University Students' Digital Inequality Experiences

Abstract

In history, only different segments of society have been able to speak of welfare. Welfare is related to economic provision. The economic offer has changed over the centuries about agricultural products, goods, products, services and experiences. In this age where information is transformed into an economic good based on fiber optic cable and microchip technology. There is now a class that takes an active role in the production of knowledge, which is an economic value, and different class structures consisting of individuals who do not have the competence to produce knowledge. While progress is being made by both groups with and without ownership and access constraints, the high rate of progress of the first group leads to inequality in the possession. While digital inequality is expected to be eliminated in many parts of the world, unfortunately, the problem of digital inequality among students continues to be experienced in the field of education. This study focuses on identifying the dimensions of digital inequality and experiences from the perspective of university students who put digital technologies at the center of their lives. Understanding the experiences of disadvantaged students can improve peer empathy and the educational institution's ability to understand its students. In the research part which designed to describe the areas and experiences of digital inequality of Ege University students, explains the possible losses of disadvantaged students, strategies to overcome losses, and emotional states caused by ownership-access barriers. Data were collected from students representing the two extremes of inequality through in-depth interviews using extreme or deviant case sampling, and the data set was subjected to thematic content analysis and descriptive analysis using computer-aided qualitative analysis programs. Disadvantaged students could not follow the courses synchronously due to both not having a digital technological tool and problems arising from access to the internet infrastructure, and this situation could lead to not being able to establish the necessary dialogue with the faculty member, a decrease in course grades, or failure in the course. Advantageous students were able to follow the courses synchronously, prepare their homework and projects quickly and easily, and easily adapt to the distance/hybrid education process thanks to digital hardware ownership and access.

Keywords

• Digital inequality
• University Students
• Disadvantage
• New Communication Technologies
• Distance Learning

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dijital Eşitsizlik Deneyimleri

Abstract

İnsanlık tarihi boyunca toplumun yalnızca farklı kesimleri için "refah"tan bahsedilebilmiştir. Refah ekonomik sunu ile ilişkilidir. Ekonomik sunu, yüzyıllar boyunca tarımsal ürünler, mallar, ürünler, hizmetler ve deneyimler olarak değişime uğramıştır. Ekonomik sununun niteliğinde yaşanan değişimde ise teknolojik buluşlar etkili olmuştur. Bilginin fiber optik kablo ve mikroçip teknolojisine dayalı olarak ekonomik sunuya dönüştüğü bu çağda, farklı meslek ve uzmanlıklar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Artık ekonomik bir değer olan bilginin üretiminde aktif rol alan bir sınıf ve bilgi üretme yeterliliğine sahip olamayan bireylerden oluşan farklı sınıf yapıları bulunmaktadır. Bilgi toplumunda refahın koşulu bilgi üretebilme yeteneğidir. Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerindeki ilerlemeler, bireylerin yeni iletişim teknolojilerine erişim ve kullanma becerilerindeki eşitsizlikleri de derinleştirmektedir. Sahiplik ve erişim kısıtlamaları olan ve olmayan grupların her ikisinde de ilerleme sağlanırken, birinci grubun yüksek ilerleme hızı, gruplar arasında bilgiye sahip olma ve kullanma konusunda eşitsizliğe neden olmaktadır. Dünyanın birçok yerinde dijital eşitsizliğe ilişkin dengesizliğin giderilmesi beklenirken, maalesef eğitim alanında öğrenciler arasında dijital eşitsizlik sorunu yaşanmaya devam etmektedir. Bu çalışma, dijital teknolojileri hayatının merkezine koyan üniversite öğrencilerinin bakış açısıyla dijital eşitsizlik boyutlarının ve öğrenci deneyimlerinin belirlenmesine odaklanmaktadır. Dezavantajlı öğrencilerin deneyimlerinin anlaşılması, akranlar arası empatiyi ve eğitim kurumunun öğrencisine yönelik anlayış yeteneğini geliştirebilir. Ege Üniversitesi öğrencilerinin dijital eşitsizlik alanlarını ve deneyimlerini betimleme amacıyla tasarlanan bu araştırmada, dezavantajlı öğrencilerin olası kayıpları, kayıpların üstünden gelme stratejileri ve sahiplik-erişim engelinin neden olduğu duygu durumları açıklanmıştır. Aşırı veya aykırı durum örneklemesi ile eşitsizliğin iki uç kısmını temsil eden öğrencilerden derinlemesine görüşme yolu ile veri toplanmış, veri seti bilgisayar destekli nitel analiz programları kullanılarak tematik içerik analizi ve betimsel analize tabi tutulmuştur. Dezavantajlı öğrenciler, hem dijital teknolojik bir araca sahip olamama hem de internet alt yapısına erişimden kaynaklanan sorunlar nedeniyle dersleri senkron takip edememiş, bu durum öğretim üyesi ile gereken diyaloğu kuramama, ders notunda düşüş ya da dersten başarısız olmaya neden olabilmiştir. Avantajlı öğrenciler, dersleri senkron olarak takip edebilmiş, ödev ve projelerini hızlı ve kolay bir şekilde hazırlayabilmiş, dijital donanım sahipliği ve erişim sayesinde uzaktan/hibrit eğitim sürecinde kolayca adapte olabilmişlerdir.

Keywords

• Dijital Eşitsizlik
• Üniversite Öğrencileri
• Dezavantaj
• Yeni Iletişim Teknolojileri
• Uzaktan Eğitim

References

1. Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: measuring capabilities in the information society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 2(3), 4–22. Erişim Adresi: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42246/.
2. Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of advanced nursing, 17(11), 1355-1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x.
3. Bolt, D., & Crawford, R. (2000). Digital divide: Computers and our children's future, New York: TV Books.
4. Cohen, E. (2002). Technology has not created a digital divide. A. Ojeda (Ed.),Technology and society: Opposing viewpoints (ss. 38-46). San Diego, California: Greenhaven press.
5. Compaine, B. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth?. Cambridge: Massachusetts Teknoloji Enstitüsü (MIT) Yayınları. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2419.001.0001.
6. Corben, V. (1999). Misusing phenomenology in nursing research: identifying the issues. Nurse Researcher (through 2013), 6(3), 52. https://doi.org/:10.7748/NR1999.04.6.3.52.C6087.
7. Creswell, J.W., Hanson, W.E., Clark Plano, V.L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs: Selection And Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236- 264. DOI: 10.1177/0011000006287390.
8. Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining Validity In Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39 (3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage publications.
10. Cronin, B. (2002, February 15). The Digital Divide. (The Dean's List). Library Journal, 127(3), 48. Erişim Adresi:https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A83245819/LitRC?u=anon~f9a2cbb5&sid=googleScholar&xid=39918cfe.
11. Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press.
12. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying internet use as penetration increases. Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 4(1), 4-2. Erişim Adresi: https://digitalinclusion.typepad.com/digital_inclusion/documentos/digitalinequality.pdf.
13. Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of phenomenological psychology, 43(1), 13-35. Erişim Adresi: https://phenomenologyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Englander-2012-The-Interview-Data-Collection-in-Descriptive-Phenomenological-Human-Scientific-Research.pdf.
14. Glesne, C. (2015) Nitel araştırmada veri analizi, çalıştay notları. Eurasian educational research congress / 2. Avrasya eğitim araştırmaları kongresi, 8-10 Haziran. Ankara.
15. Goodfellow, M., & Wade, B. (2007). The Digital Divide and First-Year Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.2190/0655-01Q3-2113-22JQ.
16. Gulain, M.B., Justin, B.N., & Expedit, S.W. (2022) The Impact of the Digital Divide on Higher and University Education Sector Performance, Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 22-30. Erişim Adresi: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jss_2022090711313292.pdf.
17. Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M.B., & Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
18. Katz, V. S., Jordan, A. B., & Ognyanova, K. (2021). Digital inequality, faculty communication, and remote learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of US undergraduates. Plos one, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246641.
19. Mack, R. L. (2001). The Digital divide: Standing at the intersection of race and technology, Kuzey Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
20. Mahmood, K. (2009). Gender, subject and degree differences in university students’ access, use and attitudes toward information and communication technology (ICT). International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 5(3), 206–216. Erişim Adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236173131_Gender_subject_and_degree_differences_in_university_students'_access_use_and_attitudes_toward_information_and_communication_technology_ICT.
21. McCance, T., & Mcilfatrick, S. (2008). Phenomenology, In Watson, R., Mckenna, H., Cowman, S.,Keady, J.(Eds.) Nursing research: Designs and methods, 231-242.
22. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Erişim Adresi: https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0003/7195/84/L-G-0003719584-0007575839.pdf.
23. Merriam, S. B., Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. New Jersey, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
25. OECD (2001, 1 Ocak), Understanding the Digital Divide, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/236405667766. Erişim Tarihi: 15.01.2023.
26. O’reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). Unsatisfactory Saturation: A Critical Exploration of the Notion Of Saturated Sample Sizes in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research.13(2), 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879411244610.
27. Oyedemi, T. D. (2012). Digital inequalities and implications for social inequalities: A study of Internet penetration amongst university students in South Africa. Telematics and Informatics, 29(3), 302-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2011.12.001.
28. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. London: Sage publications.
29. Perkinson, H. (1968). The imperfect panacea: American faith in education, 1865-1965, New York: Random House.
30. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 743– 756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z.
31. Rogers, S. E. (2016). Bridging the 21st century digital divide. TechTrends, 60(3), 197–199. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-016-0057-0.
32. Salinas, G. K. (2000) Different Educational Inequalities: ICT an Option to Close the Gaps, In D.J.Johnston (Ed.) Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide, (ss.21-36), Paris: OECD Publications.
33. Shafique, F., & Mahmood, K. (2008). Indicators of the emerging information society in Pakistan. Information Development, 24(1), 66–78. DOI: 10.1177/0266666907087698.
34. Spring, J. (2000). American education (9th Edition). USA: The McGraw-Hill companies.
35. Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (1999) Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative, (5. Baskı). Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Erişim adresi: https://oysconmelibrary01.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/qualitative-research-in-nursing-advancing-the-humanistic-imp.pdf.
36. Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing Up Digital: The Rise Of The Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Tarman, B. (2003). The Digital Divide in Education, (Doktora Tezi), Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya. Erişim adresi: Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215593349
38. Taylor, K. (2022, 15 Nisan) The Dijital Divide: What It Is and What’s Being Done to Closeit. Erişim adresi: https://www.investopedia.com/the-digital-divide-5116352. Erişim Tarihi: 20.11.2022.
39. Tien, F. F., & Fu, T. T. (2008). The correlates of the digital divide and their impact on college student learning. Computers and Education, 50(1), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.005.
40. TopHat Staff (2021, 13 Mayıs) 20 Pros and Cons of Technology in the Classroom in 2021, Erişim Adresi: https://tophat.com/blog/technology-in-the-classroom-pros-and-cons/. Erişim Tarihi: 21.01.2023.
41. Torres-Diaz, J., & Duart, J. (2015). Determinants of digital inequality in universities: the case of Ecuador. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3). 302-313. Erişim Adresi: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/151919/.
42. Van Deursen, A. J., Helsper, E., Eynon, R., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International journal of communication, 11, 452- 473. Erişim Adresi: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5739/1911.
43. Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements And Shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
44. Welser, H. T., Khan, M. L., & Dickard, M. (2019). Digital remediation: Social support and online learning communities can help offset rural digital inequality. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5), 717-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1566485.
45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
46. Yu, L. (2006). Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38(4), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/096100060607060.
47. Zeng, F. (2011). College students perception of the second-level digital divide: An empirical analysis. Asian social science, 7(6), 42. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n6p42