Perna, L.W., & Titus, M. (2005). The Relationship Between Parental Involvement as Social Capital and College Enrollment: An examination of Racial/Ethnic Group Differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485-518.
Plank, S., & Jordan, W. (2001). Effects of Information, Guidance, and Actions on Postsecondary Destinations: A Study of Talent Loss. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 947-979.
Reay, D. (2003). A Risky Business? Mature Working-class Women Students and Access to Higher Education. Gender & Education, 15(3), 301-317. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College Readiness for All: The Challenge for Urban High Schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210.
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Coca, V., & Moeller, E. (2008).From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/1835ccsr_potholes_summary.pdf.
Sedlacek, W.E. (2010). Noncognitive Measures for Higher Education Admissions. In P.L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education (pp.845-849). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Sedlacek, W.E. (2011). Using noncognitive variables in assessing readiness for higher education. In P.J. Bowman & E.P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, Merit, and Higher Education: Towards a Comprehensive Agenda for the 21st Century (pp. 187-206). New York, NY: AMS Press.
Smith, M.J. (2009). Right directions, wrong maps: Understanding the involvement of low-SES parents to enlist them as partners in college choice. Education and Urban Education, 41, 171-196.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth and Society, 43, 1066.
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). (2005). Accountability for better results: A national imperative for higher education. Report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp?id= HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1
United States Department of Commerce. (2000, October). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
United States Department of Commerce. (2004, September). A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
United States Department of Education., National Center for Education Statistics. (2004).The Condition of Education 2004. (NCES 2004-077). Washington D.C.: Author.
United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp?id= HEOC%2D705%2DD4A1
Venegas, K.M. (2006).Internet Inequalities: Financial Aid, the Internet, and Low-Income Students. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (12), pp. 1652-1669.