gunman. a. .
irisfi

r13;
:4 mm"

~ :15.

.. a «.29

fi
3%

LI. .
Li :.L .

fin. , a L. fl... 4

n 5...,
rlnt.

. r
3.:

yfiiflfiw'.‘ {LI I

 

r7

 

 

 

‘,
a“...

t In...
k, v.9

I: .5‘

final! 1

v . o
WEAR,» {A}

I: l’\:m
.fi
«-

f

6

JD;

#012169

 

LiBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Experiences of First-Year College Students
Using Computer Communication

presented by

Karen S. Klumpp

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Higher,Adult,and

degree in
Lifelong Education

 

 

O

ajor p 5501'

Date 41253103

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

APR 0 1 2004
Juii3i7'1izfio'3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCIDateDuo.p65-p.15

THE EXPERIENCES OF FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS USING
COMPUTER COMMUNICATION

By

Karen S. Klumpp

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
Department of Education Administration

2003

ABSTRACT

THE EXPERIENCES OF FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS USING
COMPUTER COMMUNICATION

By
Karen S. Klumpp

Computer communication has changed much about the day-to-day lives of
most Americans. For many individuals born in the last two decades, the opportunity
for such communication is the norm. Students enter college at a point of changes in
their lives, leaving old friends behind, developing new friends, and becoming part of
the campus community. While we have research that builds an understanding of the
experience of students transitioning to college, we lack an understanding of the
transition experiences while using computer communication to more easily maintain
off-campus relationships.

This study extends prior work by investigating the experience of first-year
college students using computer communication. Through my research I discovered
two sets of findings, classified as experiences and efiects of computer
communication. Among the experiences is the sense of the computer as an extension
of themselves. Students build their cultural practices around computers connections,
using them to arrange meetings, dinners, and more opportunities to talk.

As students arrive on campus, they have well-established networks of friends
and family from home. Computer communication helps keep students connected to
parents, hometown friends, and significant others. These face-to-face relationships are
easily converted to strong online contacts. Students feel a great deal of stress if

computer connection to their network of family and friends is not available as they

arrive on campus. The students in my study were interested in improved classroom
use of computer technology, but felt more passionate about computer communication
for social purposes than they did about access to classroom technology.

Two effects of computer communication were visible in my study: time
evaporation and balancing concurrent social networks. Although maintaining the pre-
college network of fiiends can potentially discourage the development of college
fi'iendships, computer communication is valuable in sustaining students, helping them
adjust to college and cope with its demands and challenges. The extent that computer
communication is present in students’ lives and appears to be a necessary part of the
transition process warrants asking whether previous research describing student
transition, involvement, and retention needs to be reworked around these new

experiences.

Copyright by
Karen Susan Klumpp

2003

This dissertation is dedicated to my family.

To my mother, Naomi Potter, for her love and support, and to the memory of my
father, Merrill Potter;

To my husband, Basil, for years of caring, and for developing an acceptance of my
need to follow my dreams;

To my daughter, Kelly Klumpp Hon and my son, Kevin Klumpp, who are the best
gifts a lifetime of love can hold, and to their spouses, Randy Hon and Nickie Klumpp
for their special place in my heart.

I am blessed to have you in my life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While much of the work of the dissertation is a solo endeavor, there are
several whose ideas, contributions, and encouragement are so significantly a part of
the work that they are woven into the document itself. I am very grateful to my
dissertation committee - Marilyn Amey, John Dirkx, Rhonda Egidio, and Ralph
Putnam. Marilyn, as my chairperson, was my guide, critical reviewer, and idea
generator. I am so grateful for her support and encouragement. John helped shape
the study, suggesting literature to strengthen the work and to develop a more
comprehensive understanding of the topic. Rhonda provided encouragement to stay
open to whatever occurred and embrace the understanding and process that ensued.
Ralph added new ideas and clarity to the discussions, and provided valuable editing
suggestions.

I am similarly indebted to Pamela Eddy, initially my student colleague and
later my peer reviewer. The timely reading she provided allowed kept me on track.
Several student colleagues have become dear friends. Among these is Linda
Seestedt-Stanford. We shared rides, encouragement and frustrations and will
continue our friendship well beyond our degree completion.

I am particularly grateful for generous support and encouragement from Alma
College President Saundra Tracy, who allowed me a leave to begin the writing
process. Provost Reginald Avery also provided support and encouragement.
Colleagues Michael Selmon, Sue Deel, Jodie Reeves, Kathy Wilk and the Registrar’s
Office staff helped cover my leave. And former colleague and mentor, Bill Potter,

encouraged me to believe in myself and pursue the next goal. Thank you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................. 1
Introduction ........................................................................ 1
A Cultural View of Higher Education and Social Connection .............. 3
Social Life and the Small Residential Campus ................................ 8
Purpose of the Study .............................................................. l 1
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................... 12
Introduction ........................................................................ 12
Section 1: Human Social Contact and Need for Friendships ............... 13
Section 2: Effects of the Internet on Social Bonding ........................ 15
Section 3: Student Social Connection and Higher Education ............... 22
Section 4: Electronic Communication and the Student Social
Experience .................................................................. 29
Summary ........................................................................... 32
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................... 34
Overview ........................................................................... 34
Research Question ................................................................ 34
Research Site and Participants ................................................... 35
Timeframe .......................................................................... 37
Procedures and Data Collection ................................................. 38
Holding the Focus Group Sessions .............................................. 40
Final “Big Issues” Focus Group Session ....................................... 42
Pilot Testing ........................................................................ 43
Compilation of Data ............................................................... 43
Display and Analysis of the Data ................................................ 44
Limitations of the Study ........................................................... 45
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS: THE EXPERIENCE OF COMPUTER
COMMUNICATION ............................................................... 47
Introduction ......................................................................... 47
Campus Internet Problems ........................................................ 53
Theme One: Computer as Natural Extension of Self .......................... 55
IM, Email, and the Opportunity for Constant Communication ....... 56
Computer Communication is Integrated into Lifestyle ................ 64
Transacting Business .............................................. 64
Sending and Seeking Information ............................... 66
Entertaining ......................................................... 68
Theme Two: Students Arrive Connected and Continue Connecting ........ 68
Staying Connected to Parents ............................................. 69
Staying Connected to Hometown Friends .............................. 73
“Significant Other” Relationships ........................................ 73

vii

Identifying the Number of Good Friends ............................... 75

Theme Three: Gender Similarities and Differences ........................... 76
Men Valued Convenience; Women Valued Connectedness ......... 77
Engagement in Similar and Dissimilar Ways ........................... 78
Acquiring Screen Names ................................................... 80

Theme F our: Students, the College, and Internet Communication ........... 81
Connecting with “the College” ............................................ 81
College to Student Email Communication .............................. 83
Network Unreliability and Student Frustration ......................... 84
Connecting with Faculty and Administration ........................... 85

Summary ............................................................................. 87

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS: THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER
COMMUNICATION .............................................................. 90

Introduction ........................................................................ 90

Effect One: Time Evaporation ................................................... 92
Students and Controlling Time on Communication ................... 93

Effect Two: Computer Communication and the Balance of Old and
New Social Networks ..................................................... 95
The Draw of Old Social Networks ....................................... 96
Pre-College Friends and Leaving College ............................... 98
Individual Construction of Concurrent Social Networks ............. 100
Computer Communication Sustains ..................................... 105

Summary ............................................................................. 107

CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................... 108

Introduction ......................................................................... 108

Theoretical Framework ............................................................ 111

Case Description .................................................................... 116

Methodology ........................................................................ 118

Findings .............................................................................. 119
Experiences of Computer Communication .............................. 119
Effects of Computer Communication ..................................... 123

Implications ......................................................................... 125

Experience One: Computer as Natural Extension of Themselves. . .. 125
Experience Two: Students Arrive Connected and Continue

Connecting .................................................................. 128
Experience Three: Gender Similarities and Differences ............... 131
Experience Four: Students, “the College” and Computer
Communication ............................................................ 132
Effect One: Computer Communication and Time Evaporation ....... 132
Effect Two: Computer Communication and the Balance of Old
and New Social Networks ................................................ 138
The Draw of Old Social Networks ............................... 138
Pre-College Friends and Leaving College ...................... 140

Individual Construction of Concurrent Social Networks. . 142

viii

Computer Communication Sustains ............................. 143

Theoretical Implications .......................................................... 145
Summary ............................................................................ 149
Suggestions for Additional Research ............................................ 150
Limitations .......................................................................... 152
Conclusion .......................................................................... l 54
APPENDIX A: Pre-Focus Group Session Contact With Students ...... 155
Initial Contact Letter ............................................................... 155
Script for Phone Call ............................................................... 156
Confirmation Letter ................................................................ 157
Script for Follow-Up Reminder Call ............................................. 158
Statement of Informed Consent ................................................... 159
Survey Distributed with Informed Consent Form .............................. 160
APPENDIX B: Focus Groups .................................................. 163
Focus Group Questions ............................................................ 163
Fifth Focus Group Session — Survey Questions ................................ 165
APPENDIX C: Generational Attributes ....................................... 167
Generational Attributes of Current College Students .......................... 167
Bibliography ....................................................................... 168

Figure 1

Figure 23

Figure 2b

LIST OF FIGURES

Individual Construction of Student Use of Computer
Communication ............................................ 126

Overview of Relationship Between Computer Communica-
tion, Participation in Campus Activities, and Time
Spent on Studies ........................................... 135

Relationship Between Computer Communication, Participa-
tion in Campus Activities, and Time Spent on
Studies, Using Actual Student Comments ............. 136

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The Internet has become not only a household word, but a tool used daily to
access information, work, find entertainment, and even identify communities of friends.
The term Internet actually means a group of interconnected networks (Standage, 1998,
p. 206). Though the interconnections forming networks are comprised of hardware and
software, we also create human social networks as we subscribe to Internet use.

While some would note the introduction of the Internet as somewhat parallel to
the early days of television, its impact goes beyond that innovation. The Internet is a
vehicle that provides not only information and entertainment, but synchronous and
asynchronous interaction virtually anywhere on the planet. As such, it presses our
current understanding of the meanings of community, identity, and self (T urkle, 1995).
Just as the technologies of telephone and television changed lives, the Internet has the
potential to significantly change our world (Bargh, 2002a; Kraut et al., 1998). As with
previous innovations, computer communication has the potential for introducing
significant and far-reaching changes in relationships and methods of individual
communication (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978, 1992; Marvin, 1988; Sproull & Keisler, l99l, as

cited in Spears & Lea, 1994).

Technology is multi-faceted; people are multi-dimensional and social situations
are complex. The high level of variability of individuals, coupled with the myriad
options available makes generalizations about the effects of technology difficult.
Although some individuals approach issues of technology with unbridled optimism, and
others with unbridled pessimism, neither perspective alone recognizes the complex
nature of technology and the many facets of technology’s effect on humans (cf. Van
Dijk, 1993, cited in Spears & Lea, 1994). The ways in which computer communication
affects individuals depends very directly on their environment and their own social
identities (Spears & Lea, 1994, p. 453). It is imperative that we view applications of
technology within social contexts, so that we mi ght better understand both the effects of
the technology and the social structures that underlie its use (Spears & Lea, 1994).

The emergence of computer communication is a powerful social trend of the last
several decades. The Internet has become integral to American life; for example,
following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, over half of all Internet users (more
than 53 million peOple) received some type of information about the attacks via the
Internet (Pew Foundation, 2002). In addition to functioning as a provider of
information, the Internet now regularly consumes our time. “In important respects this
revolution has lightened our souls and enlightened our minds, but it has also rendered
our leisure more private and passive” (Putnam, 2000, p. 242). Has this more “private
and passive” new activity replaced other activities? O’Toole (2000, as cited in Weiser,
2000) asserts that traditional social activities might decrease as a result of increased

Internet use. Not all researchers agree, however.

Social contact is critical to the well-being of humans (Cohen & Wills, 1985, as
cited in Kraut, 1998). The Internet, now used extensively by practically every facet of
society, re—defines the process of social contact. Lives are being transformed by the
opportunities afforded by the Internet (Anderson, Bikson, Law & Mitchell, 1995, as
cited in Kraut, et al., 1998); that transformation is occurring at an ever-increasing rate.
Beliefs and theories about relationships (developed before opportunities afforded by the
Internet) and present-day experiences need to be examined to determine whether they

apply to a world so altered by “anytime, anywhere” communication.

A Cultural View of Higher Education and Social Connection

Higher education, like the rest of the civilized world, is challenged by the
implementation of technology; institutional vision is needed to determine the best plan
for supporting the learning and initiatives of its constituents. Individually, academic
leaders are faced with a need for technology dollars to further the institution’s mission
without undermining other initiatives. While they strive to improve their institution’s
technological presence, leaders might not consider the changes that technology might
create in students’ social worlds and the resulting impact on their college experiences.

Students expect their academic institutions to offer technology-enhanced
instruction, access to electronic information, and opportunities for electronic
communication. Such technology should be easily accessible and practically invisible.
According to Turkle (1995), "We have become accustomed to opaque technology,” (p.

23). Students’ first interaction with their college of choice often begins electronically;

college web pages, increasingly visible, are critical to the admissions process. For
example, the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), which
assisted almost a half a million students and their families in 2002, reported that almost
1700 students attended their monthly Online College Fair (NACAC, 2002) in March.
The infusion of technology imparts richness to the learning environment, access to
information, and opportunities for social connection, but we know little about how it
changes relationships.

Research on the social integration of college students has been conducted for
years (Kuh et al., 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Tinto, 1998,). Nora (1993)
describes social integration as “the development of a strong affiliation with the college
social environment both in the classroom and outside of class; [this] includes
interactions with faculty, academic staff and peers but of a social nature” (p. 237, as
cited in Kraemer, 1997, p. 163-164). Based on studies of Pascarella, Terenzini (1980),
and others, this broad definition covers many areas, such as student-student interaction,
student-faculty interaction, student-staff interaction, involvement at the institution, and
an even less measurable, but distinct sense of being part of the life of the institution.

Studies of society and of higher education have resulted in theories related to
social integration, but the majority of these theories pre-date massive Internet use. Tinto
(1987) describes social integration stating, “the social system is comprised of
extracurricular activities and peer-group interactions . . . social integration is a direct
result of the level of satisfaction students have with the social system” (p. 114). A
college setting — particularly a residential college setting — changes in composition at

least yearly, as students enter and exit to the rhythm of their own educational needs.

Thus, the campus is always developing and redeveloping as a community. Computer
communication is now part of community development, as a component of on—campus
student life. An important method of understanding a culture is through its cultural tools
(T apscott, 1998). The breadth of conversational tools provided by the Internet warrants
scrutiny as these tools help explain — and perhaps define — the culture of students.

For all these reasons, it is important to understand the impact of cyber-
communication and the cultural changes it introduces. The experience of students on a
21St century campus is very different from that of the faculty and administrators.
Although faculty and administrators use the same technological tools, how they use and
understand them may differ greatly from students. Bruce asserts that “...the same
technology has a different meaning in different settings” (1993, p. 9, italics in original).
Understanding the social impact of technology on students may challenge higher
education leaders, but it is a necessary challenge.

Even absent technology-driven change in society, it is necessary that we
understand students in the context of their life experiences. In part, this context helps
identify potential resistance to legitimizing their cultural experiences. It may also help
educators and students understand both their own experiences and experiences of the
other. “It is a complex matter of being able to see the world from students’ eyes and
our own eyes simultaneously so that we can guide the connection of the two” (Baxter
Magolda, 1999, p. 61).

The collegiate environment of traditional-aged students is quite different from
the collegiate experiences of today’s college administrators and faculty. Meaning-

making is developed through experiences, and the experiences of the last 20 years set

the current generation of college students far apart from many of the faculty and
administrators who produce the academic and social settings these students enter.
Faculty and administrators have not experienced the cyber-social world of students.
Computer technology and computer communication have been prevalent since birth for
the “net-Generation” or “N -Gen” as Tapscott (1998) dubs them. “Baby boomers are
constantly being reminded that computer-facilitated networks are a personal and
economic survival tool that will revolutionize everything — whether they are prepared
for it or not. N -Geners, on the other hand, view it as a natural extension of themselves”
(Tapscott, 1998, p. 31).

“This is the first time in the history of the human race that a generation of kids
has overtaken their parents in the use of new technology,” states Peter Eio (Howe &
Strauss, 2000, p. 23). Different generations do not share the same world perceptions,
and college educators belong to the generation of current college students’ parents.
Today’s traditional college students grew up with home computers, school computers,
and the Internet (Mchen, 2001, p. 9; Tapscott, 1998, p. 3). A typical 18-22 year old
never purchased vinyl records, or played Pac Man, and likely never used a typewriter or
encountered an 8-track tape. Most have always owned an answering machine;
television has never been black-and-white, but has typically been cable. To the
Millennial generation of students, “counter-clockwise” and “sounds like a broken
record” are phrases that make little sense. These realities represent a fundamental shift
in what society perceives as necessary and desirable — and a shift in experience leading
to understanding and interpreting the world. “These kids never saw Muhammad Ali

fight or Willie Mays play, and they think Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a football player. To

them, Kansas, Chicago, Alabama, and America are places, not rock groups - and if you
say the words ‘Iron Curtain,’ they might think you’re talking about a wrestler” (Howe
& Strauss, 2000, p. 24).

Scholars have debated the impact of the Internet on social life (Bargh, 2002a,
Carey, 2000; Chen, 1999; Kraut et al., 1998, and others) but just began to address.
complex and sophisticated issues related to Internet use (Bargh, 2002a; Kraut, et al.,
1998). A critical point is that there is no one effect. The primary determinant of the
effect of Internet communication on an individual is the particular characteristics of that
individual (Bargh, 2002a; Kraut et al., 1998). Thus, while scholars have begun to
address the effect of the Internet on relationship development, research on ways in
which Internet use affects individuals as they enter new community settings is missing.

The campus is a culture with norms and shared beliefs. To the extent that all
members of the campus community understand those underlying cultural structures, the
cohesiveness of the whole is better maintained (Morgan, 1997). Fundamental changes
brought about by generational changes and technology innovations warrant close study
of the culture of students. Karl Weick (1995, as cited in Morgan, 1997) described the
process of constructing our reality — our culture - in a way that proactively creates our
world (Morgan, 1997). An understanding of institutional culture must be developed
through shared frames of reference - seeing each others’ worlds as they exist. In this
way culture is created, communicated, and is maintained over time (Morgan, 1997). By
getting a sense of changes in the student culture, college faculty and administrators can
peer into the world of students and better understand their experiences, and better

construct the collegiate environment.

Social Life and the Small Residential Campus

The first year of college presents students with “one of life’s most critical
transitions” (Martin & Arendale, 1993, p. l). Fitting in with the social and academic life
of the campus contributes significantly to a successful transition to college (Tinto, as
cited in Martin & Arendale, 1993). That transition has been the focus of numerous
investigations in the past four decades (Kuh et al., 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980;
Tinto, 1998). As a result of these studies, many first year college programs are based
on factors that predict student success: perception of community; student involvement
in the life of the campus; and academic/social integration (Light, 2001, 190-200; Nagda,
et al., 1998). A feeling of social isolation often leads first year students to be
dissatisfied with the institution; connections between students and the life of the
institution need to be made early in the first term of enrolhnent (Martin & Arendale,
1993).

Morgan’s (1997) cultural metaphor allows analysis of technology’s effect on the
social and relationship structures of students. Context is critical, though, and it is
important to understand the campus as a system, and the ways in which each segment of
the system contributes to the well-being of that whole. Higher education is made up of
many types of systems: the campus culture of a large, comprehensive institution is
different from the culture of a small residential institution. Institution type, along with
expectations and realities inherent in each particular environment, are important factors

in developing an understanding of the effects of computer communication in the

institutions of higher education. Making sense of the cultural environment is a
renewing, ongoing process; recognizing its existence and importance is critical to
understanding the system as a whole (Morgan, 1997, p. 147-148).

When exploring questions of campus academic and social experience, it is
important to assess the role of such experience within a particular type of institution.
Higher education is made up of several types of institutions with distinct missions,
enrolling students with particular expectations and sets of circumstances. Developing a
social ‘fit’ can be a different experience for a community college student than for a
student at a private, residential college (Tinto, 1998). Understanding the institution’s
culture helps develop the context for an understanding of the effects of computer
communication. For example, fitting in academically and socially may matter more to
students at four-year residential institutions than at community colleges (Braxton,
Sullivan & Johnson, 1997); thus the difference of developing social fit might be
especially noticeable at a four-year institution.

The small residential college brings students into close proximity with each
other and with faculty and staff. In small colleges, face-to-face communication and
bonding are a part of the institutional fabric. Students interact and learn together;
changes in the formation of this community may potentially alter its very identity. At
its best, the small residential college focuses on close mentoring relationships between
students and faculty, which may promote student-student interaction, and opportunities
for involvement with faculty in and out of class (Kuh & Hu, 2001). Faculty are

typically academic advisors, and also perform research with students (Light, 2001).

While scholarship is often an expectation of the faculty, good teaching is an institutional
priority.

Students on small college campuses typically know most class members, join
campus organizations, and participate in myriad extracurricular activities. Ideally,
students experience the benefits of a true learning community. This type of peer
community is developed through time spent together (Kuh, Schuh & Whitt, p. 16). The
small private residential college environment is one in which peer community is a
natural extension of the institutional structure (Astin, 1993).

Students seek such involvement, but involvement has dual purposes: it helps
students develop a social niche in the campus environment and choose to continue their
enrollment beyond the first year of college. Astin’s theory of student retention (1975,
1984) draws heavily on the importance of student involvement in the campus. He
argues that involvement “with faculty, with fellow students, or with academic work” is
correlated positively with retention (1993, p. 196). Pascarella and Terenzini (1979)
similarly identified the “absence of sufficient interaction with other members of the
college community as the single leading predictor of college attrition” (Nagda, et al.,
1998, p. 57, italics in original).

Social expectations and experiences may vary between different subgroups of
students (Kraemer, 1997). If the social experience of students is affected by the
characteristics of - and influences on — students, then changes in the student cultural
experience may affect their social fit. If computer communication is used in varying
degrees and for various purposes by different subgroups of students, its impact and

influence may be felt. Given differences in the ways males and females use computers

10

(Al-Motrif, 2000, Mchen, 2001), it is possible that the effects of computer

communication may be manifested in gender-specific, and ethnic-specific ways.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the
experiences of first-year college students using computer communication. Through this
study, I hoped to better understand how computer communication is used for
maintenance of relationships on and off the college campus. In particular, I addressed
the question of whether computer communication is a factor in developing campus
relationships, and whether computer communication, and maintenance of pre-college

friendships, pulls students away from relationship development on campus.

11

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

"Generally, strong personal ties are supported by physical proximity. The Internet
potentially reduces the importance of physical proximity in creating and maintaining
networks of strong social ties. " (Kraut et al., 1998, p. 6)

Introduction

This literature review is divided into four sections, progressing from a larger,
societal view to the smaller unit of higher education’s campus setting. However, for the
sake of clarity, reference to the primary topic of computer communication’s potential
impact on students is woven through each of the sections. The sections are: (a) human
social contact and relationship satiation; (b) effects of the Internet on social bonding; (c)
student social development within the higher education environment; and (d) electronic
communication and student social bonding. In the first section, I address the basic
human need for communication, the concept of communication as critical to
organizations, the human desire to maintain relationships once made, and the possibility
for “satiation” of number of relationships. These broad communication concepts
provide framework for the assertion that new technologies may alter communication

activities, the relevant culture, and thus the student experience.

12

Section 1: Human Social Contact and Need for Friendships

Humans have a basic need to belong — to connect to each other. The need to
belong is a basis for understanding the study of human interpersonal interaction
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Donne, 1975; Freud, 1930; Maslow,
1968). This need is expressed in the attachments people form to each other, the
relational stability they seek, and the emotional energy they spend on the well-being of
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497). Once basic survival needs are met (such as
food and safety), the need for love and a sense of belonging become dominant (Maslow,
1968). That connection is manifested in communication.

Communication is essential to individuals and is also essential to any
organization’s being, since it is “the social glue that ties members, subunits, and
organizations together” (Euske & Roberts, p. 42, as cited in Jablin, 1987).
Communication within an organization is determined in part by the structure of the
organization itself - how it is set up, and how communication within the structure is
encouraged. Communication within an organization is also dependent on the members
of its subsystems and on the ways subgroups relate to each other and to the larger
organization (Morgan, 1997). Weick (1969, in Jablin, 1987) argues that organizations
are dynamic and changing, and communication is the critical process that allows
continuous redefining of reality. When new technologies are introduced, the potential
exists to change significant elements of the organization itself (J ablin, 1987, p. 421).

Every society on earth exhibits forms of social bonding, which has historically

been identified as “face-to-face, personal interactions” (Mann, 1980). Once made,

13

individuals resist breaking relationship bonds; often they will go to great lengths to
maintain them, and to avoid ending them (Hazen & Shaver, 1994). Despite this, certain
points in individuals’ lives can force the closing of relationships. One such event is the
student transition from high school to college; another is the transition from college into
the world of work.

People need other people, but not necessarily large numbers of other people. In
fact, those who are satisfied with the set of relationship bonds they have will not likely
be interested in initiating additional relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Once
bonds are made and a level of commitment exists, people reach a point of satiation in
their relationship structure. They do not feel compelled to pursue replacement of one
social bond with another (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Even within college settings,
identified by Baumeister and Leary (1995) as “people-rich environments”, social lives
are restricted to some extent (p. 515).

The majority of an individual’s meaningful interactions occur within a range of
six people (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977). Further, this satiation-induced limit in the
number of meaningful relationships operates as an optimum group size, and allows a
balanced expending of emotional overhead (Audy, 1980, as cited in Baumeister, 1995).
Typically, when presented with a new environment, people develop new friendships
and eventually drop away from the older relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Whatever the number of friends one has, that significant group can become, or
remain, a primary reference point. People will tend to evaluate themselves in terms of
the group with which they are affiliated; that affiliate group will, to a great extent,

determine how people will respond to challenges and their environments (Baumeister &

l4

Leary, 1995). When students spend time with friends who are not focused on
educational endeavors, negative behaviors can result (Kuh et al., 1991). By extension,
the association and resulting negative behaviors can impact the academic success of
students. When pre-college or even college peers do not adapt to the college
environment, their influence can affect the social and academic integration of students
into the college community. In turn, this can lead to student dissatisfaction with the
collegiate environment, lack of satisfactory academic work, and eventual departure
from the college (T into, 1987).

If strong affiliations can be maintained using computer communication, friends
from high school social networks can remain part of day to day living, and an influential
part of one’s college life, through email, chat, and programs like Instant Messenger.
Since one’s affiliate group helps determine priorities and choices, the introduction of
technology and “anytime, anywhere” communication allows access to, and influence

from, pre-college acquaintances.

Section 2: Effects of the Internet on Social Bonding

The foregoing human communication concepts are essential in understanding
the potential impact of new communication technologies on the student social
experience. Technology is more than the hardware and software devices we use; it is “a
process among which relations between people are realized” (Bruce, 1993, p. 15).
Computer communication virtually permeates the civilized world, providing

opportunities for interaction, and removing most communication boundaries. Although

15

computing and computer communication have been available for many years, in the last
decade, computer communication has become an option for the society’s mainstream.

Even prior to the 19905, computer technology was bringing about “momentous”
social change (Ginzberg, 1982, p. 67). Caught up in our daily routines, we may not
recognize the incredible rate of change. “If the automobile and aerospace technology
had exploded at the same pace as computer and information technology,” says a
Microsoft representative, “a new car would cost about $2 and go 500 miles on a thimble
of gas. And you could buy a Boeing 747 for the cost of a pizza” (Hunderson, 2001, p.
1). Whether or not we recognize the dramatic rate of change, we are affected by it.
Computer technology is around us and between us — in our banking, purchasing,
educating — and always in our communicating.

Discussions of technology are often focused on what technology can do — but
often not on the social relations setting — essentially on what technology does do
(Bruce, 1993). Design of a technology is not simply a linear relationship between the
technological innovation and its function — but rather, part of a much larger process,
which creates and embodies relationships among individuals (Bruce, 1993).

The collective software and hardware that comprise the Internet provides a
technology innovation that increasingly reaches into our daily lives. There are now
over 55 million daily Internet users (CNN, 2000); but if the Internet is only 20%
invented, as Jake Winebaum, Internet pioneer asserts (in Hunderson, 2001), the next
several years will bring much more societal change. The Internet is purported to
increase the number of contacts individuals have, although an increase in quantity is not

necessarily synonymous with an increase in quality (Markoff, 2002).

16

Some scholars have argued that more social contact means healthier and happier
people, both mentally and physically (Cohen & Wills, 1985 as cited in Kraut, et al.,
1998; Gove & Geerken, 1977, as cited in Kraut, et al., 1998). But relationships
developed using computer communication appear to have different characteristics than
ones developed in face-to-face contact (Kraut, et al., 1998, p. 6). For example, new
relationships developed online may be characterized by weaker ties than relationships
developed face-to-face (Kraut, et al., 1998). Tapscott (1998) identifies this trend
humorously as he depicts a cartoon conversation between a father and computer-savvy,
early teenage son: “You dumped your cyber-girlfriend?” asks the father. “Yeah, she
was getting too serious,” replies the son. “She wanted to know my real name” (p. 55).

Bargh et al. (2002b) studied face-to-face and Internet communication between
individuals to determine which settings encouraged honest self-expression. Bargh et al.
argue that Internet communication allows individuals to share their “true selves” by
creating an environment that allows openness with less risk than face-to-face
communication. In turn, that openness creates opportunities for relationship formation.
He also determined that individuals tended to project onto the other a set of “idealized
qualities.” Much of the literature related to the effect of computer communication is
based on the intensity of relationships formed on the computer. Less prevalent is
discussion of the effect on the face—to-face community, and virtually absent is literature
on the formation of new communities, given computer communication with friends
from the former community.

Some scholars herald the Internet as a tool that can lessen isolation and promote

relationships (CNN, 2-7- 2002; McKenna et al. 2002; Pew Foundation, 2002); some are

more dubious that electronic relationships developed have depth (Gross et al., 2002);
others contend that Internet use may actually promote loneliness and unhappiness
(Hughes, 1999; Kraut et al., 1998; Nie & Erbring, 2000, as cited in Bargh). Tyler (2002)
asserts that “there are suggestions that the Internet may be a new way for people to do
old things" (p. 7). Katz and Aspden conducted a national survey (1997) comparing the
“social participation of Internet users with nonusers" and asserted that the "Internet is
creating a nation richer in friendships and social relationships" (in Kraut, et al., p. 86).
Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Keisler and Scherlis argue that the Internet is just another
medium and, like the television or telephone, it will simply substitute one
communication opportunity for another (as cited in Kraut et al., 1998). Bargh (2002a)
asserts that the particular aspects of Internet use, combined with “particular
characteristics and goals of the individuals, groups, and communities using them”
determine the effect on individuals (p. 1).

The many facets of electronic communication, and the many facets of human
use create complexity in assessing the impact of computer communication. Use of the
Internet for interpersonal communication “does not imply that . . . social interactions
and relationships on the Internet are the same as . . . traditional social interactions and
relationships” (Sproull & Keisler, 1991, as cited in Kraut, et al., 1998) or that“. . .
social uses of the Internet will have effects comparable to traditional social activity”
(Kraut et al., 1998, p. 5). The Pew Internet and American Life project study of the
Internet found that many people, particularly women, improve their family connections

and deepen relationships through email use (as cited in Lake, 2000).

18

Research on the operational differences between the effects of computer
communication relative to face—to-face communication is only beginning. Researchers
generally agree that the social impact of technology is determined by the set of
individual, group, and community conditions (Bargh, 2002a; Borgida et al., as cited in
Tyler). For example, individuals who are socially isolated experienced a positive effect
from increased online communication activities (Kraut et al., 1998). Other scholars have
researched relationship formation on the Internet (McKenna, Green & Gleason and
Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, as cited in Tyler, p. 197), the level of social connection
on the Internet (Spears, Postmes, Lea & Wolbert, 2002), and the complexity of the
subject (McKenna & Bargh, 2000).

The possibility that computer communication might significantly benefit some
groups of individuals, yet may be detrimental to relationships in other environments
underscores the need to resist a “one size fits all” assessment. In speaking of the work
of Thompson and Nadler (2002), Tyler (2002) encourages a more cautious response to
assertions that computer communication seems to be consistently beneficial: “It may be
the case that there are arenas - in particular, situations in which people are more task
oriented or interests are more in conflict - in which the less social nature of electronic
communication may introduce problems or undermine productive interaction" (2002, p.
200).

Wellman points to significant social scenarios formed through “glocalization” —
“the capacity of the Internet to expand users’ social worlds to faraway people and
simultaneously to bind them more deeply to the place where they live” (Horrigan, p. 3).

Despite his assertion that individuals are more deeply bound to their local

19

environments, Horrigan states that the “local connection is primarily that of

,9,

‘information utility (p. 6). In addition to analyzing the amount of communication, it
is important to address the bigger question of impact on individuals’ lives.

In a recent survey, 61% of adolescents stated that the Internet did not take much
time away from friendships; 10%, however, said it took a lot of time which they would
otherwise use to connect with friends. Of this 10%, some felt that they achieved
‘balance’ because they communicated with friends at a distance (Lenhart, et al., 2001, p.
16). While this was provided as proof that the Internet did not negatively affect local
relationships, it actually underscores the need for closer scrutiny of such relationship
issues.

Since 10% of Internet users in the Lenhart study recognized that computer
communication affected their face-to-face relationships, it is likely that many others
experienced some effect from it also, perhaps just to a lesser degree. The potential
impact of disengagement from the local community is an important consideration in
maintaining existing relationships, but may also become critical in new community
formation. "Generally, strong personal ties are supported by physical proximity. The
Internet potentially reduces the importance of physical proximity in creating and
maintaining networks of strong social ties" (Kraut et al., 1998, p. 6). The implications
for campus community development might be particularly impacted by such dynamics.

Kraut et al. (1998) argue that there may well be a decrease in social
involvement, given an increase in electronic communication, and site two possible
explanations for such a decrease. The first is a displacement of social activity: use of

the Internet replaces other activities in a manner similar to that of television’s

20

displacement of alternate activities. This may lead to “social withdrawal” and
decreased “psychological well being” (Kraut, et al., 1998, p. 16). A second explanation
for a decrease in social involvement is that stronger, face-to-face relationships might be
displaced by online relationships, which have relatively weaker ties. Although it is
possible to develop friendships through computer communication, Kraut et al. (1998)
argue that this is rare; when it does occur, it does not counter declines in communication
with family and friends. Kraut’s later study provided a more positive analysis of
Internet use than the earlier work (Tyler, 2002). Making sense of differences in
research results necessitates analysis of the particular environment and the local
communication structures from which they report. The balance of weak and strong
relationships within the online environment helps determine the impact of computer
communication on the individual user (Kraut, et al., 1998).

Strong ties are identified as those “associated with frequent contact, deep
feelings of affection and obligation, and application to a broad content domain. .
(Kraut, et al., 1998, p. 6). Weak ties are associated with relationships that are of less
consequence to the individual, and are less emotionally connected. Both types of ties
provide “social support” (Kraut et al., 1998). While weak on-line ties help individuals
access information beyond their immediate grasp (Constant, Sproull, & Keisler, 1996,
as cited in Kraut, et al., 1998), it is the strong social ties that help individuals deal with
stress and connect them emotionally (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Krackhardt, 1994, as cited
in Kraut et al., 1998). Instances of loneliness and social anxiety were linked with
individuals using electronic communication to maintain daily contact with individuals

who were only casual acquaintances (Gross, et al., 2002, p. 84).

21

The concepts of weak and strong ties are especially relevant in the context of
new community development. Some scholars argue that strong ties can be maintained
through computer communication, but can not be created in that environment (Kraut, et
al., 1998). Thus strong pre-college ties might be maintained, but development of new
ties with the new community, online or face-to-face, may be hindered. From the
perspective of intimacy theory (Reis & Shaver, 1988), Internet use could undermine or
foster well-being, depending on whether it supplants (as suggested by Kraut et al.,
1998) or expands opportunities for significant every—day contact with close peers (Gross
et al., 2002). An increase or decrease in social involvement, predicated by Internet use,
has potentially significant consequences for individuals, but could have enormous
consequences for the well-being of society (Kraut et al., 1998). The maintenance of
old ties has implications for new community development, from both the perspective of

individual well—being, and that of new community bonding.

Section 3: Student Social Integration and Higher Education

Higher education provides opportunities for academic and social development of
students. Student communication (in its many facets) is important to the well-being of
students, and thus to the institution. Because changes in one part of a system are felt
through the rest of the organization (Euske & Roberts, as cited in Jablin, 1987), changes
in the student experience — and student satisfaction with the academic institution and

with higher education - impact the well-being of the college.

22

Successful transitioning to the social and intellectual life of the campus is
critical for the well-being of the students. The extent to which students are personally
and socially connected to the life of the campus, connected with faculty, and involved in
campus activities is related to a breadth of positive personal and social benefits (Pace,
1974, as cited in Kuh, 1991). Tinto (1993) argues that the major cause of student
attrition from college is an inability to make the transition into the college’s social and
intellectual life. Making the transition requires purposeful effort; the amount of
physical and psychological energy students exert is an indication of the likelihood of a
successful transition to college (Astin, 1984).

Such connections between students, faculty, and institutions is a blending of
individual differences and generational similarities which drive expectation and
reaction.

Regardless of your generation or current phase of life, chances are you share the

commonly held view that your own peers’ recent lifestyle experiences are the

norm. In each case, you may believe that other generations could or should
think and behave like you at whatever phase of life you have recently
completed. (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 12, italics in original)
The Millennials, born between 1982 and the present, have had exposure to a different
world than have the two generations that currently serve as educators: the Boomers
(born 1943-1960) and the Generation Xers (born 1961-1981). Technologies of the
Boomers — television, 78s and “LP” records, 8mm film, vacuum tubes and mainframes,

evolved into technologies of the Xers — cable tv, cassettes, CDs, calculators and

23

transistors. In turn, the Millennial generation grew up in the midst of interactive TV,
DVDs, microchips and personal computers (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

As a group, Millennials have had more supervision, spent more time with their
parents, participated in family life, and received more discipline, although it was a
different type of discipline than previous generations experienced (Howe & Strauss,
2000). These students were born during a movement toward protection and support of
children, marking a decided shift in the attitude of society toward children (Howe &
Strauss, 1993). The first wave of Millennials is now entering college, bringing with
them a frame of reference of the world that differs from their generational predecessors.
“Assessing those frames of reference is necessary for educators to help students link
their experience with knowledge construction and self-authorship” (Baxter Magolda,
1999, p. 61).

Involvement in campus activities increases the quality of life on campus. In
turn, the undergraduate student experience is improved (Boyer, 1987). In fact, the
college environment itself may have a more significant role than the entering
characteristics of the student, in determining individual satisfaction with the college
experience (Astin, 1977). But while communication with all campus groups helps
connect students to their institution, the peer group “is the single most potent source of
influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years” (Astin, 1993, p.
398). Connection to and communication with student colleagues appears to be
particularly important to the student experience.

Understanding the ways students transition from a pre-college to a college social

and intellectual life is important in understanding the ways they connect to or

24

disconnect from their institutions. Tinto’s (1987) research on student transition is
particularly helpful in understanding student integration to the campus community.
Tinto references the work of Van Gennep, a Dutch anthropologist who studied life
passages between birth and death by studying groups. He identified transitional periods
to develop an understanding of social stability and development of membership (Tinto,
1993). Van Gennep’s theories, presented in his book, Rites of Passage, became a
starting point for Tinto’s depiction of the first year college student experience.

Tinto (1987) uses Van Gennep’s phases of separation, transition, and
incorporation to describe the adjustment of the first-year college student. The pre-entry
characteristics of the student, along with institutional characteristics, cast the
opportunities for and development of what Tinto calls academic and social integration.
Each stage, according to Van Gennep, comprises changes in patterns of interaction
between the individual, which Tinto casts as the student, and other members of society.
These other members of society comprise old and new acquaintances. His model of
institutional departure depicts the prean characteristics of students, the goals and
commitments they maintain, and the effect of the institutional experience on their
academic and social expectations. In turn, personal integration of the college
environment takes place, and with reformulated goals and commitments, students
decide whether to depart or persist at the institution.

In the first stage of Tinto’s (1993) adopted model, the new college student still
embodies the norms and values of the prior high school experience and their family
setting. The student is challenged by the values and norms of the new setting (the

campus community) and either holds the community at a distance or moves toward an

25

association with it. Association requires “letting go” of the previous community
affiliation, and moving toward integration with the new community. Thus the social
development of the student in the new environment, through some type of involvement
establishing connection, is important.

In the second stage, that of transition, the student reconciles the former and new
relationships (T into, 1993). Although the student has not fully disassociated from old
norms, neither have new norms been adopted. During the development of the first and
second of these three stages, the student is more likely to become dissatisfied with the
new setting and choose to depart. The third stage, incorporation, provides for personal
integration of the student with the new community. Through that integration, the student
becomes part of the culture and norms of the campus. Tinto’s adaptation of Van
Gennep’s model to depict stages of student transition to college life has been used to
develop an understanding of student persistence (Gatz & Hirt, 2000). Within that
model, the involvement and interaction of students with other students and faculty is
critical (Tinto, 1987, 1998).

Traditional-aged students are very involved with peers on campus. “Once a
person identifies himself with a group, that group becomes an anchor and a reference
point. The values and behaviors approved by the group provide a background for
developing individual attitudes and behaviors” (Chickering, 1974, p. 88). The choice of
peer group is critical to the integration process. Spending time with those who do not
value the educational process may have a negative influence relative to education. “The
peer group, rather than challenging old attitudes and behaviors, may allow a student to

rely on comfortable, perhaps anti-intellectual behavior patterns” (Kuh et al., 1991, p.

26

12). Tinto (1987) asserts that peer groups made up of pre-college acquaintances can
prove detrimental to successful academic and social integration; in turn, this can foster
student unhappiness, sub-par performance, and eventually departure from the college
(T into, 1987).

Integration of students into the community is a process, one that is necessary for
the successful transition of students to college. Light (2001) identifies “symptoms of
trouble” which are aside from issues of low grades: “a feeling of isolation from the rest
of the college community. . . [and an] unwillingness to seek help” (p. 35). Successfully
merging into the social life of the college builds campus community, but such merging
requires “sustained informal contact among members of the college community, contact
that involves students with both students and faculty” (Nagda, et al., 1998, p. 57).

As a group, traditional first-year college students may not be purposeful in
initiating social or academic development. “Frequently, students will spend as little time
as necessary to do the minimum requirement. This hit-and-run mentality makes it
difficult to connect on an affective level with faculty or peers” (Lowell & Persichitte, p.
3). From an institutional perspective this is significant, since it might cause students to
become dissatisfied with their college experiences; from the perspective of the
individual student, this transition is critical.

Prior to the existence of Internet communication and potential withdrawal into a
cyber world, students, for a variety of reasons, had trouble with the transition to college.
Students who are low interactors are less actively involved in constructing their own
educational opportunities (Wilson, ed., 1965, p. 157). Connecting to the new

community often takes purposeful prompting. People need to spend time together if

27

they wish to “develop the relationships and understandings needed to establish and
maintain a sense of community” (Kuh, 1991, p. 16).

Development of a new community requires time, consideration, and effort.
“Lack of integration, or isolation of the student within the institution, has been
identified as an important factor in contribution to student departure” (N agda, et al.,
1998, p. 57). Acceptance of a new environment, with the requisite melding and even
changing of previously held concepts and values, requires thought and reflection. But
such reflection is not a naturally-occurring experience for many students, especially for
traditional first and second-year students (Kuh, et al., 1994). It may be easier for
students to remain attached to their former community rather than to extend themselves
to form new relationships. Thus, it is questionable whether students would be
purposeful about setting aside old friendships and intentionally developing significant
bonds with the new community. Additionally, interacting with non-students tends to
reinforce a set of values that are not consistent with the college environment and
student—oriented goals (Astin, 1993). If students, new to the college community, retain
former (non-college) friends as a primary reference group, their effort to fit socially
within the college environment could be hampered.

College communities and cohort groups are maintained over a shorter time span
than most other communities (Tinto, 1987). Because of this, students may be more
affected by events that occur outside their academic community than more permanent
community members would be. “As a result, events which occur elsewhere in the
student’s life may play an important role in determining what transpires within the

college. The actions of one’s family, of members of one’s community . . . may play an

28

important part in the decisions of individuals to depart from the institution” (Tinto,
1987, p. 108). When community structure is still relatively weak, during new
community formation, “those conflicts may lead the person to withdraw entirely from
the college setting in order to conform to the expectations of the stronger external
communities or groups” (Tinto, 1987, p. 108). Thus relatively strong pre-college
relationships, maintained electronically (perhaps to the exclusion of the development of
new relationships) might pose significant “pull” for students.

If students attain a sufficient number of close friends, avoid breaking off
relationships, and do not, therefore, bond with the new community, the social
connection to the new (college) environment could be impacted. In addition, if the
student’s group affiliation is not academically focused, the transition to college may be
further affected. It has never been easier to maintain external relationships — to resist
breaking the circle of significant relationships -— than it is today. Computer
communication expands the opportunities for choice, but developing new relationships
still requires student initiative and interest. If students choose to retain old-community
relationships rather than forming relationships in the new community, they may not
bond with it. This could potentially lead to dissatisfaction with the college experience

and eventual withdrawal.

Section 4: Electronic Communication and the Student Social Experience

The advent of computer communication adds complexity and operational

change to the environment of higher education. Students expect to have access to

29

electronic communication. Email has become the societal communication device of
choice, rivaling telephone use and forcing computing infrastructure upgrades to meet
demand (Moneta, 1997). There is much to be welcomed in this venue. Technology
provides new communication mediums and also new opportunities to communicate, by
allowing ease of collaboration (Feldman, 2000-2001). New information and
communication technologies such as email modify “existing practice [and lead] to more
fundamental and social change, such as new organizations or changed social roles”
(Bruce, 1993, p. 28).

As documented earlier, the proliferation of technology may change the way
students relate to the off-campus environment, and potentially impacts the way students
relate to their internal, campus environments. Students used to “go away to college,”
but now email, chat rooms, listservs, and online-telephone programs such as Instant
Messenger provide constant communication opportunities, allowing students to stay in
touch with those off—campus in ways unimagined only a decade ago. Within any
community, the communication tools used by the participants determines the social
impact on the community; sometimes, the changes may alter social systems
dramatically (Bruce, 1993). Changes in the mode and frequency of student
communication with individuals off campus may introduce a change in the working of
the campus community.

One particular study of the use of email by students yielded several interesting
findings. Gatz and Hirt (2000) researched email use by first-year students at a large,
public research university, for the purpose of studying the students’ academic and social

integration. Through printouts of student incoming and outgoing email, they assessed

30

the amount and nature of student email communication, and found that students
continued extensive communication with their family and friends. In fact, the largest
single category of electronic communication they reported was with friends, and the
largest subcategory of that was that of high school friends.

The students in the Gatz and Hirt (2000) study did not, however, did not
significantly connect to faculty using email. This finding is consistent with research of
Lowell & Persichitte (2001) in which they reported that intention to communicate must
be mutual, and students often lack the initiative or sense of necessity for accomplishing
such contact. Tinto (1987) affirms that social integration is one of the major factors
influencing retention, while findings from Gatz and Hirt (2000) suggest students spend
time using email in ways that do not promote campus social integration and, moreover,
may use email to avoid direct communication with others. Astin (1984) asserts that
spending time and energy connecting to the campus is directly related to a successful
transition. If students are now remaining connected to high school friends and others
who are not involved in the life of the campus, higher education might experience
erosion of student satisfaction and an increase in attrition.

New environments, created by the application of technology, necessitate a
review of the models depicting the student first-year experience. Technology has
changed the nature of communication and communication patterns among students and
between students, faculty, and administrators (Gatz & Hirt, 2000), as well as ways in
which students spend their time. New relationship structures are different because of

the technology, and not simply extensions of preceding relationships (Bruce, 1993).

31

Summary

We are in the process of a paradigm shift in American higher education (Barr &
Tagg, 1995). Technology has become part of the expectation and experience of society
in general, and the current generation of college students in particular (Howe & Strauss,
2002). Technology enriches the classroom and provides new ways of accomplishing
tasks; it also increases communication opportunities significantly. We, in turn, need to
understand how students use computer communication, and how these new patterns
impact the student experience. For ethical, as well as financial reasons, we need to
better understand the student experience within the context of the twenty-first century
campus, which by definition includes an increasing technological component.

Understanding the change technology brings to our students’ social environment
is critical to the success of higher education initiatives. “Continuing research is needed
to further examine the functions and potential long-term effects of the many distinct and
rapidly evolving uses of the Internet . . . [with special consideration of] the social and
developmental context of adolescents’ daily lives” (Gross et al., 2002, p. 88). We must
respond to student needs within our institutions to enhance their campus experiences
and encourage their success. We also need to assure that our own institutions remain
stable in the next decades, with sufficient enrollment to be viable as educational entities.

The campus cultural and communication environment has been recognized as a
key component of the student experience. Technology has fueled significant change in
the functioning of that environment. Thus, it is imperative that we understand how

students interpret, use, and are affected by the cultural changes technology allows and

32

which we — individually and collectively — develop. For example, how do students
describe their use of computer communication? Do they feel that they stay in touch
with pre-college friends? Do they feel any conflict in relating to that group of friends
compared to their college acquaintances? Has computer communication affected the
extent to which they join in college activities? Do they feel well-supported by peers in
their college participation? Morgan (1997) argues that culture is difficult to understand
when viewed from a distance. Therefore, in order to better understand the evolving
student culture, it is necessary to look at student uses of computer communication and
its effect on the student experience.

College faculty and administrators want students to accomplish the transition to
college successfully and integrate with the campus community. Studies on various
social groups indicate that computer communication might negatively affect some
groups, and positively affect others. Tierney (1988) argues that "a comprehensive study
of organizational culture in academic settings will demand increased awareness of
determinants such as individual and organizational use of time, space, and
communication” (as cited in Peterson, 1991, p. 136). Given the importance of
community development at residential colleges, we are particularly in need of an
understanding of the impact of computer mediate communication on college students.
Our models for understanding the student experience needs to be examined and perhaps

re-developed in light of changes brought about by technology.

33

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Overview

This study examines the experiences of first-year college students using
computer communication. Discussions were initiated with sophomores, reflecting on
the first-year of college, because it was anticipated that the account of personal and
anecdotal experiences shared would be more comprehensive than if students were
currently experiencing the initial (and often confusing) first few weeks of college
attendance.

Data collection involved a qualitatively-based methodology employing focus
group discussion. This type of research was particularly appropriate for a study of this
nature because it allowed an exploration of the experiences and opinions of students,
and allows the development of issues, with follow-up of seemingly pertinent threads
(Krueger, 1994). As administrators and faculty develop environments for students that
meet the fullness of their academic and social needs, development of an understanding

of the current thinking and experience of students is critical.

Research Question

The purpose of was to develop an understanding of the experiences of first-year

college students using computer communication. The focus group research allowed

34

development of a basic understanding of the experiences of students. For example: how
much electronic contact (email, Instant Messenger, chat groups) do first-year students
have with pre.college friends and family? Does this contact affect their student-student
relationship development on campus or their participation in campus-based activities?
Through discussion, insight into the student experience developed. The intentional
selection of students who just completed their first year in residence at the college, and
who use the computer for communication purposes helped assure that participants in
this study were among those most likely to experience social consequences of electronic
communication. Additionally, segregation of the initial four focus groups by male and
female helped determine differences in use and experience between these groups. The
final (co-ed) focus group addressed “big issues” or themes that arose in the previous
four single-sex focus groups provided an opportunity for exploration and development
of understanding of research findings. Members of the final group were comprised of
student volunteers from the first four groups. In addition, students were given a brief

questionnaire, which I analyzed once the focus group discussion was complete

(Appendix B).

Research Site and Participants

This research was conducted at a small, residential college with a low student-

faculty ratio and a reputation for significant student-faculty and student-student

communication. Within this environment, changes in such relationship structures may

stand out more than in a large, less personal campus environment.

35

Alpha College is a small, private, residential liberal arts college in a semi-rural
area in the mid-west. It is located within an hour’s drive of several major cities. The
institution is a moderately selective (average entering student ACT score of 25.5),
Carnegie I Liberal Arts institution, with a four-year liberal arts and sciences curriculum.
The institution is known for its opportunities for “one-to-one” student-faculty research,
travel, internships, international study, and particularly for a friendly environment with
opportunities for student participation in curricular and extracurricular activities. The
average class size of 19 and the student-faculty ratio of 13.521 contribute to an
atmosphere in which communication and personal relationships are valued.

Participants in the study were first-term college sophomores, who spent their
first year at Alpha College. This group had the benefit of the full first-year student
experience, which was still fresh in their minds since they completed it only a few
months prior to the study. These students could report on “what works” and “what does
not wor ” in their experience of joining the campus community.

Phase One consisted of four focus groups of five to seven participants each.
Two of these groups were all-male and two groups were all-female. Segmentation of
this nature was chosen since “what is crucial. . . is whether there are gender differences
in how people experience or respond to the specific topic of the research” (Morgan,
1998, p. 61). Previous research (Al-Motrif, 2000; Lenhart, 2001) reports that males and
females use the computer differently. The structure of all—male and all-female focus
groups allowed for the discovery of trends that did or did not support gender-based uses
of computer communication. Triangulation of the data occurred by comparing the data

from the two female focus groups with the two male focus groups. Krueger (1994)

36

describes theoretical saturation, in which the researcher continues data collection (in
this case, holding focus groups) until no new information is provided. While theoretical
saturation may be reached with three groups, the division of male and female groups
necessitated an even number, thus four initial groups were conducted.

Phase Two of the focus group study consisted of a big issues session with
participants from the previous focus groups invited (Krueger, 1994). In this session, the
group consisted of eight males and females. General issues from the previous focus
group sessions were presented as themes to students and discussion ensued. A separate
set of survey questions, identifying themes from the first four sessions, was distributed

to participants (see Appendix B).

Timeframe

Michigan State University’s University Committee Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) was obtained. Additionally, the provost and the president of Alpha College
received a copy of the research proposal. Some costs were absorbed by Alpha College,
since I am employed at the institution. Alpha College provided a room for each of the
focus groups, and provided tape recording equipment. Telephone calls were made at no

additional cost through the campus system.

37

Procedures and Data Collection

A list of first-term sophomore names was compiled and checked through the
Registrar’s Office to ensure that the students resided on the Alpha College campus
during the 2001-2002 academic year. A random selection method of drawing names
from the full set was employed, resulting in a pool of forty-four males and forty
females. Letters explaining the research were sent to students whose names were drawn
(see Appendix A).

The week after the initial letter was mailed to those eligible, I phoned students to
determine if they were willing to participate and to set up meeting times (see phone
script, Appendix A). I reiterated the voluntary nature of the study, and the relevance of
the study for the college students. As noted, students eligible to participate were first
term sophomores who spent the prior academic year in residence at Alpha College.
Through screening of this initial group, during the preliminary phone call to students, a
subset was determined, consisting of students who regularly used computer
communication to stay in touch with friends during their freshman year. Eligible
students were assigned to male or female focus groups, as described below. A pool of
students was developed so students who dropped away prior to the focus group
meetings were replaced to keep the focus group as fully populated as possible.

As the researcher, I retained all responsibility for the planning and conducting
the focus group study. One male and one female assistant moderator helped with the
focus group sessions. These individuals were both seniors at Alpha College, and had

been students at this institution since their first year of college. I met with both of these

38

individuals prior to the first focus group session, presented the plan for the focus
groups, and then discussed the plan with them. The male assistant moderator met with
the two male focus groups sessions, and the female assistant moderator met with the
two female sessions.

Following each session, the assistant moderator and I held a debriefing session.
Both assistant moderators met with the final session, and participated in a debriefing
session at its conclusion. Several days after the final session, the two assistant
moderators and I met for a two-hour review of the entire set of focus group discussions,
in which we identified themes, similarities, and differences in the sessions. This helped
ensure accuracy of my interpretation of the discussions and helped me understand these
in the context of the student experience (Creswell, 1994). Additionally, a written copy
of the audio-taped text, with a breakdown of the discussion by themes, was provided to
each assistant moderator for feedback. In this way, the assistant moderators were
involved in each phase of the research and the distance between the research
participants and I was lessened (Guba & Lincoln, 1988, in Creswell, 1994). Since the
assistant moderators were students from the same institution, they participated within
the student culture in ways that were similar to the research participants. As seniors, the
relative maturity of the assistant moderators helped bridge the years between the
research participants and me.

I also sought the assistance of a peer reviewer who read the entire document and
provided feedback. We had three subsequent discussions of the themes present,

approaches to grouping those themes, and the meaning of various segments of the

39

student discussion. Those discussions both pointed out ideas for exploration and helped

me identify gaps in my understanding of the student experience.

The Focus Group Sessions

Format for the focus group sessions was loosely structured, with the goal of
getting the participants talking about the topics relevant to the research (Morgan, 1998).
Questions were provided to the students in writing to guide the discussion (see
Appendix B), and I used them as a general guideline rather than strict discussion lines.
This open-ended nature of the questioning allowed me to acquire additional relevant
information even if it had not been considered previously.

A memo was sent to students on the initial contact list to inform students of the
focus group study (see Appendix A). A week later, those students were contacted by
phone (see Appendix A) to solicit participation. Those willing to participate were
assigned to a focus group based on their scheduling needs and preferences. I sent a note
of participation confirmation to students a week before the scheduled focus group
meeting (Appendix A), placed a reminder phone call to the student approximately 24
hours prior to the meeting date (Appendix A).

Each discussion was held for a minimum of one hour and a maximum of two
hours. If some members of the discussion group left, I allowed conversation to continue
with those remaining. Sessions were audio tape-recorded to assist in ascertaining
themes and discussion threads. Both the assistant moderator and I took notes during

each focus group. A flip chart helped capture threads of the group’s discussion.

40

Framing questions for each focus group were the same, allowing some consistency of
conversation across focus groups.

Following each focus group session, the assistant moderator and I held an audio-
taped debriefing session. During this session, we reviewed notes, identified dominant
themes, and noted interesting comments and quotes. A basic outline of the session was
developed to capture dominant themes, which were addressed in the final big issues
focus group. Triangulation of focus group data was accomplished by comparing results
of the focus groups for common themes and consistency (Morgan, 1998). Additionally,
the debriefing sessions served to help with data triangulation.

Sessions were planned around the dinner hour during the week. Pizza, soda, and
a light dessert were provided, to entice students to attend by offering them “something
different” than their standard meal options. The room selected was relatively small, but
one that was familiar to students. The intent was to help participants feel comfortable
with the focus group environment. Students were not paid for their participation, with
the exception of the meal and a token gift of a five-dollar coupon for a “Smoothie”
drink from the campus food service. The sessions were described to participants as an
attempt to better understand the student experience. In turn, the students were told that
the outcome of the conversations might help the institution enhance environmental
conditions and improve student satisfaction. In pilot discussions with non-participants,
students emphasized that latter point was meaningful. They want to have their voices
heard and their experiences understood.

Each session began with a distribution of forms and pencils to participants (see

Appendix A). The Informed Consent document included a “sign off” area in which

41

students indicated their permission to be part of the study. I reviewed the consent forms
prior to the beginning of the session and made sure all students had signed the form.
Since all students signed the form, there was no need to excuse any student from the
group.

A brief survey form was distributed to students (see Appendix A), and they were
given about ten minutes to complete it. I then presented a brief overview of the area of
research, and facilitated the discussion. The topic of computer communication
appeared not to have intensely emotional discussion attached to it; however, I watched
for over-disclosure of participants, and steered the conversation carefully back so that a

more general discussion could occur (Morgan, 1998a).

Final “Big Issues” Focus Group Session

Main points from the initial four focus groups were pulled together for the
“super focus group” session. This group was comprised of volunteers from the first
focus group sessions and used the “big ideas” that came out of the previous discussions.
This final focus group session was held two weeks after the initial four sessions.
Procedures for the final focus group were the same as those of the initial four. Meeting
times, process, and analysis of data were consistently developed and refined. The
elements of the final report were determined from the analysis of the focus group and
super focus group meetings. As the entire set of data was reviewed, I considered topics
that were known prior to the study and were confirmed or challenged within the focus

groups; themes that seemed logical but were confirmed or challenged during the focus

42

groups; and themes that emerged through the focus group and were not previously

apparent (Krueger, 1994).

Pilot testing

A trial run for the focus groups took place late in the summer of 2002, with a
small group of students on campus. These were upper-class students who were
available on campus during the summer of 2002 and were not part of the later study.
During this pilot session, I tried out the processes, procedures, and documents and made

appropriate adjustments.

Compilation of data

Following each focus group session, I prepared a transcript of discussion
including: description of the setting, observations regarding the manner and appearance
of participants as they enter and join the conversations in the room; conversations topics
between participants, reactions to framing questions, and discussions. The brief survey
forms were collected, and reviewed following the focus group conversations. Since the
consent form were separate from the survey, and were collected prior the beginning of
discussions, only students who consented to be part of the study were present to fill out
the survey.

As the data were analyzed, categories of conversation were determined and

entered into a computer database, with some attempt to identify linkages students were

43

noting between discussion items. For this latter process, students were entered by
generic code name; real names were not used. Once the research was complete, I erased
the audio tapes made during the focus group sessions.

Following data compilation, I provided the assistant moderators a copy of the
categories of conversation with supporting text to elicit any concerns and comments. I
engaged in discussion with two separate peer reviewers regarding the comments and
findings. 1 then provided one of the peer reviewers a copy of the findings and
implications chapters. That individual checked for consistency and logic in the

analysis.

Display and Analysis of the Data

Session notes were typed up as quickly as possible following the completion of
each session. These notes assisted in the development of the final focus group and were
also completed quickly to maximize memory of the particulars of each session.
Following guidelines of Krueger (1998), I attempted to develop analysis that . .
enlighten[s]. . .entertain[s] alternative explanation . . . [allows] feedback . . . is a
process of comparison . . . [and is] situationally responsive” (p. 12-18).

As the data developed, and quotes and themes identified, 1 addressed description
of the setting to uncover likely meaning being conveyed by student participants.
Particularly noteworthy were the frequency of themes students identified, how
extensively themes were identified by participants, and how intense opinion was on

each theme (Krueger, 1998).

Limitations of the Study

Because of the relatively small number of students interviewed (four focus
groups of approximately six students, plus a fifth focus group of seven students who
had participated previously and volunteered for the final session), the study was
exploratory rather than comprehensive. The ground work should prove beneficial,
however, in setting up a later, more comprehensive study. An additional and significant
limitation in the broad applicability of this study to higher education arises from its
being conducted on a single college campus. Due to differences of institutional type
(research university, comprehensive university, community college, small residential
college), the findings at this particular institution may be helpful in understanding the
student experience at the small residential college, but not necessarily at other types of
institutions.

An additional limitation is that the information provided by students can not, for
the most part, be verified. Individual impressions are highly subjective; even variables
such as level of parental degree attainment (to ascertain first-generation college
students) may be incorrectly presented by the student (Grandy, 1998, in Government
Publication, 1999). While each focus group used a similar framework for response,
individual focus group dynamics might influence individual responses. Individual
interpretation might vary and thus allow unwarranted similarities or differences of
response.

Another limitation is the small number of student subgroups and thus, the

opportunity to differentiate effects of computer communication among those groups.

45

Examples might include first-generation college students and students of minority
populations. Given the small number of students interviewed and the even smaller
number within particular classifications, the group size might not be sufficient to allow
theory development of the effect of computer communication on specific subgroups.
However, this opportunity to hear student voices and develop an understanding of their

experiences of these students hopefully provides groundwork for future studies.

46

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS: THE EXPERIENCE OF COMPUTER COMMUNICATION

“You notice everybody, as you walk down the hall and they have their back to the door,
you know, and they ’re always on the Internet all day long” (M I - male student
describing walking down a residence hall).

“...and you can hear beeping as you go down the hall, and someone getting Instant
Messages ” (M1).

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the
experiences of first-year college students using computer communication. I hoped to
develop an enhanced understanding of the ways in which students use computer
communication to maintain relationships on and off the college campus. In particular, I
asked whether computer communication was a factor in developing campus
relationships, and whether computer communication (and maintenance of pre-college
friendships) pulled students away from relationship development on campus.

As I began to analyze my focus group data, two distinct patterns emerged. The
first was the experience of using computer communication that students could easily
describe. It folds around their lives, their reference points, and their understanding of
how the world operates. I group the themes in this chapter from this first pattern titled

“the Experiences of Computer Communication.”

47

The second distinct pattern that emerged was the efiect of computer
communication on students’ lives. I address these effects in Chapter V, titled “The
Efi’ects of Computer Communication.” To some extent, students were conscious of the
effects of computer communication, specifically, the effects of concurrent social
networks in their lives. Students were also affected by computer communication in
ways they did not immediately recognize. The topics in Chapters IV and V overlap:
some of the effects of computer communication are visible through the experiences of
computer communication. For example, part of the student experience is the connection
to their friends and the opportunity to keep them present in their lives. One of the
effects of this presence is the sense of being sustained.

As students began discussing their first year, they described some of the typical
experiences of incoming college students, such as freedom to come and go as they
wished, determining when to do homework, and feeling quite “on their own.” Students
also related experiencing the freedom of a direct connection to the Internet. Most of
these students were able to connect to the Intemet from their homes during their high
school years, but that connection was typically through a modem. Since such
connection ties up the home phone line, the time students spent online in their high
school years was often relatively brief. In describing the difference between high
school and college Internet use, and implicitly the difference between modem access
and a hi gh-speed Internet connection, one student summed it up by stating: “I used it
[the Internet] in high school but I was under dial-up” (Male, session 1 — M1). I thought
it was interesting and accurate that the young man described being “under” the dial-up

connection. The limitations of dial-up access felt restraining to these students.

48

Almost all of the students in the focus group sessions had access to a computer,
with a high-speed Internet connection, in the college residence halls. Because of that
direct connection, these students were able to be online continuously while going about
their daily activities. As one of the young men stated, “Since it’s there, they’ll just, you
know, keep it signed on just because they can” (M1). According to the students in the
focus group sessions, that opportunity meant that they significantly increased the
amount of time they spent accessing the Internet in college, as compared to high school.

While the process of adjusting to residential college life is typical for new
college students, the coupling of that adjustment with the freedom of a direct connection
to the Internet may remain fairly unique to students attending college at the beginning
of the 21”t century. A decade ago, students did not have widespread access to the
Internet at all; students in the future will be more likely to have hi gh-speed Internet
connection prior to attending college. Younger brothers and sisters of students in the
focus group sessions were accessing the Internet from the home computer more than
these current college students had while in high school. One student described how his
fifteen-year old brother was saving money for a new computer rather than a new car.
Many of the families had recently acquired cable connection to the Internet, and the
speed and ease of use made it more accessible. For most of the students in this study,
the experience of leaving home to attend college and the experience of direct
connection to the Internet occurred simultaneously.

The focus group sessions often started out slowly as students arrived and helped
themselves to pizza and soda. Typically, the students did not know each other and

engaged in somewhat stilted conversation while they ate. The male assistant moderator

49

in the two male groups and the female assistant moderator in the two female groups
involved the students in conversation, asking about band, choir, classes, and other
common experiences. I also shared in some of these conversations, and asked students
a few questions about how the term was going for them. A few of the students knew
each other, and those students seemed to engage in the process more quickly than other
participants. In each focus group session, it appeared that the process of eating first,
and then moving into the discussion helped participants relax and converse with other
group members.

Conversation in the focus groups was open, friendly, and at times very
animated. The students were interested in discussing computer communication,
particularly the importance they placed on access to such communication, and the
subsequent problems they had experienced with it. I was first impressed with the sheer
volume of communication students were describing. I carried with me an assumption
that these students used the computer in a manner similar to my use, and that to them
the computer was an essential tool. . .but just a tool. I heard these students talk about
growing up with computers, depending on them for so many daily activities, and
absolutely relying on them to facilitate communication with their social networks. To
them, the computer and the communication it enabled was a way of talking, and a part
of themselves. I heard a breadth of use that surprised me, and a dependence on it for
social purposes that I did not feel myself. The conversations were lively and enjoyable,
and although I felt that I learned from them initially, it was in the transcript typing and
review that I really began to understand what I was hearing. The following themes

include my initial impression of the volume and breadth of use, but also go beyond that.

50

I feel that in conducting these focus group sessions, I actually had the opportunity to
step into these students’ lives for a time and see a world that is different from mine,
which was a fascinating experience.

Four significant themes emerged regarding the student experience of using
computer communication, and are described in more detail in the following pages. The
first of these themes was identification of the computer as an absolute necessity in these
students’ lives. Online communication connected them to their social networks, their
family networks, and to a myriad of Intemet-provided resources. As such, it was very
important to them. In discussion, they emphasized their need and their absolute right to
unfettered use of computer communication.

Students also turned to the Internet to transact business, seek information, and
find entertainment. They used the Internet to accomplish academic work, preferring the
Internet over conventional information sources. This generation of students has grown
up amid widespread use of computers. The set of opportunities such technology
provided was accepted as the norm. These students were knowledgeable about the
opportunities afforded by Internet technology, and made use of those opportunities.

The second theme was the way in which students typically arrived on campus
with fully developed friendship networks comprised of their pre-college friends and
family. These networks consisted of significant face-to-face relationships, which were
easily adapted to online contact. Once students arrived on campus, they also had the
opportunity to make and connect with new friends, and these formed another social

network. Generally speaking, students turned to both their old and new friends to help

51

them cope with issues and problems in their lives. However, some students relied
almost exclusively to their high school social network.

Most students in this study described frequent contact with their parents, and
even stayed in touch electronically with aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. This
contact was typically conducted through the Internet, and was most often by email.
Students talked about the ways in which parents helped them cope with problems and
adjust to college. When discussing parents’ use of the Internet, the tables turned and
students felt they had the upper hand. Students talked about how some parents felt
overwhelmed by programs like Instant Messenger, and how they assisted their parents
in coping with computer communication that seemed to belong to the younger
generation.

The third theme involves differences exhibited by men and women in their
Internet use. Both men and women stated that they used the same basic set of Internet
tools in similar ways, but in discussion they proceeded to talk about differences. Some
students felt that there were differences in the topics and type of communication that
men and women shared: women described chatting online more, and felt that men
sought specific information online. Men described enjoying computer games more
often than women. When I asked the men how much they used the computer to play
games, they were adamant that computer games were for middle school and high school
students. Yet, in later conversation they described playing online games with friends a
few rooms away and friends hundreds of miles away. Women seemed to seek a
connection with parents more than men, or at least were more willing to state that they

sought such connection.

52

The fourth theme describing the experience of students using computer
communication was the ways in which students connected with “the College” and with
faculty. Students felt that Alpha College was technologically behind other institutions in
the use of computer technology. The technology lacking was identified in terms of
Internet course tools such as Blackboard, technology in the classroom, and student-
faculty contact by computer. Although students felt that the college and faculty did not
provide sufficient academic computing resources, and that providing such resources
would improve the academic experience, they did not feel dissatisfied with the

academic experience as currently structured.

Campus Internet Problems

“...they like gave it to you and you take it and you ’re like ‘yeah, this is awesome, keep
in touch with everyone — it ’3 GREAT’ and then you can ’t use it. ” (Male, Session 2 -
M2).

During the fall term of this study, the campus experienced dramatic problems
with the college’s Internet connection. According to the Director of Information
Technology at Alpha College, these problems were due to: 1) a rapid growth in student
use of applications that require large amounts of bandwidth such as peer-to-peer music
and video applications; 2) an increase in the number of users; and 3) an increase in
computer virus attacks on the campus system. In a memo to the campus community,
the Director of Information Technology stated, . .The biggest part of our current

problem is the direct result of peer-to-peer file serving applications that allow for the

53

sharing of MP3 music files, jpeg and avi videos, and similar very large files”
(September 27, 2002). Students acquired these from off-campus servers and download
them to their personal computers in their rooms.

Bandwidth can be envisioned as a sort of pipeline that connects campus
computers to each other and to the outside world. Through the Internet, students could
access music and video files and draw them down onto their personal computers. While
many colleges actually blocked the downloading of music and video files, Alpha
College staff actively discouraged such activity, but did not block it. In a memo to
students, the Director of Information Technology stated, “Students can do a great deal
to help by voluntarily deactivating peer-to-peer serving on their machines, and by
encouraging others on campus to do the same” (September 16, 2002). Applications that
used large amounts of bandwidth — by virtue of sheer numbers of users or by movement
of very big files — negatively affected system performance. These very large music and
video files created significant problems for college network resources, and thus for
performance of the entire college network.

Although the downloading of these large files was not the only contributor to the
network problem, it put pressure on college bandwidth resources and thus helped create
a situation of increasing instability of the college Internet connection. In the fall of
2002, with more students bringing their own computers to campus than ever, the
pressure on the network became excessive and serious performance problems resulted.
As evidence of increased demand on the campus computer system, the Information
Technology Director stated that 30,000 email messages were delivered during the first

week of class in the fall of 2001 and that during that same week in 2002, the delivery

54

level increased to approximately 200,000 email messages (Reed, personal
communication, September 16, 2002). During peak periods of such activity, Internet
communication would slow down significantly and the Alpha College network became
unstable, which in turn meant that the Internet connection to the outside world failed.
Sometimes computer users could re-initiate network use immediately, while at other
times they were unable to resume use for a significant period of time.

As a result of the timing of the network problems and the resulting network
instability, this study benefited because students had experienced ongoing difficulties in
connecting to the Internet, and had thus considered the importance of the Internet in
their daily lives. Prior to, and during, the focus group sessions, the Internet connection
was a focal point of conversation, not only between students, but also between students
and faculty members, students and staff, and between faculty and staff members.
Essentially, during the fall term of 2002, members of the entire campus were actively
discussing their serious concerns with the state of the network, and network instability
was the issue students most frequently took to the provost for resolution. Student

opinions were strong and consistent and are reflected in many focus group comments.

Theme One: Computer as Natural Extension of Self

“We are so connected - like all the time, we ’re connected. ” (F2)
“We ’re so dependent on it. " (F2)
“Yeah. " (F2)

Computers have been present in these students’ lives since birth. One male

described the computer as a “natural extension” of himself (M1). The need and desire

55

 

students felt to have access to computer communication — and the sense of near panic in
some cases when such communication was not available — seemed to underscore this
young man’s comment. This comment highlighted for me a primary difference between
these students and college faculty and administration, for whom the computer was a
necessary and appreciated tool —- but probably not typically considered a “natural

extension” of themselves.

IM, Email, and the Opportunity for Constant Communication

Throughout the focus group sessions, students expressed their need for access to
computer communication and the College’s obligation to provide such access. The
network instability caused problems with the campus email system, but its effect was
felt most keenly when students used “IM” — America Online’s Instant Messenger
service. IM provides an opportunity for a conversation between two people, with
several individuals concurrently, or even for multiple conversations with several
individuals concurrently. Whether or not a student was directly participating in a
discussion, the direct connection to the Internet left an open line to receive messages.
Being “on” (a word often used by students to describe their presence or visibility on the
Internet) seemed to allow the presence of others — or the anticipation of an unplanned
conversation. Students preferred using IM to using email and phone communication.

Students cited computer communication as a critical need upon entry to the
campus, noting that improving the speed and accessibility of computer communication

could make the first few days on campus much more comfortable. They identified this

56

as an area in which the institution could improve to make the transition to college
easier. Particularly, students noted how scary it was as they arrived on campus on the
first day of college. Students talked about looking around and not knowing anyone,
including their new roommates. Computer connections were not available initially, as it
took several days for the Information Technology staff to accomplish the steps needed
to get students registered in the system and have computer accounts available for them.
In addition to this, long—distance phone service activation required several steps and the
assignment of a code number. Thus, long-distance phone access was not available for
students during the first few days on campus, either. The result was that students felt
cut off from their family and friends, perhaps more keenly than their counterparts of ten
years ago, because these students were used to participating in computer conversation
regularly, before arriving on campus. Students felt that initial computer connection was
critical in making the first few days of college less traumatic, because they would be
able to stay connected to home while adjusting to the new college environment.

Students were passionate about the need for access to Instant Messenger and
email. To sign up for AOL’s IM service, individuals simply filled out a form online and
selected a screen name. Individual identities were typically not obvious from the names
themselves. Students could have as many screen names as they wished, and they
described using particular screen names in some conversations, and other screen names
in different types of conversation. Screen names were single words like “vanillagirl,”
“paintmaker,” or “biologyner .”

When individuals want to add someone to the list of contacts, they simply add

them to their online ‘buddy list.’ When they want to discontinue further 1M

57

correspondence from someone, they just remove them from their buddy list. In this way,
students have complete control over who is conversing with them. To participate in a
discussion, even anonymously, students simply join a chat room conversation. To
initiate a conversation with a specific group of people, the originator clicks on a button
on the screen intended for group contact, then types in the screen names of the
individuals to participate in the group. As conversation begins, the message text
appears on each recipient’s screen simultaneously, and as each ‘converses’ with the
group in this way, the posting is visible to all.

Students shared their screen names with others so they could be identified in
conversations. It was not necessary to share the real identity of the individual even
when the screen name was shared, and it was not uncommon for students to converse
through TM without identifying themselves. Thus, other members of the discussion
group knew as much about the individual as he or she wished. The male assistant
moderator told me after the session that he had a couple of screen names that he used
regularly for conversation; friends associated those screen names with him.
Additionally, he had a couple of screen names that no one else knew about; it allowed
him to participate in conversations anonymously. Individuals can join chat room
discussions without being invited. Thus, they may meet others online and engage in
later discussions without sharing their real identities. Several students described the
fact that they knew screen names for their friends, but could not remember those
friends’ phone numbers.

Students described a feeling of companionship in having the computer available

to receive IM and email messages. Individuals off campus and on campus, with whom

58

they communicated seemed to be, in some sense, constantly present. Even when
students left their rooms, they continued to communicate by posting descriptive “away
messages” to share their current locations with others. “A lot of people don’t even shut
it off — they just put an away message up” (M2), stated a male student in one of the
groups. As that student spoke, others around the table nodded, indicating that this was
common practice. Messages sent while individuals were away from the computer were
stored for later viewing, either at the computer in their room, or at any other computer
the students accessed. Unlike phone messages, students accessed email and 1M
messages in college computer labs, at job sites, and even from home. They could thus
quickly respond to any message that arrived while they were away. That ability to
move between locations and maintain access to computer networks of friends seemed to
make students feel comforted and comfortable. Students felt as though they were able
to have their friends around them at all times, although often those friends were not
physically present on campus.

Students described how IM allowed them to maintain several conversations
concurrently. When I asked how many conversations students would hold at a time, an
entire group chimed, “LOTS! A LOT” (F2). One student added, “like 7-8
[conversations] going on at once” (F2). Another noted, “I can be playing a game and
get a really high score and be talking to like 7-8 people at the same time” (F2).
Enthusiasm rose during this part of the conversation, and voices became louder.
Students liked knowing that they were talking to many individuals at once, and found

the concurrent, fast-paced conversation with several others exhilarating.

59

IM was seen as an opportunity to communicate more quickly than email. A
young man in one of the focus group sessions stated, “. . .Email is to Instant Messenger
as a letter is to the phone” (Ml). This analogy captures quite well the ways students
viewed IM and email use. To send an email message, several steps needed to be taken,
including identifying the recipient, the subject, any additional individuals to whom
copies should be sent, presenting the text of the message, and then pressing the ‘send’
button. In contrast, 1M allowed a much faster interchange; there were fewer steps and
thus, it felt less formal. Excitedly describing the feeling of getting caught up in the IM
process, one female stated, “. . .it goes faster and like you get blurbs of conversations”
(F2)

While IM was used to talk with several individuals concurrently, it was also
handy in sending a brief message to just one person. Students generally preferred
sending an IM message rather than phoning because individuals were accessible at
almost any location. As one student suggested, “If I want to get a hold of somebody on
campus instead of picking up the phone, I’ll just IM them. I can do that if I’m at
work. . .” (F1). Unlike the phone, computer access allowed individuals to pick up
messages easily and inexpensively, whether they were across the campus or across the
country. This allowed easy responses to social invitations, information, and also meant
students were available for conversation as soon as they were near a computer.

Besides the conversational uses of IM, students related using it as a homework
tool. One participant shared, “. ..I had a friend I was like just chatting with them and
they were having problems with a paper and I was like ‘copy and paste it and I’ll see if I

can help you.’ I offered my services. I didn’t do too well...” (M1). He sounded almost

60

gallant as he talked about offering his “services” and as he shook his head, I realized
that he discovered his own limitations for academic assistance despite the use of
technology. This comment reminded me that these students are young, willing to try
computer communication to address the problem at hand, but are still learning how to
be successful in academic and other ways. Other students spoke of using IM as an
opportunity to get help on a specific point when working on homework, and I got the
sense that it was common to use IM for this purpose.

One student, Sandra (not her real name) had experienced a computer crash and
was without a computer in her room for a couple of weeks. Sandra’s roommate, also a
focus group member, described what it was like for Sandra when the computer quit
working, stating, “when Sandra’s computer broke down, she’s like ‘I don’t know what
to do’” (F2). Sandra spends time at her boyfriend’s room to use his computer since hers

6‘

is broken. Her roommate continues: . .. She’s always on it whenever she’s in our
room and it’s so weird now that it’s gone. She’s just like ‘I don’t know what to do!’
She’s like ‘I walk in every day and I just don’t know what to do!”’ (F2). Sandra
responds:
Because that’s how I connect to people like my mom — like teachers, friends.
That’s like my way of connecting to people because I don’t really like using the
phone. . .I WILL find some way to use the computer because that’s how I
connect. . .what did they use to do before they had computers? (F2)
Among the students interviewed in the focus group sessions, Sandra was by far the

heaviest user of computer communication, claiming to use the computer for more than

one hundred hours per week. However, her sense of being adrift, following the

61

breakdown of her computer, helps describe the dependence that almost all of the
students had on computer communication.

Most students also felt that access to electronic communication helped them get
to know students on campus better. “It’s so much easier because you’re not always
going to see someone during the day — you know, you’re both busy, but if you’re by a
computer, you can still kind of check, keep in touch. You know, just even become
better friends with people on campus too” (M2). And several students said that they
preferred the option to combine computer communication with face-to-face
communication. If they were able to determine another student’s screen name, they
could contact them and communicate electronically first, then proceed to face-to-face
conversation. Conversely, they could begin a conversation “off-line” and then get to
know each other through online conversation.

In three of the four primary focus group sessions, students described walking
through the residence facility, with doors to the rooms open all the way down the halls,
and seeing each room’s inhabitants turned to their computers, with their backs to the
doors. In each room, students appeared to be isolating themselves from others; in
reality, they were connected to one or many other individuals, and engaged directly in
conversation. A student in the first session described it: “You notice everybody, as you
walk down the hall and they have their back to the door, you know, and they’re always
on the Internet all day long” (Ml). Students also noted that the ‘beep’ of Instant
Messages arriving often took the place of actual conversation. Another student stated,
“. . .you can hear beeping as you go down the hall, and someone getting Instant

Messages” (MI). I found it interesting that students raised this as a significant point,

62

without any prompting, in three focus group sessions. In the one session in which
students did not mention the “backs to the door” scene, I brought it up and they quickly
nodded in understanding.

Aside from conversing electronically with friends on campus, students noted
that campus organizations benefit from using electronic communication. Students
asserted that when electronic communication was purposefully used on campus, it
facilitated involvement in campus life. Large groups have the advantage of college-
wide information dissemination for their activities, such as the college newspaper,
banners, and other means; small groups must rely on contacting members or prospective
members individually. “If you’re a big group like [the college union board] you can
just put up big banners and signs... [but] if you just want to reach 10-12 people in a
little group, I think the power from the computer and the communication, 1 think you
need that. So I think it DOES help you join groups” (M2). Another student agreed,

. .that’s definitely how I hear the most about different clubs. . .I would say it can really
help join the community” (M2). By sending email to a group of students at a time,
information on group activity is easily shared. Since participation in student life on
campus is important for students bonding with the campus, the use of computer
communication to involve individuals in small group activity is important to the
development of community and the opportunity to connect with other students and with

organizations.

63

Computer Communication is Integrated into Lifestyle

In addition to communicating extensively using the computer, as described
previously, students accomplish many other goals and tasks in their lives using the
computer. However, it seemed that students were much more adamant that they had to
be able to communicate socially than they were about accomplishing other tasks using
computer communication. This is not intended to minimize the value of the computer
for transacting business, seeking information, and entertaining. But actually

conversing, described in the previous section, was a more basic need.

Transacting Business

I found it interesting that students had discovered many uses of the computer
that I had not considered. Students turned to computer communication to complete
various kinds of informal agreements and arrangements, but also more formal business
transactions. A male student, who worked periodically as a high school wrestling
official, related receiving contracts by email, and sending his “signed” agreement via
return email. He described how easy and fast he felt the process was and how computer
communication thus significantly improved the older process of sending and returning
contracts. He was surprised that the communication constituted an ‘official’ agreement,
but glad to be able to transact contractual business in this way.

Shopping and banking were conducted online by many of these students,

allowing them to access big-city selections from their semi-rural, mid-western location.

Noted one male, “I don’t do any of my banking [locally] - my credit card, my phone,
my cell phone bill, my online accounts — I do them all online” (M1). Students talked of
going online to transfer money, sometimes contacting parents via email or IM to let
them know they were low on cash (so parents could address the students’ depleted
funds), then resuming online bill-paying and shopping activities. “I always buy a lot of
stuff online and I also pay my credit card bills online. . .because you don’t have to worry
about getting out to the store and buy a money order and send it in and losing your
parking spot” (F 1). This was humorous, given the fact that on this small campus, a
parking spot is always available within a walk equivalent to a city block.

Rather than changing banks when coming to college, students often continued
banking from their hometown bank, using electronic access. “My girl friend is from
Nashville. She has a bank down there and there’s no way you can get any money. You
have to send stuff in the mail, and put it in an envelope to make funds available, and
how long will that take? At least a week!” (M1). The group agreed that transactions
taking at least a week clearly were not acceptable to them. They seemed to appreciate
the opportunity to keep the same banking institutions as they had prior to coming to
college. The fact that they did not have to change banks was directly attributable, they
felt, to their ability to communicate through the computer with financial institutions and
with their parents, as fund providers.

Book buying was frequently transacted over the Internet. I found these students
purposeful and serious in their access: they evaluated web sites, searched for new ones
that provided better opportunities, and enthusiastically shared that information with

other students. They identified on-line sites that allowed them to purchase their college

65

books at significant cost savings over the local bookstore prices. Students said that
these book outlets were used by students in colleges all over the country, so they could
buy and sell books even when the professor changes versions and the local bookstore

“

will not re-buy the old version. If you put it online, students from colleges all over
the country are looking at it and you just put it in an envelope and mail it to them.
And then they pay and the web site cuts you a check at the end of every month” (F 1).
The conversation was lively as students shared this information with each other. Several
students quickly wrote down the names of the web-sites being discussed, so they could
try for themselves.

Students also described preparing to shop “in-person” but using the Internet to
pre-shop to compare prices between stores they would later visit. I was interested and
impressed with the thought and care they put into seeking information and finding ways

to save money. For each type of situation or need students encountered, they appeared

to turn first to the Internet to find a way to address it.

Sending and Seeking Information

Almost all students related using IM to set up plans for meeting other students
on campus or attending events. Students talked about gathering a group to walk
together to the dining commons for meals by sending 1M messages. When I looked
surprised that they turned to the computer so constantly to set up such routine events, a
male student explained, “It’s easier than walking to their rooms” (Ml). Sending an IM

message to friends was deemed even easier than phoning them. This was interesting in

66

a couple of ways. Alpha College campus is a quite small, and it does not take a lot of
effort to walk to another student’s room. [M seemed to be a way of “reaching out” to let
another know about plans, and thus easier than walking or phoning. But this would not
work unless these students presumed that their friends would either be near a computer
to receive the message, or would be checking it quickly enough so that they could count
on this medium of communication for their planning. Evidently, students check for
messages so frequently that this method of communication is reliable. Students related
that they constantly use IM to do this type of informal dinner and gathering planning.

Another form of information seeking was used to help students understand their
own collegiate experience. One student described the opportunity to be in the lives of
friends at other colleges as a way of understanding what was happening at those
institutions, and how those experiences were similar to and different from his
experiences at Alpha College. He said that by communicating so frequently with
friends at another college, he was better able to determine whether or not he would want
to transfer there. “[I ask myself] what types of problems are they having versus what
I’m having? That helps me kind of keep the perspective there” (M1). This student felt
that he stayed at Alpha College rather than transferring to his friends’ institution
because he knew more about the daily lives of those friends and knew that the
institution was not necessarily a better place to attend.

In the final focus group session I asked specifically whether students used the
Internet more than the library for information searching; all of them did. This is
consistent with reports by campus administrators on the significant increase in use of

library resources on the web. The students in the final focus group session said they

67

preferred to find full-text articles online rather than finding information about articles

online with the need to later do a library search for the article.

Entertaining

The computer is a focus point for entertainment. One student shared, “So you
come back and sit down. . .so in a 12x15 space you have your computer, TV, video
games and you just kind of sit back and relax with friends and chat on the computer and
kind of go from there. . .walk around. . .and that’s pretty much all your entertainment is,
right there” (MI). I found it interesting that some students were so willing to be
satisfied with the entertainment options just within their rooms, and thought of the
words of Putnam (2000) as he stated that the Internet has “rendered our leisure more
private and passive” (p. 242).

In the variety of ways students spoke of using the Internet, it was obvious that
surfing the web was an activity they enjoyed. Sometimes this activity had a specific
purpose, and other times they engaged in it purely for entertainment. While students
employed the web for entertainment purposes, they did not appear as passionate about

that use as they were when discussing 1M and email communication with friends.

Theme Two: Students Arrive Connected and Continue Connecting

“I think the real relationships are built outside the classroom, like on the weekends and
stuff just hanging out. On down time. " (M2)

68

Through all of the focus group sessions, students emphatically articulated the
importance of being connected through computer communication. Students described
being connected to friends and family as they arrived on campus, and emphasized how
important that connection was to them in their first days as college students. They were
used to being connected and were adamant that they needed to maintain that connection.

Additionally, these students were in the process of connecting with a variety of
new friends and acquaintances. Computer communication provided an opportunity to
meet and get to know new people. Several students related getting to know others
online prior to face-to-face discussions because it was more comfortable for them. In
the variety of ways students connect with others, computer communication was

described as being part of the connection.

Staying Connected to Parents

Overall, the students in this study described a significant amount of electronic
contact with parents. While students stated that they were in contact with fathers and
with mothers, the mothers were mentioned most frequently. One female related, “I chat
with my mom online. . .she helps me with the pressures here...” (Fl). Women talked
more about connecting with parents regularly; men talked less about connecting with
parents but it arose as a topic while discussing initial transition to the college. One male
described his adjustment to college during the first weeks of his first year, stating “. . .if
you could still talk to your mom or whatever, that was helpful” (M2). Another male in

the same group elaborated, “...I wasn’t dependent on it to talk to my parents — but it

69

definitely was nice” (M2). The women in the focus group sessions seemed connected
more with parents for stability than did the men, or at least they were more willing to
say they looked to their parents for stability than were the men.

Being cut off from computer and phone upon students’ initial arrival on campus
affected their communication with parents also. One student felt especially frustrated
because she could not contact her parents initially, while students whose parents lived
near the college could still be in touch. She stated, “I was SO jealous because like they
can just go home and get what they forgot or say hi to their mom. And I couldn’t even
call my mom or email her or anything like that” (F2).

Students in the focus group sessions indicated that they typically send email to
parents; when sending to other students, TM is the preferred mode of communication. A
female student shared, “It’s just like a newer thing so my parents haven’t figured it out
yet...” (F2). Students found IM appealing because it was newer, and because the speed
of a direct connection to the Internet allowed the process of using IM to be much faster
than with a dial-up connection. A majority of the students indicated that their parents
use email rather than 1M. One female explained, “. . .My parents don’t get online for
long periods of time — they’ll get on, do their thing and get off because we just have like
dial up and so - like here I just leave my Instant Messenger on all day” (F2). Another
female, referring to use of Instant Messenger stated, “My mom tried it once. She hated
it,” to which another responded, “Yeah, it’s like it’s too much to keep up with” (F1).

For many, electronic communication was preferred over all other forms of
contact with parents, as one male stated, “. . .You do the phone when you have to. Like

with my parents, I don’t have to send a card, and I wouldn’t send a card” (M1).

70

Particularly for the males, sending hand-written communication was only for very
special occasions. One male in the first focus group session shared, “I know I’m going
to send a letter to my aunt, just because she sent me two with money in them. And like
the first one I emailed her and the second one, I’m like ‘I’m going to do something
more important and special and I’ll actually send her a card’” (M1).

Students in the focus group sessions noted that most parents tended to use email
in the same way they did letters, without popular abbreviations students often used, and
with a formal closing to the communication. The students seemed to view computer
communication as a faster and less formal medium than letters. A female shared with
the group, “I found with my parents, or at least my mom, when I try to chat with her on
IM, she doesn’t really use a lot of slang. . .so it’s easier for me to email her because I’m
more likely to use full sentences and full words. . .she gets really confused so she’s like
‘ok, what does this mean? Explain it to me! And I’m like ‘It’s ok mom, this means
this’” (F2). Everyone in one female focus group session related to (and enjoyed) a

6

student’s description of her mom signing off from a conversation: ‘. . .when we end the
conversation she’ll be like “Love, Mom” and I’ll be like “yeah, I know it’s you, Mom!”
but I guess she’s just not used to it. . .she’ll sign it just like she’s signing a letter” (F2).
As I pressed to understand how students and parents communicate by computer,
one female student shared, “[I] email to home; my parents don’t use AOL,” to which
another student responded, “well, some parents do.” The first student replied, “It’s like
a newer thing so my parents haven’t figured it out yet” (F1). One male related how his

father used abbreviations in the text of his messages to communicate, noting “he’s

worse than most what you would call teenagers with the abbreviations” (M1). It

71

seemed students felt as though they owned the medium of computer communication.
Their parents used the medium, but either relied on the younger generation to guide
them through its use or attempted to boldly, and sometimes awkwardly, own it for
themselves.

For the majority of the students in these focus groups, computer communication
provided support and assistance in coping with the new challenges they were facing in
college and with serious life issues. Both men and women stated that the electronic
connection helped ease the newness — and scariness — of the adjustment to college. One
student described the loneliness of her first few days at college, stating, “You’re so
overwhelmed and like your parents leave and you’re like ‘I can do this’ and then
everything kind of hits you at once and you just like want to talk to your friends and
there’s all these new people” (F2). This student spoke for her colleagues in the focus
group session, but also for students in all the sessions I conducted. Students found the
adjustment to college intimidating and sought the support of family and friends to get
through it.

Just over half the students in the focus groups indicated that they stay in touch
with parents on a regular basis using electronic communication, although women
mentioned doing so more often than males. These students represented other Millennial
generation’s interest in staying in touch with parents (Howe & Strauss, 2002). Students
talked about asking parents for advice, seeking affirmation that their problems were
going to work out, and just being comforted by their online presence. Some related

receiving email almost daily from either a father or mother. The frustrations students

72

felt with the college computer network problems were exacerbated by the fact that they

periodically lost the computer connection with that parental support.

Staying connected to hometown friends

Beyond the initial grounding that computer communication gave these students
when they were new on campus, email and IM also provided details of the day-to-day
life in their home towns. “You feel like you’re still part of things, you know,” said one
male. Another noted that he liked hearing that his “little cousin scored a touchdown or
a goal in soccer. It’s like hey today you just go to the room and talk to him” (M2).
While parents or friends in years past could relate such incidents in written
communication to students, the opportunity to hear immediately from a cousin to share

such stories allowed students a real presence in the lives of friends and family at home.

“Significant Other” Relationships

Despite students’ commitment to and passion for electronic communication,
they recognized that it is not the best form of communication in some situations. “You
have to be careful,” said one student, “because you can’t portray a tone of voice and like
a body language and sometimes you can get things completely messed up” (M2).

When it comes to electronic communication, all agree that “significant other”
relationships are in a separate category. One student, speaking of the role of computer

communication in maintaining “significant other” relationships, summarized it:

73

...it’s kind of faceless — it’s kind of heartless — it’s great for transmitting ideas
but you can’t really transmit emotions very well like just because you don’t have
all those other things we use to communicate body language and stuff like that.

And. ...email is hard to sustain a relationship through — you know, phone calls

are a little bit better but still. With things that need that emotional - if you have

a relationship that needs high emotional input — I think that’s where this type of

communication fails. You know. . .if you get the video conferencing and things

like that, you get closer, but still you’re not there yet (M2).
Adds another, “. . .It can’t sustain it, but it definitely helps” (M2), and “It makes it easier
to set up stuff and talk” (M2).

Students indicated that in-person conversation is important in “significant other”
relationships and in situations where the topic is sensitive. A female in the focus group
discussion stated, “If I actually have something important to say to someone or like talk
to someone about, I’d much rather talk in person than online though. Like if I have a lot
to tell someone I’d rather just walk across campus and tell them than sit on my
computer. And plus like emotions aren’t shown, obviously” (F2). Despite the fact that
students extensively used computer communication as a tool, they felt that when the
situation warranted face-to-face interaction, and the opportunity existed to hold such
conversation, they preferred that to computer communication.

While electronic communication is not viewed as a sufficient vehicle to
completely maintain ‘significant other’ relationships, students felt that it may help
maintain those relationships. A female described her experience in maintaining a long-

distance relationship by using computer communication: “In high school my boyfriend

74

went to college. So for the whole year like we weren’t together. And I think online
communication helped a lot because I could go talk to him and we didn’t have to be on
the phone line. . (F2). Since college students are at an age where significant other
commitments are not uncommon, and the need to be separated during college years is
often a reality, computer communication might help sustain the relationship during this

period of time.

Identifying the number of good friends

In the focus group discussions, students related holding Internet conversations
with many people at a time. They also described friends from home and high school as
“good friends” and noted that they also maintained friendships on campus. Given the
volume of conversation and the numbers of concurrent conversations these students
talked about, I expected that they would tell me that the number of good friends was
high. I anticipated that most students would say they had more than ten very good
friendships. Yet, the most common answer to this question was “four to six” very good
friends.

The preceding information on number of good friends was acquired through the
surveys students filled out in the four initial focus group sessions, but was not discussed
directly in those sessions. Once I considered the themes and patterns I was hearing
through the first four focus group sessions, I developed the agenda for the mixed fifth
focus group session of volunteers. In that last session, I asked students to explain

whether electronic communication expanded their network of friends. One student

75

stated that it did not expand the number, but did expand the social life. Another student
responded that it expands the number of people you know, but not the number of friends
you have. The students in this last session were in agreement with the comments made,
and l mulled this over for a considerable period of time. The comments seem to contrast
with the ways in which students talked about the amount of time, volume of
communication, and need for contact with friends. If they were so committed to having
regular conversation with so many individuals, why did they not identify a larger
number of these as good friends?

At least for some students, computer communication was comprised of contact
with people who were close to them and part of their support network, plus individuals
who were regular communication contacts but were not as essential to their well-bein g.
The sum of the conversations these students described contained elements of support,
information, and entertainment. Students valued all elements, but the subset that made

up actual support seemed to be focused on a relatively small number of individuals.

Theme Three: Gender Similarities and Differences

“I’ve got guy friends that I talk to online and they’ll be like ‘one more ’ and that ’s all
they ’ll write back to you. ” (F2 )

The male assistant moderator shared with me after the first male session his
view that “guys are all about being comfortable” and that you can tell when they are
engaging in the conversation by the way they lean back, away from the table. I saw this

occurring: as the male students became engaged with the discussion; most of the young

76

men stretched back and looked very comfortable. In the two sessions with females, I
noted a different engagement dynamic: the women tended to move in closer to the table
when sharing discussion with each other. In this physical way, men and women

exhibited different patterns of establishing comfort and engaging in conversation.

Men Valued Convenience; Women Valued Connectedness

Through verbal exchange, I recognized differences in purpose of computer
communication between men and women. The men seemed to use computer
communication to make their lives more comfortable. Connection with others was part
of being comfortable. The women had less concern with comfort itself and more
interest in being connected. I began to understand this once I analyzed the transcripts of
the focus group sessions, but I also saw it from the interaction of the first focus groups.
It seemed that the physical engagement dynamic was quite representative of the verbal
accounts students gave of the ways they use the computer to communicate. In the focus
group sessions, individuals were also doing the same thing: all were grouped around a
table, having partaken of a light dinner, and all were conversing on the topic of
computer communication. But just as the men and women displayed differences in
their unconscious habits of physical comfort — men leaning back and becoming relaxed,
women leaning close and engaging — there were similar differences in their habits of

computer communication.

77

Engagement in Similar and Dissimilar Ways

Some women and men in each focus group said they felt there were no practical
differences between each gender’s use of electronic communication: “everybody is
doing basically the same thing — emailing friends, talking about whatever...” (F1).
Other students disagreed, feeling that some activities were more “male” and some more
“female.” I noted to each group that some research suggested that men play computer
games more than women, and that women use the computer more to communicate, and
asked students if they felt that was true. The men bristled at the idea that they would be
cast as computer game players. That term evoked images of Nintendo, an activity they
associated with high school and even nriddle school students. One male responded: “I
think I communicate a lot more than play games” (M2). Another added, “Oh, computer
games, like when I was in high school...” (M2), followed by a third “Yeah, I’m kind of
past computer games” (M2). In these discussions, however, men referred several times
to playing games using the computer, often over the Internet. I think they viewed this
type of interactive game, which could be played with individuals in multiple locations,
as significantly different from the games they recalled from their middle and high
school years.

The women also talked about playing computer games, but they did so with less
frequency than the men. Women spoke more about using the computer to find out what
was happening with friends in class or at home. One female noted,

Girls use IM for gossiping stuff. Like they’ll get back from class and like ‘oh

my gosh, you won’t believe what happened’ or whatever...the guys will use it

78

like ‘hey, why don’t you come over and watch football,’ or ‘hey come over and

do this’ like if they have something in particular to say, like ‘can I borrow your

notes’ like that’s all guys do. (F1)
Another female stated, “I think guys tend to not be as social anyway. So they’re not
likely to just start a conversation about nothing with someone else whereas I see a
friend online and I’ll just say hi just to say hi, you know” (F2).

Another felt that females had a greater need to have their own computer, while
males were content to share. A female in the second focus group session elaborated on
this, stating . .a lot of guys [in my dorm] only have one computer and it’s really weird
because I couldn’t deal with not having a computer by myself” (F2). I wondered
whether females saw the computer as a tool for personal connection, and whether men
viewed it as a tool for convenient connection.

Even when students stated that there were not significant differences in male and
female use of the computer, they still identified some computer activities as primarily
male or female. In the second focus group session, one female stated that she and her
friends were not “as feminine” as other females; as evidence of this, she said that she
used video games herself. She explained that, “. .. the males and females that I know,
we all use it the same. We all download music. It’s not too much we chat more than
the guys” (F2). Students in that group seemed to agree as this young woman asserted
that women use the computer in ways sinrilar to men. Apparent in the young woman’s
quote and in the focus group discussion, however, was an indication that some uses of
the computer were considered by students to be predominantly male or female. For

example, women indicated that they believed they did ‘chat’ more than the men, even

79

though they said both men and women participated in chat, and they played computer

games even though they mostly associated that with men.

Acquiring Screen Names

I also observed some gender differences in the way students acquired IM screen
names. Since screen names have to be given (they are not in print for one to look up),
men and women have to find out the screen names of others to communicate via IM
with them. Women indicated generally that they would not ask a screen name; they
would, instead, work through existing friends and acquaintances to discover the names
they sought. Men consistently appeared to be more open in seeking screen names —
they just asked. In one of the male discussion groups, a student explained, “Those
connections come from an actual person-to-person meeting because you know that’s
where you get screen names, that’s where you get email addresses.” This student felt
that the connection was more valuable because an in-person discussion was required to
acquire the screen name, and thus the on-line relationship was built on a connection that
could be maintained off-line also.

Once the screen name was acquired, IM could be used to break the ice in
developing a conversation. One of the men said that he could be “more smooth” in
meeting women, and avoid “awkward stuff” by contacting them electronically first. I
did not discover how this particular student acquired screen names so that he could
contact women initially through the computer, although it may have been through a chat

room or through a friend’s sharing of screen names. Although they did not admit to it

80

in the focus group sessions, it is possible that men also used indirect routes such as

those the women described to discover some screen names.

Theme Four: Students, the College, and Internet Communication

“ but to me it was like ‘will the Internet work? ’ I still have never been there [ to the
cyber café] because I don ’t know if the Internet will work and if it does work, I ’m not
walking all that way for it. ” (M1)

Connecting with “the College ”

The severe Internet access problems during the fall term were addressed directly
by every student focus group. Comments regarding the necessity of improvement in the
computer network were scathing. The unreliable network played havoc with students’
social lives and connection with their parents. They freely shared their opinions,
including those on situations they felt were handled poorly by the college. During the
period of network instability, which spanned the time in which the focus groups
sessions were held, students continued their widespread practice of downloading music
and video files. Students believed the College should provide sufficient computing
resources to allow them to pursue their use of the Internet.

One student addressed a particular attempt by the college to create a technology
presence in the midst of a renovated dining facility. This facility was a fairly busy,
noisy area, with a large television at one end and students, faculty, and staff eating in
groups. During the summer of 2002, amid budget shortfalls, the college administration

decided to renovate the facility, to make it more interesting for students. Among the

81

changes was the addition of Internet access so students could access the Web in this
bustling, food-oriented environment; the renovated structure was referred to as a “cyber
café.” A male in the first focus group session noted with derision the fact that the
college put money into a cyber cafe’ when he was having trouble accessing the Internet
from his room. He stated, . .But to me it was like ‘will the Internet work?’ I still have
never been there [to the cyber café] because I don’t know if the Internet will work and if
it does work, I’m not walking all that way for it.” This is a small campus and “all that
way” was only a couple hundred yards from most residence halls; the facility was one
that students frequently used. The college was promoting the renovation as an example
of meeting students’ needs technologically. But at least from this student’s perspective,
that assumption failed on two counts: the unstable network meant he did not trust the
connection at all: and he was not interested in having access outside his room nearly as
much as he was interested in having access from his room.

Students also described the awkwardness they felt when they were involved in
IM discussions during network instability. An unstable network tossed individuals off
without giving them the opportunity to exit the IM discussion visibly or gracefully.
Because there was an expectation that one would announce a departure prior to
dropping away from an IM conversation, students felt that they were perceived as being
rude when the network connection suddenly failed and they were instantly dropped
from an ongoing 1M discussion. And since one has to be invited into IM discussions
groups by the person who initiates the conversation, the unannounced and invisible

dumping of students from the network created an uncomfortable situation for students.

82

A male described his discomfort with that process, noting, “They’d have to re-invite

me, which sort of made them mad” (M1).

College to Student Email Communication

Apart from network problems, students perceived the college email system as
inadequate and unacceptable. In approximately the last five years, email options
became available through off-campus providers such as AOL, Yahoo, or Hotmail, and
students began choosing and using those email accounts over Alpha College email
accounts. Students changing their email provider significantly contributed to problems
for the college in finding out email addresses of students on campus. In past years,
students had maintained their college-assigned email accounts. Student email
addresses, like all college email addresses, were available to students, faculty, and staff
so electronic correspondence could be easily facilitated.

But in the fall of 2001, when the students participating in the focus group
sessions entered Alpha College, the college email system was a relic, and was seen as
ridiculously out of date and unusable. Students connected to the Internet using the
Alpha College network, but rather than using the available college email system, they
used email providers. Once students felt established with an email address, they did not
wish to change to an Alpha College email address even when a better system was
implemented at the institution. Improvements in the campus email system in the
summer of 2002 did not result in sophomore student use of the Alpha College email

system, because students did not want to change email addresses at that point. Students

83

in the focus group sessions overwhelmingly indicated that they did not use the Alpha
email system, and agreed with the student who stated, “And now if you asked me to
go check my [Alpha College] mail, I couldn’t do it” (M2). Students would share email
addresses with relatives and friends, including other students, faculty, and staff. But
since these addresses were individually acquired, and not assigned by the institution, the
faculty and administrators did not have an effective way to connect with students
electronically. When college faculty or administrators sent email to students by way of
the students’ college-assigned email addresses, the missives were typically not read
since the students did not access these accounts. Although it was possible for students to
forward email from their Alpha College account to the email account they actually used,
they did not feel that was necessary. Students believed that the college email system

distributed information that was not relevant for them.

Network Unreliability and Student Frustration

The level of concern students felt with the unreliable network appeared to relate
to the intensity of their need to connect. For a few students, problems with the network
provided a potential reason to transfer to another institution. A male described a female
friend’s reaction when she couldn’t talk to her boyfriend online, stating she “was
seriously tempted to transfer, like get out of here so she could go anywhere” (M1).
Some students maintained a more philosophic approach to the problems: “If I get
booted off it’s no big deal” (M1). The majority, though, were not so accommodating;

one student explained, “I’d be sitting there and I’d be booted and I’d get mad and even

84

if I was writing a paper and trying NOT to pay attention to who was online” (Ml). This
last comment typified the response most students had to the network problems, as they
were constantly aware of them and upset by them, even when they tried to focus on
something else.

Network problems not only silenced the fast-paced IM conversations, but also
disturbed other activities such as emailing parents and ordering supplies from the
lntemet. Because system crashes were invisible as they occurred, students were
particularly frustrated when they thought they completed a process, only to find that it
had failed. Female students described writing long letters by email, sending them, and
then discovering that the Internet wasn’t working. With no back-up copy, the entire
endeavor was a waste of time “. . .and I was not happy” (F1), states one student.
Another says, “I thought it went through, and I didn’t find out that it didn’t go through
until two to three days later...” (F 1). One student described buying an English book
online, only to find the connection had gone down and then came back during the
process. She did not know whether to re-buy the book or wait to see if she got it. These

experiences fueled students’ indignation and frustration with the network problems.

Connecting with Faculty and Administration

Students expressed a wish for more technology in the academic life of the

college. A few faculty were cited as using good electronic tools, like Blackboard, in the

class experience. Students felt the use of these computer tools enhanced their academic

experience. For example, the college Marching Band Director kept in touch with

85

students using email, by creating an electronic email list of all band students and
sending messages to the entire set, to keep students informed of upcoming events. Both
a professor of English and an assistant professor of philosophy used a computer
information process similar to Blackboard to hold online discussions, provide
information for students, and contact students. Faculty in the Computer Science
Department used computer communication to contact students. These faculty members
identified the email addresses students were using, rather than trying to send email to
the students’ Alpha College account, since students rarely use the latter. Students
indicated these examples of regular email contact related to courses were rare.

Even so, students were not as critical of the faculty as they were of the college
administration. They wanted electronic tools, but did not feel that they received an
inferior class experience because of the lack of those. At the same time, students felt
network problems interfered with their academic work. One student stated, “They tell
you to look something up on the Internet and then the Internet is down, you know, how
are you going to do your homework? So it’s like the professors, everybody depends on
it when it goes down. It’s not just students but professors feel it too because they can’t
get information across” (M2).

In the combined, final focus group session, I asked what percent of the students’
Internet use was for social communication and what percent for education. Students
unanimously asserted that at a minimum, their computer communication was 80% for
social purposes; some of the students said that they used it 90% for social purposes.
Overall, the number of times students used email to contact faculty was not high. When

students did contact faculty electronically, it was to report information about absences,

86

and occasionally to request grade information. And when students experienced
classroom online work, it was typically for extra credit. Only two students in the final
focus group session (one male, one female) said they keep in touch with professors or
professors keep in touch with them via email; one of these students said he was required
to use email in his classes.

Students in this final focus group felt that other academic institutions used
online communication with professors more than did Alpha College. Based on
conversations with friends at other places, many students felt that Alpha College was
lagging behind other academic institutions in bringing Internet technology into the
academic side of the student experience. One student noted that her 6‘h grade sister used
the Internet more for academic purposes than she had as a college student.

One of the women said that the professors were not caught up with the students
in the use of technology - not as savvy — and she felt it was time for them to catch up.
The students felt they were more computer literate than faculty, and that faculty needed
to focus more on putting information online. The administration, they said, needed to do
a better job getting students set up with electronic communication and helping them use

it immediately upon entry.

Summary

The experience of maintaining concurrent social networks is one of constant

computer communication and a way of life. The students in this study have been

surrounded by computers since birth and started using them during their earlier years to

87

connect with high school friends. They arrived at college already connected to a social
network and to computer use, although this previous dial-up connection and use were
slow. As these students entered college, they experienced the freedom of living away
from home, and the freedom of a direct connection to the lntemet. For many of these
students, the format of college classes made them feel they had a lot of time on their
hands. Upon entering college, they quickly became accustomed to the speed and ease
of cable connection to the Internet, and upgraded their own expectations for computer
use. They found they could easily stay in touch with their friends and family at home,
and most of them found they could also use the computer to meet new friends on
campus.

When network instability played havoc with their connections, it rocked the
students’ opportunity for support, entertainment, information, and connection with the
day-to-day lives of family and friends. A “natural extension” of themselves and critical
aspect of their lives, the computer connection was suddenly unpredictable and
unavailable. Given the importance of this communication form to the students, the
absence was unacceptable.

The experience of concurrent social networks bridges students’ off-campus and
on-campus social lives, allowing them to be present and constant in both. Students
construct these differently, putting different relative emphases on each, which I will
discuss more in the next chapter. While computer communication could also connect
students to the academic side of the college, it typically did not do that for the students
in this study. Some conversed with faculty by email, and used Internet resources for

academic purposes. Virtually all of the students in the study used some lntemet

88

resources to accomplish academic purpose, whether required for a specific course or
not. But students’ passion for and primary use of computer did not typically include
much use on the academic side. Computer communication was critical to the student
experience, and their passion for its use was based in the importance of their social

connections.

89

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS: THE EFFECTS OF CONIPUTER COMMUNICATION

Introduction

Through lntemet use, social networks are connected in new ways. Concurrent
social networks are now part of the college student experience. Understanding the ways
students are affected by this experience is important to knowing what it means to be a
college student at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

In this section I discuss two primary effects of computer communication. The
first of these is time evaporation. Students spend hours conversing with friends and
family by computer. These hours would have been spent another way, had they not had
the option to converse electronically. The students in the focus group study did not feel
that they lacked any kind of participation on campus because they were using computer
communication. They stated that they were doing exactly what they wanted to do, and
that they were as involved as they wanted to be on campus. Yet, they also said they did
not participate more in campus activities because they just did not have time.

It took a long time before I realized what I was hearing. Students in each focus
group said that they spend a lot of time on the computer. “. . .Give me a sense of how
you use the computer — what kinds of things do you do...” I asked. “IM — IM -

constantly” said one; another added, “We’re always on” (M2). For the most part,

90

students did not recognize the relationships in the situation they were describing: online
communication took time away from academic work; they did not have time to
participate more in the life of the campus due to the pressure of their academic work.
Thus, although they generally denied it, it is possible that students were participating in
fewer campus activities because of their use of computer communication.

The second effect of computer communication on these college students is
balancing old and new social networks. Students were passionate about retaining their
old social network of pre-college friendships. These friendships kept them connected to
their high school circles, kept them informed about news within that network, and often
helped support them in coping with large issues in their lives, as well as addressing day-
to—day stresses and successes. Students who stay in touch with friends at other colleges
felt that challenges were similar for their friends and that day-to-day life at other
colleges was not necessarily better. This helped them appreciate some aspects of Alpha
College and thus encouraged them to remain at the institution.

Students described meeting peers on campus and communicating with them both
online and face-to-face. They also related staying in touch with pre-college friends and
spending a significant amount of time in on-line conversation with them. As students
described the amount of connection with each network of friends, they emphasized that
the responsibility and decision regarding amount of contact resided with themselves.
They discussed the emotional comfort of accessing these networks, and staying in touch
with important groups of friends.

The transition to college was more difficult for some students because they did

not want to let go of the friends from home. These friends gave them a sense of

91

security and acceptance. They represented, for some, the golden days of high school
and were not part of the new challenges of college. These friends understood where
they came from, accepted them as they were, and were loved. Because of this, the
connection to friends at home made the transition to college more difficult: they did not
move through a separation phase and make a real adjustment to living in the new,

college community.

Effect 1: Time Evaporation

“...I have no problem spending 3 hours talking to somebody chatting online, but I will
not go to their room and spend 3 hours in a discussion or conversation with them. ”
( M2)

An important factor in understanding the experience of students using lntemet
communication is the time factor. Through the short survey at the beginning of each
session, students shared information on the amount of time they spent using email, IM,
and surfing the web. The women in the focus group sessions reported averaging
nineteen hours a week of social use of the computer; the men averaged fifteen hours a
week. One female student described spending a combined total of one hundred and five
hours a week between the three activities. One male, speaking of his dorm room filled
with his computer and other, seemingly necessary, electronic devices said, “It’s like
your womb” (M1). But the students also indicated that their extended use of electronic

communication came at a price. One student stated “I can also see the computer as

92

distraction. . (F 1). That admission may ring true for many students, but it did not
diminish their desire or plans for use.

Only one student said that the constant communication was tiresome. He
described his frustration when he wanted to listen to music or search the web without
“hav[ing] them talking to you” (M2). The male assistant moderator, a senior, also
described protecting his time. He noted that he posted an ‘away’ message when he
went to the library to study, but did not divulge his whereabouts in the message. In this
way, he maintained an informative computer presence but could study undisturbed by

those on campus who might otherwise track him down.

Students and Controlling Time on Communication

Students described feeling as though they had a lot of free time upon entering
college, and using that time to connect with friends and family by computer. The
luxuries of both time and a direct connection to the lntemet affected their habits of
lntemet use. As noted previously, when I asked students what they were not doing
when they spend time using the lntemet, the response was consistently “homework.”
The computer was used as a tool for completing many classroom assignments, but
because computers were directly connected to the Internet, the student was positioned to
receive incoming messages. As one student shared, “Every time you sit down to your
desk. . .I’ll have IM on and someone will talk to you.” Once distracted, it was easy to
lose track of time while conversing online. A young woman described, “I’ll sit down

and like ‘I’m going to write that sociology paper now and the next thing you know,

93

you’re emailing somebody from back home or checking to see if I got an email from
[my boyfriend]” (F1). These stories were representative of how all of the students
seemed to feel about the competition between their social networks and their academic
work. Students agreed that time slipped away, often unnoticed, when they spent time
communicating online. People IM you, noted students, “when you’re in the middle of
your paper” (F2). Another young woman described the lure of conversation with
friends when she knew she should be working on a paper for class, “it’s definitely hard
to try to fight the instinct to go talk to someone online when you really don’t want to be
typing” (F2).

Most students knew they were being drawn away to chat instead of doing their
homework, while some were surprised that hours passed leaving little time for studies.
A young man described the passing of time, and noted, “Like it’s 9:00 and I’m studying
and then I stop [to start] talking to someone and look and it’s midnight and like ‘what
just happened here?’ I spend a lot of time [online]” (M2). Students also described the
fact that they were away from home for the first time and did not have parents to keep
them on their academic tasks. One student noted that when her computer crashed after
a month of use, she found she got much more work done. But Sandra, the student
described earlier who spent over one hundred hours a week online, found herself
completely adrift when her computer crashed. Her time was constructed around the use
of her computer and in its absence, she did not know how to reallocate her time.

The senior assistant moderator had learned to take more control of his time, as
evidenced by his willingness to be unobtainable while he worked on course

assignments, and he used the computer without being controlled by it. Perhaps he was

94

less dependent on the social network the computer provided, or perhaps he had become
a more sophisticated computer user. Some of these sophomore students‘also knew how
to fit their social networks into their student lives in successful ways. But others
seemed to be controlled by their passion for connection to their social networks, and the
“beep” of yet another message arriving from a friend was a diversion that was both

welcome and pursued.

Effect Two: Computer Communication and the Balance of Old and New Social

Networks

“What would have been different without computer communication ? ” I asked. The
student replied: “It would have been easier. Because I wouldn’t have had that to
retreat to. I would have been forced - pried out of my comfort area. ” (F2 )

Students corresponded most with the people they felt closest to, whether those
individuals were on campus, on other campuses, or in their hometowns. But the
identification of who was closest was an individual construction. Some noted that they
felt that campus friends better understood the challenges of being a student and shared
in the stories and situations of life at Alpha College. Others felt that they
communicated about equally with friends at home or at other colleges, because those
friends knew their life stories. This seemed a very important point, and made me
realize that because this was an individual student’s construction, individuals to whom

students turn for support could not be predicted.

95

Some students remained intensely connected to their friends and family at home
while others essentially left them behind. One student noted that while he had used the
computer a lot during his freshman year to communicate with friends at home, he had
drifted away from some of them: “Last year it was more people that you could
essentially talk to. It gets less and less every year I’m sure” (M2). Another noted that
IM helped him adapt to the campus, as well as staying in touch with friends at home,
noting, “so it helps both ways in adjusting” (M2). Some of the sophomores in the focus

group sessions were still very connected to the day-to-day events at home.

The Draw of Old Social Networks

Use of computer communication as an adjustment and coping mechanism was a
common thread through each of the focus group sessions, but the intensity of need by
individual students varied. For a few students in each group, there seemed to be a
lessened reliance on the computer connection with pre-college friends. It appeared to
me that these individuals were transitioning away from pre-college friends, and
connecting more to friends on campus. It was hard for students to describe what was
happening to them. They seemed to be experiencing a process of transitioning to the
community, and were part of the way through that process. The movement away from
off-campus friends was probably most recognizable as we discussed whom students
turn to with problems, and they said they turn to those who they feel best understand

them. Some students felt that those on campus understood their present experiences;

96

others felt that off-campus friends understood their life experiences. Depending on the
type of support they sought, students related to the group that best met their needs.

Some students had moved from reliance on off-campus friends and family to
reliance on campus friends for support. Others had not made that transition, and did not
indicate that they expected to experience that change. It was difficult for me to assess
through these conversations how important that was in the level of commitment and
satisfaction students felt with the collegiate experience.

When the transition to college is difficult, students might be especially inclined
to turn to friends at home for help. One female student told of a very bumpy freshman
year; among several serious events happening at home was the divorce of her parents.
For this young woman, meaningful contact was with high school friends who
understood the issues she was encountering. She related that she nearly left college at
more than one point, preferring instead to be with friends at home, where she felt better
understood and sustained.

Students in this study felt they were maintaining friendships that would likely
have diminished in the absence of regular communication. One female student said that
knowing at-home friends were there for her was comforting and gave her strength while
at college. To many students, friends from high school were still as close as they were at
the time of graduation. A young woman, who coped with several difficult situations
during her first year talked about how she felt about staying closely connected to her
friends from home:

It kind of made me want to be home more. . .because they knew what was going

on. . .You know, early on because with everything that was happening at home.

97

I kept talking to people about it and it was just all I thought about, whereas if I

didn’t have Instant Messenger, I would have moved on quicker, I think... (F 1)

Other students described a process of transitioning away from high school
friends. One student described how the relationships from high school had begun to
wane, stating “. . .I’d say that my close friends now - they’re STILL my friends. But I
don’t talk to them as much and they’re starting to be not as close” (F2). This student
may have been describing a process of transitioning to college, developing campus
friendships, and moving into a new set of relationships. She had the opportunity to stay
in the lives of her high school friends, and seemed to do that to some extent, but was

willing to allow the contact to diminish as she developed other relationships.

Pre-College Friends and Leaving College

I did not hear a significant concern that pre-college friends actively tried to pull
students away from college. The few references to this type of pressure were in
situations where some of the friends did not attend college at all as opposed to those
who went to other four-year colleges or community colleges. Some students stated,
with some pride, that they did not stay in touch with those who were not college-bound,
as though they had chosen a path of achievement. Other students described the respect
they had for friends who chose not to attend college, and the extent to which these high
school friends remained close. A young man described the support he felt from friends
who did not choose to go to college in this way: “I know a lot of people who don’t go

to college — and they’ve been really encouraging — because they want me to

98

succeed. . .and I can always talk to them” (M2). One student said, . .they don’t pull me
away or ...change my priority or anything like that. And you know I respect them for
wanting to go to work and not go to school...” (M2). And another - a female - felt that
being in close touch with non-college friends actually helped her better appreciate the
college environment. Speaking of a male high school friend of hers, she said, “it pulls
me closer because I see how much like he doesn’t get to experience because he didn’t
go to college” (F2).

But for a smaller number of students, pre—college friends who remained at home
attempted to pull their college friends back into the world shared in high school. One
young man discussed the pressure his high school friends exerted saying, “When I first
got here. . .it was like they didn’t understand what I was going through. . .and they
wanted to pull me away like when I went home they were like ‘Why did you go away’
and ‘You should still be back here with the guys and hang out every night and just do
stuf ’” (M2). This young man remained in close touch with his high school friends
through computer communication. He said that it seemed difficult to him in college
when he knew these high school friends were still experiencing a world he enjoyed with
them only a few months before.

One of the female students summed up her view of the effect of off-campus

6‘

friends on her decision to stay at Alpha College: If your family members and your
friends know that you want to be here and it’s a big deal to you they won’t try to pull
you away. But on the other hand if they know you’re here because you think you’re

supposed to be here but you’re not happy here, then they can tend to pull you toward

them” (F 1). As she spoke, several women around the table nodded. For many of the

99

students in this study, high school friends remained part of their circle of influence and
had input into the decisions made in college.

For those students whose friends attended other institutions, the opportunity to
hear more about the day-to—day life elsewhere may have helped Alpha College students
form a more realistic understanding of life at other colleges. A young woman described
the perspective this way, “I just see [this college] as like so many more opportunities
than they have. So I don’t really feel pulled toward them” (F2). Students frequently
discussed their perception that Alpha College is more difficult than other schools, and
that life could have been easier acadenrically if they attended elsewhere. Interestingly,
the difference students perceived in level of difficulty was often addressed with pride,
as students sensed that they were receiving a higher quality education, evidenced by the

amount and difficulty of work.

Individual Construction of Concurrent Social Networks

Students noted how they were frequently in touch with friends from high
school, and how the social networks students maintain actually compete. A young
woman described the pull she felt as she was confronted with college and the
opportunity to develop new friendships, “I have a couple close friends from both places
so it’s kind of hard to build strong relationships...” (F 1). Another young woman talked
about how she was closer with friends from home than from college, stating “I’m still
close with them and probably four other girlfriends and we’re really tight and I mean

we still talk all the time. But I also have a lot of friends here that I would say are

100

dominant in my life here” (F1). It was not possible to determine that any particular
groups of students were more likely to lean more toward off-campus friends rather than
on-campus friends.

For the students who hesitated to form relationships with the campus
community, several felt that the lntemet could provide sustaining friendships; but the
activity of staying connected with those off campus might also provide a reason not to
develop campus friendships. Said one male: “If you come to college and still hold onto
all those friends and hold onto your parents .. .because it’s so easy to communicate, it’s
very easy to just draw yourself out. . ..and that could lead to some severe, you know,
withdrawing of the students” M2).

When I asked students in the focus group sessions if they joined college
activities less frequently than they did high school activities, many said they had.
However, most students did not feel that their more limited involvement in campus
activities had anything to do with the time they spent using electronic communication.
One male indicated that his priorities had shifted from sports to acaderrrics, saying “. . .In
high school it’s sports and girls and that’s about it. When you’re here it’s grades and
girls, I guess” (M2). Many of the students noted that the academic work of the college
was more time consuming than it was in high school. Said one student, “I just couldn’t
join groups in college because I had other things to do — academic responsibilities and
stuff — and so the communication on the computer is kind of not a factor of me joining
groups. But then yeah, I’m not really belonging then and so maybe I’m a victim then.

<laugh>” (M2). One student felt computer communication did affect opportunities to

101

join groups, stating, “I’d say that it does have somewhat of an effect on your joining
other things, other activities you know.” (M2).

In the women’s group, the opinions were similar, but more of them identified
potential effects of remaining intensely connected to friends at home. One woman
shared “I choose to be less involved. I had some involvement with people in college
but I’m less involved because I have a scholarship and my grades are really important to
me” (F 1). Another female student noted,

...I [came] to Alpha and it’s kind of funny because I’m not used to this kind of

atmosphere - my high school was so much bigger than this. And I really didn’t

feel comfortable here. You know, I didn’t really find anybody with the same
interests. But I’ll admit, I didn’t really look because I had —— you know — I could
always just talk to the people - and I had. . .that environment at home (F2).

When asked how the experience would have been different without electronic
communication, one student noted, “It would have been easier. Because I wouldn’t
have had that to retreat to. I would have been forced — pried out of my comfort area”
(F2).

Although some students in the study were not consciously engaged in fewer
activities because of computer communication, they described others who were
obsessed by computer communication and felt those students bore responsibility for that
choice. “You either do it or you don’t you know. Some people are addicted to the
lntemet and are not gonna, you know, do anything else. Some people choose to do

other things. Be on a sports team or whatever” (M 1). This suggests that students

102

recognized that electronic communication could affect participation, and that they felt
accountable for its use, so that it did not negatively impact the college experience.

Several students felt that although this type of retreat was a reality, students
consciously chose to draw back in this way. A male student described his frustration
with students who engaged in such activity and then complain, saying,

...You hear a lot of people just when they come here they’ll like sit in their

room ‘well, I haven’t made any friends.’ Well, if you’re not trying to make any

friends, you’re just sitting in your room, talking to friends from back home,

you’re not going to do anything. That’s what, you know, makes them want to

leave. (M2)
Sometimes, students who focus on friends at home choose to leave the campus on
weekends to spend time with them. A male student explained, “There are some people
that just mainly [correspond with] their high school friends — with the lntemet, like they
don’t go out, they just keep up with them and that’s it. Then you won’t see them on the
weekend — they don’t stay here” (M 1). When students spent weekends with friends
from home, they did not have as much opportunity to develop friendships on campus, or
to participate in the social life of the college.

Minority students can feel pressure in fitting into a new, predominantly white
environment. Students related their own experiences and experiences of friends in
dealing with the lack of a diverse student body at Alpha College. A female minority
student related: “I’m used to large and Alpha is so small and so very white that it’s kind
of hard. . .I’m out of my comfort group now and I don’t know how to react to some

people and their comments and that makes it a lot harder to open up and get close to

103

people. . .and make friends” (F1). These students indicated that they maintained a
significant amount of contact with friends and family at home, primarily accomplished
through using 1M and email.

In the focus group sessions, students were generally quick to state that their off-
campus friends did not pull them away from college life, yet approximately one fifth of
the same students noted on their survey form that off-campus friends did pull them
away from Alpha College. These seemingly contradictory statements may be explained
by looking at the students’ views of the intentions of their friends: friends were
expressing interest and concern in the students’ best interests and thus were not cast as
pulling students away from their academic goals. However, remaining close to off-
campus friends had the net effect of altering the relationship that students had with the
campus environment; sometimes that effect was a pulling away. Typically, students
noted their own responsibility for connecting with the campus, thus they did not place
blame on off-campus friends for any lack of campus connection.

On the survey form, I also asked students whether they felt their experience on
campus was affected by maintaining off campus friendships. Just over a third of the
students responded affirmatively. I was seeking a general sense of how students felt
computer communication affected their campus friendships as well as an opportunity to
raise the issue for them, and I did not provide a more specific context for the question.
While student response indicated that the majority of students did not feel they
experienced a pulling away or lessening of college contact, their replies underscore the
importance of seeking a better understanding of the effect of computer communication

on student life.

104

Computer Communication Sustains

Computer communication helped students bide time during stressful periods.
One student described his first term at Alpha College, living in a residence hall in which
he did not fit. He was not going to make friends there, he determined, “So I never came
out of my room. So I sat on my computer all day pretty much just talking with friends
back home and then I talked to people at meals and stuff” (Ml). This student
eventually made a positive transition to the college. He moved from that initial dorm
assignment, into a residence hall in which he felt more comfortable. He credits his
lntemet access to providing him the needed outlet to hold himself together during that
difficult term.

Another student, who transferred to Alpha College during the second term of his
freshman year, did not fit into the student body of a large, public university in which he
was previously enrolled. He shared, “. . .The last two months, I pretty much lived in my
room, on my computer/email, talking to my friends, counting down the days. . .it held
me together because outside my room, pretty much I just hated it” (M1). Television,
video games, and computer contact with friends outside the college sustained him until
he could transfer out the following term. Another noted, “I think it helps sustain me. 1
really didn’t know people here and there weren’t people I could really talk to, but I
could talk to my friends at home. It definitely helped me. I email my dad every

day. . .and I hear from him every day” (F1).

105

Some students described commiserating about course workload via the
computer with colleagues on campus and with friends at other colleges. One female
noted: “. . .I could email my friends who were going to school back home and talk with
them and if I was having hard classes, they could say ‘Oh, yeah, well I have hard
classes too.’ It really helped” (F2). Computer communication helped students believe
their challenges were not unique, and helped them feel they could succeed
acadenficany.

Students related relying on computer communication to get them through
difficult times, and lessening need for constant communication as time passed. The
young woman who experienced several home crises, including he divorce of her
parents, eventually transitioned well to the college. She stated that she has good friends
at home and at the college saying, “. . .I don’t go home as much as I used to. . .but I go
home and I talk to them more and I come back you know like a day early. . .I have a
couple close friends from both places” (F 1). As we recognize that students experience a
set of processes in their transition to college, that they separate from home, transition to
a new environment, and eventually integrate into a new community and set of
friendships, understanding the effects of computer communication and the resulting
interconnection of social networks allows us to better understand the whole student

experience.

106

Summary

Computer communication forms the basis of myriad opportunities that students
now have to maintain social networks. In particular, the effects of computer
communication were visible in two major areas: time evaporation and in the challenges
and benefits of balancing old and new social networks.

During times of stress, the computer provided a welcome opportunity to explain
problems to on-campus or off-campus supportive friends, and this felt sustaining.
These students often turned to parents for guidance, emotional support, and of course,
money. Computer communication provided a way to connect for all of these. Some
students stayed in touch with significant others through email and IM, bridging times of
necessary separation. While computer communication is a relatively new addition to
the set of communication opportunities on college campuses, students do not see their
experiences or effects of computer communication as changes since the opportunity to
communicate electronically has been part of their full-life experience. That
communication represents their status quo; they cannot imagine a time when it was not

available.

107

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

lntemet communication has permeated American life. It connects us in ways
that were previously unattainable, and forces society to redefine the meanings of being
alone, of staying in touch, and of developing and maintaining community. In past
decades, the technology of telegraph communication changed the world, bridging cities
and continents, and providing opportunities for communication and information
acquisition that did not exist previously. That ability to communicate changed society
and changed the world. The telephone and television further expanded opportunities to
communicate and brought information and entertainment into the home. These
technologies, as well as others, altered the ways we relate to each other and they are
woven into our society to the point that they are almost transparent. It is difficult to
imagine a world without them. lntemet communication has also significantly altered our
perceptions of communication and information acquisition. Just as the telegraph,
telephone and television are enmeshed in societal experience and expectation, so also is
the lntemet, and the communication opportunities it affords are part of the experiences
and expectations of today’s youth.

The Millennial Generation, born since 1982, has grown up in the midst of

lntemet communication opportunities (Howe & Strauss, 2002). Their world looks very

108

different than that of previous generations. Vinyl records, Pac Man, typewriters, black-
and-white television, and eight-track tapes predate the Millennial Generation.
Answering machines and cable television have always existed, and any set of directions
that instructs them to turn something ‘counter clockwise’ is meaningless, as that does
not connect with the experiences of a digital world. The characteristics of this
generation differ from their generational predecessors. These young people were born
at a time when children were recognized and valued, evidenced in part by the
proliferation of “Baby on Board” signs adorning vehicles (Howe and Strauss, 2002).
When political issues are addressed, their impact on children is a point of consideration.
These and many other underlying differences in the environment of this generation have
produced young people who are confident, team oriented, achieving, pressured,
conventional, sheltered and have a feeling that they are special (Howe & Strauss, 2002).
This new generation is now entering college, taking with them their social experiences
and expectations, their myriad electronic accoutrements, and through computer
communication, even their pre-college friends.

Ten years ago, students left friends and family behind to enter college; today’s
students may retain their old social networks as they enter college and experience the
campus environment. Computer communication increases access, connections, and thus
widens the span of communication opportunities (Spears & Lea, 1994) allowing
students the chance to maintain their networks of pre-college friends. But this
phenomenon is recent and there is much to be discovered about how it affects students’
college experiences. Colleges are communities that are constantly being re-formed, as

seniors graduate and first-year students arrive. But some students fail to adapt to and

109

bond with the campus community. These students often transfer to another institution
or drop away from the pursuit of a college degree. For the well-being of both the
student and the academic institutions, it is critical that incoming students transition well
to the college environment, become part of the campus community, and develop into
the student leaders for the next group of students arriving.

The transition to college has been the focus of numerous investigations in the
past four decades (Kuh et al., 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Tinto, 1998). As a
result of these studies, many first-year college programs are based on factors that
predict student success, including perception of community, student involvement in the
life of the campus, and academic and social integration (Light, 2001; Nagda, et al.,
1998;). But while previous research demonstrates that participating in the life of the
campus is linked directly with satisfaction students have with their college experiences
(Tinto, 1987), these widely accepted theories of student life on campus pre-date massive
lntemet use. We need to develop an understanding of the experiences of students
entering college at the beginning of the 21S‘ century, including the role of computer
communication in their transition to college.

In critically addressing the issues and environments of entering students, it is
important to get a sense of their uses of computer communication relative to their
experiences of joining a campus community. Of the variety of environments in which
student interaction and lntemet communication could be studied, the small, residential
campus may be the best. Classes are relatively small, providing students the opportunity
to interact more with faculty (Kuh, 2001) and with each other in the classroom.

Students know many of their classmates, and participate in the residential life of the

110

campus. Influences of lntemet communication in maintaining old social networks
might be especially visible on a campus of this type.

The effect of computer communication on students in my study was mixed.
Bargh (2002a) explains that individual aspirations and goals are significant in
determining the effects of computer communication on any individual. Students in my
study represented diversity of aspirations and goals, and thus their choices in use of
computer communication varied. Researchers are just beginning to discover the
complexities of social interaction via computer (Bargh, 2002a). Individual desires,
needs, and access to computers affected the ways Alpha College students engaged via
computer communication. Additionally, the balance of weak and strong relationship
connections students maintain would help explain the differences in use of computer
communication and resulting experiences (Kraut, 1998).

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the
experiences of first-year college students using computer communication. Through this
study, I particularly sought to know more about the ways in which lntemet
communication was used for maintenance of relationships on and off the college

campus.

Theoretical Framework

The need to belong — to connect to one another — is a basic element in the

experience of human interpersonal interaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby,

1969, 1973; Donne, 1975; Freud, 1930; Maslow, 1968). Given that, it is not unexpected

lll

that as lntemet technology opened new avenues for communication, humans would
fully use it to connect to each other. The opportunity to do so has also provided new
opportunities to maintain social networks that in the past could not be supported due to
distance.

Even prior to the 19908, computer technology was bringing about momentous
social changes (Ginzberg, 1982). Caught up in our daily routines, we may not
recognize the incredible rate of change. “If the automobile and aerospace technology
had exploded at the same pace as computer and information technology,” says a
Microsoft representative, “a new car would cost about $2 and go 500 miles on a thimble
of gas. And you could buy a Boeing 747 for the cost of a pizza” (Hunderson, 2001, p.
1). Computer technology is around us and between us — in our banking, purchasing,
educating — and always in our communicating.

Scholars debate whether or not relationships developed online have the same
characteristics and strength of face-to-face relationships. Bargh (2002b) argues that
Internet communication allows individuals to share their “true selves” by creating an
environment that allows openness with less risk than face-to-face communication.
Computer communication allows much greater opportunity for social relationships and
friendships (Katz and Aspden, as cited in Kraut et al., 1998).

Kraut (1998) argues face-to-face relationships might be displaced by online
relationships and that social involvement may be displaced by lntemet communication.
“Weak” and “strong” ties represent relative strengths of relationships, and scholars
argue the influence these ties in development of online relationships (Constant, Sproull

& Keisler, 1996; Kraut, 1998). Strong ties are often associated with face-to-face

112

relationships, but both kinds of ties provide support for individuals. Old social
networks, maintained by lntemet communication, could provide opportunities to
maintain older, “strong” relationship ties. The maintenance of old ties has implications
for new community development and bonding, as computer communication potentially
reduces the importance of physical presence in sustaining friendships.

Typically, when presented with a new environment, people develop new
friendships and eventually transition away from the former relationships (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). When that happens, the friends who were influential in the old setting are
not as influential in the new environment. The set of friends one maintains can become,
or remain, a primary reference point. Individuals will tend to evaluate themselves in
terms of the group with which they are affiliated; that affiliate group will, to a great
extent, determine how they respond to their challenges and their environments
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If incoming college students do not transition away from
the norms of their pre-college social network, they may not engage as fully in their
educational goals as they would have if they transitioned to a new group of friends.
Kuh (1991) describes the effect this can have on students as, “The peer group, rather
than challenging old attitudes and behaviors, may allow a student to rely on
comfortable, perhaps anti-intellectual behavior patterns” (p. 12).

Concurrently, time spent on computer communication likely reduces time for
other activities, some of which may be the fostering or maintaining of friendships in the
local college corrrrnunity. In a recent survey, ten percent of pre-college aged teens who
participated in phone interviews said that lntemet communication took a lot of time that

they would otherwise use to connect with friends in their local community, and that

113

caused the local friendships to suffer (Lenhart et al., 2001). Even ten percent has
significance when one considers the potential for problems in relating to campus

community environments. The teenagers in Lenhart’s (2001) study felt that they

achieved balance because they stayed close to long-distance friends via computer
communication, even though they did not stay as connected to their local peers.

Successful transitioning to the social and intellectual life of the campus is
critical for the well-being of students (Kuh, 1991; Tinto, 1987, 1998). The extent to
which students are personally and socially connected to each other, connected with
faculty, and involved in campus activities affects their fit within the community, and
their satisfaction with college. Involvement in campus activities increases the quality of
life on campus and improves the students’ undergraduate experience (Boyer, 1987).
When students fail to make a connection with the campus life of the college, they are
more likely to become dissatisfied and to leave. Tinto (1993) argues that the major
cause of student attrition from college is an inability to make the transition into the
college’s social and intellectual life. Yet, that transition requires effort. Astin (1984)
argues that the amount of physical and psychological effort student exert is an
indication of the likelihood of a successfirl transition to college.

Tinto (1987) uses Van Gennep’s phases of separation, transition and
incorporation to describe the adjustment of the first-year college student. Each stage,
according to Van Gennep, is comprised of changes in patterns of interaction between
the individual, who Tinto casts as the student, and the new experiences of college. In the
separation stage, the new college student still embodies the norms and values of the

prior high school experience and family setting. The student is challenged by the values

114

and norms of the campus community and either holds the community at a distance or
moves toward an association with it. That association requires letting go of the
previous community affiliation, moving toward integration with the new community.
The second stage is that of transition; the student has not fully disassociated from the
old norms, and has not fully adopted the new norms. In the third stage, the student
becomes integrated in the campus community, contributing to the norms of the
institution.

Integration of students into the community is a process, one that is necessary for
the successful transition of students to college. Light (2001) identifies “symptoms of
trouble” that include student isolation and an unwillingness to seek assistance, which in
addition to low grades, indicates difficulty in adjustment. Successful merging into the
social life of the college builds campus community, but such merging requires
purposeful and sustained contact with other students, and contact with faculty (Nagda,
et al., 1998). Yet it may be easier for students to remain attached to their former
communities than to extend themselves to form new relationships. Thus, it is
questionable whether students would be purposeful about setting aside old friendships
and developing significant bonds with the new community. lntemet communication
expands the opportunities for communication choice, which may impact the integration
of students into the campus community.

Technology has changed the nature of communication and communication
patterns among students and between students, faculty, and administrators (Gatz & Hirt,
2000), as well as ways in which students spend their time. New relationship structures

are different because of the technology, and are not simply extensions of preceding

115

relationships (Bruce, 1993). New environments created by the application of
communication technology necessitate a review of the models for understanding the

student first-year experience for the 21St century.

Case Description

A small, liberal arts college was chosen as the location for this study because of
the importance of relationship development at this type of institution. On these
campuses, face-to-face communication and bonding are part of the institutional fabric.
Students often know most class members, join campus organizations, and participate in
a myriad of extracurricular activities. Thus in such a college environment, relationship
development issues and the effects of lntemet communication might be more apparent.

Alpha College is a residential college of approximately 1400 students, located in
a town of about 10,000 people in a semi-rural area of the mid-west. The institution has a
four-year liberal arts and sciences curriculum and is moderately selective as evidenced
by an average ACT composite score of almost 25. Participants in the study were first-
terrn sophomores, who spent their first year at Alpha College. Students were asked to
reflect on their first year of college as they related their experiences in using lntemet
communication.

During the fall term of this study, the campus experienced serious problems with
its Internet connection, related to rapid growth in student use of applications such as
peer-to-peer music and video serving. Although the downloading of these large files

was not the only contributor to the network problem, it put pressure on college

116

bandwidth resources and thus helped create a situation of increasing instability of the
college lntemet connection. As students downloaded these applications, network
capacity diminished and ground to a halt.

In the fall of 2002, with more students bringing their own computers to campus
than ever, the pressure on the network became excessive and serious performance
problems resulted. During peak periods of such activity, Internet communication
slowed down significantly and the Alpha College network became unstable, which in
turn meant that the lntemet connection to the outside world failed. Sometimes
computer users could re—initiate network use immediately, while at other times they
were unable to resume use for a significant period of time. These problems built over
the prior year, and reached a crisis point in the fall of 2002, culminating in several
months of unreliability and instability of campus and lntemet connections.

As a result of the timing of the system problems and the resulting network
instability, students had experienced ongoing difficulties in connecting to the lntemet,
and had thus considered the importance of the lntemet in their daily lives before
agreeing to participate in the study. During the fall term of 2002, members of the entire
campus community actively discussed their serious concerns with the state of the
network, and network instability was the issue students most frequently took to the
provost for resolution. Student opinions were strong and consistent, and are reflected in

many focus group comments.

117

Methodology

Inductive research strategies were used to develop an understanding of the way
lntemet communication was used by students, and the ways in which that use might
affect their relationships on and off the college campus. Four focus groups, arranged as
two male only participants and two female only participants, were used to discuss
student experiences of computer communication on a small, liberal arts college campus.
The initial focus groups were split by gender to better ascertain differences in
experiences of males and females (Al-Motrif, 2000; Lenhart, 2001). A final session
comprised of both males and females from the first four sessions was held to revisit key
points and address questions that were not fully developed in the first four sessions. By
holding several focus group sessions, it was possible to review the topics in each group
until no new information was provided. This design was particularly appropriate for
this type of study as it allowed exploration of student experiences and opinions, with
follow—up of pertinent threads (Krueger, 1994).

Student participation was voluntary; a meal and a small gift were provided to
those who attended. The students filled out a survey prior to the focus group sessions
for the dual purposes of supporting the discussion itself, and to help me develop a better
understanding of these students through some baseline data. Sessions were audio tape-
recorded to help ascertain accuracy, and identical framing questions were presented to
each group. Following each session, the assistant moderator participated with me in a

debriefing session, which was also audio tape-recorded.

118

Verbatim transcripts of the sessions provided the basis for coding emerging
themes. Student responses were grouped thematically, and each theme was addressed
descriptively to ascertain the collective impact of their experiences, and indications of
the role of computer communication in their college experiences. In this way, it was
possible to develop both description of trends in student use of computer

communication, and also to develop ‘macro themes’ regarding the impact of this use.

Findings

Findings are grouped into two types: the experience of computer communication
for first-year students, and the effects of computer communication on first-year students.
The experience of computer communication is one of folding around the lives of
students; it envelops their life experiences, their reference points, and their
understanding of how the world operates. The second distinct pattern that emerged was
the set of effects that computer communication had on students’ lives. Although these
are grouped separately for better clarification, the experiences of students and the
effects of those experiences have common underlying structures and thus do not fall

completely into separate categories, causing some bleeding across themes.

Experiences of Computer Communication

As students discussed their first year, they described some of the typical

experiences of incoming college students, such as freedom to come and go as they

119

wished, determining when to do homework, and feeling quite on their own. Students
also related experiencing the freedom of a direct connection to the lntemet once they
were at college. Most of these students were able to connect to the lntemet from their
homes during their high school years, typically through a modem. Since such
connection ties up the home phone line, the time students spent online in their high
school years was often relatively brief in comparison to what they could spend online
once arriving at Alpha College.

Almost all of the students in focus group sessions had access to a computer, with
a direct Internet connection, in the college residence halls. Because of the direct
connection, they were able to have a continued online presence, even posting messages
describing where they were while they went about their daily activities. According to
the participants, direct lntemet connection encouraged them to significantly increase the
amount of time they spent accessing the lntemet in college, as compared to high school.

The process of adjusting to residential college life is typical for new college
students. The coupling of that adjustment with the freedom of a direct connection to the
lntemet may remain fairly unique to students attending college at the beginning of the
21St century. For most of the students in this study, the experience of leaving home to
attend college and the experience of direct connection to the lntemet occurred
simultaneously.

I was first impressed with the sheer volume of communication students were
describing. They talked about growing up with computers, depending on them for so
many daily activities, and absolute relying on them to facilitate communication with

their social networks. To these students, the computer and communication it enabled

120

were extensions of themselves. In conducting these focus group sessions, I had the
opportunity to step into these students’ lives for a time and see a world that is different
from mine, and I found the experience fascinating. Four significant themes emerged
regarding student experience of using computer communication.

The first theme was identification of the computer as an extension of
themselves, and as such an absolute necessity in students’ lives. Online communication
connected them to their social networks, their family networks, and to myriad lntemet-
provided resources. As such, it was very important to them. In discussion, they
emphasized their need and perceived absolute right to unfettered use of computer
communication.

Students turned to the lntemet to communicate, transact business, seek
information, and find entertainment. They also used the lntemet to accomplish
academic work, preferring the lntemet to conventional information sources like the
library. This generation of students grew up amid widespread use of computers. The
set of opportunities such technology provided was accepted as the norm. These
students were knowledgeable about the opportunities afforded by lntemet technology,
and made use of those opportunities.

The second theme was the amount of connection that students had with off-
campus and on-campus friends. Students typically arrived on campus with a fully-
developed friendship network. This pre-college network was made up of close friends,
and easily adapted to online contact. Once students arrived on campus, they also had

the opportunity to make and connect with new friends, thus fornring another social

121

network. Generally speaking, students turned to both their old and new friends as well
as family to help them cope with issues and problems in their lives.

Differences between parent and student use of computer communication also
emerged. Most students described frequent contact with their parents, and even stayed
in touch electronically with aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. This contact was
typically conducted through the lntemet, most often by email. Students talked about the
ways in which parents helped them cope with problems and adjust to college. When
discussion turned to parents’ use of the lntemet, the tables turned and students felt they
had the upper hand. These students talked about how some parents felt overwhelmed
by programs like Instant Messenger. Students seemed to feel that the world of
computer communication belonged to their generation, but they willingly assisted their
parents by helping them cope with the perceived complexities of such communication.

The third theme comprising the experiences of students was the emergence of
distinct group traits by gender. Both men and women stated that they used the same
basic set of Internet tools in similar ways, but in discussion they proceeded to talk about
gender differences in the topics and type of communication. Women described chatting
online more, and felt that men sought specific information online. Women seemed to
seek a connection with parents more than men, or at least were more willing to say so.

The fourth theme describing the experience of students using computer
communication was the ways in which students connected with “the College” and with
faculty. Students felt that Alpha College was technologically behind other institutions in
the use of computer technology and in providing sufficient academic resources for

students; technological shortcomings were identified as a lack of lntemet course tools

122

such as Blackboard, technology in the classroom, and student—faculty contact by
computer. While students believed providing better computing resources would
improve the academic experience, they felt as though they had many opportunities for
face-to-face contact with faculty, and that they had a high quality academic experience

at Alpha College.

Effects of Computer Communication

Concurrent social networks are now part of the college student experience;
discovering the ways this experience affects students is important to understanding what
it means to be a college student at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In this
section, I discuss effects I observed related to use of computer communication. These
included time evaporation and balancing old and new social networks. While students
recognized these to some extent, they were better able to describe their experiences
related to computer communication than the outcomes of those experiences.

The first effect of computer communication I encountered was time evaporation.
Students spent hours conversing with friends and family by computer. These hours
would have been spent another way had students not opted to converse electronically.
The students in this study did not feel that they lacked any kind of participation on
campus because of using computer communication. They said that they were doing
exactly what they wanted to do, and that they were as involved as they wanted to be on
campus. In fact, students repeatedly stated that they did not participate more in campus

activities, mostly because they needed to spend time on academics. When I asked what

123

was displaced by computer communication, almost all of the students said it was time
for study and homework. For the most part, students did not recognize the relationships
in the situation they were describing: online communication took time away from
academic work; they did not have time to participate more in the life of the campus due
to the pressure of their academic work. Thus, although they generally denied it, it is
possible that students were participating in fewer campus activities because of their use
of computer communication.

Students were passionate about maintaining pre-college friendships. These
friendships kept them connected to their high school circles and news within those
circles. The pre-college friendships often helped students cope with large issues in their
lives, and address day-to-day stresses and successes. Students who stayed in touch with
friends at other academic institutions felt that collegiate challenges were similar and that
day-to-day life at these other colleges was not necessarily better than at Alpha College.
Some students felt that by having this information, they were more satisfied with Alpha
College and more likely to re-enroll.

Students described peers who spent their time on the computer, talking with
friends at home, and then complained about not making any friends at college. In these
instances, maintaining the old social network obscured the opportunity to develop a new
social network. Sometimes members of the pre-college network of friends pressed
students to return home and rejoin the group. In these situations, computer
communication pulled students away from the relationships and activities that would

help them bond with the campus and succeed in transitioning to college.

124

Another, and possibly more important, effect of these networks was the very
significant amount of support students got through their use. I realized that students
exhibited the need for different levels of support from their networks, and that these
changed dynamically over time (see Figure 1). For some students, their pre-college
network of friends provided the most support; other students stayed connected to the
daily lives of pre-college friends, but sought support from peers on campus.
Construction of the relationships of these networks with the students’ lives was very
individualized. For many, the support they received through their networks sustained
them through difficulties that might have otherwise caused them to withdraw from

college.
Implications

The findings of this study indicated that students both experience computer
communication and are affected by computer communication. In the following pages, I
develop these categories more fully and break them down into themes.
Experience One: Computer as Natural Extension of Themselves

For the students in my study, the computer was an extension of themselves, and
it was fully integrated into their lifestyles. Their passion for computer communication

seemed based in their passion to maintain connection with important people in their

lives. The computer was the most efficient and satisfying process for them to use.

125

Figure 1

Student use of computer communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:1 Substantial Needed from college fiiends

0

U 5/

N

T

0 Moderate

F f

f} Needed fi‘om pre—college

P fiiends and family

P Minimal

O

R

T
General Involved in Understands Significant
lnforrnation Daily Lives Concerns Emotional

Support
TYPE OF SUPPORT

 

 

 

This is a construction of one student’s support network at one point in time. He noted,
among other things, that his on-campus friends better understood what he was going
through than did his off-campus friends. He wanted to remain in the daily lives of his

pre-college friends, but they were not needed much for emotional support.

Students individually construct the need for support from fiiends and family at
home, and from friends on campus.

The varying need levels, ranging from actual support to simple appreciation for
general information, spanning their off-campus and campus relationships, could
help us understand how the student can best be supported.

This graphic depiction of a student’s construction of relative need for different
networks is not intended to quantitatively depict the student experience, but simply
to illustrate that students need different levels of support from different groups.
The fact that both of these networks can co-exist to such a great extent is due to
computer communication and the maintenance of off-campus relationships it allows.
Other support network constructions, if depicted graphically, would show a very
high level of pre-college support.

126

However, the representation of the computer in their lives was more than simply an
activity. It was a symbolic opportunity to post away messages and be present on the
computer when physically absent from it. This allowed students to reach out in ways
that made them feel they were, through the computer, connecting. In this symbolic and
metaphoric way, the computer extended their reach, extended their physical presence,
and was part of their identity.

The basic need to belong is expressed in the attachments people form to each
other, the relational stability they seek, and the emotional energy they spend on the
well-being of others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). That connection is manifested in
communication. Bruce (1993) states that new information and communication
technologies modify what society regards as the norm, and because of this, they lead to
different social experiences, expectations, and social roles. This was apparent in this
study as students told me of their experiences staying connected to networks of friends
and family, their expectation for computer software and hardware access to maintain
those networks, and the ways in which relationships were initiated and maintained
differently than in pre-Intemet society.

Educators need to understand the experience of students using computer
communication, validate the legitimacy of the experiences, and positively address
opportunities to tap into this communication tool to deve10p campus community and
student satisfaction with the campus social and academic experience. I did not
anticipate the level to which students were connected to each other via computer

communication, their dependence on it, or the extent to which they were computer

savvy. Students’ expectation for access to computer communication was so deep-
rooted that they could not imagine being without it.

The Millennial generation of students, born since 1982 and entering college
today (Howe & Strauss, 2002), have a different relationship with computer
communication than the administrators and faculty running colleges. These students
turn first to the computer to accomplish almost every task they encounter. This
generation is now in their first years of college, will begin graduating from college in
2004, and entering professional schools in 2006 (Howe & Strauss, 2002). They will use
computer technology and communication more than any preceding generation, and the
younger siblings who follow them will be even more electronically connected, with

expectations at least as high as their older brothers and sisters.

Experience Two: Students Arrive Connected and Continue Connecting

Because computer communication provides the opportunity to stay close to pre-
college networks of friends, “going away to college” is a different experience now than
it was before such communication existed. Students now leave home and attend
college, but they no longer need to ‘go away’ from their friends and family. Instead,
those individuals are now often in the daily lives of students.

Students arrive on campus with their pre-college friends virtually in tow as they
begin unpacking. They want to connect with friends and family by computer as soon as
they move into their rooms. When these connections can not be accomplished, the

result to the student is more than simply lack of access to the computer. Students feel

128

cut off from their support network, not only from friends and families because of
distance between them, but also cut off from a pastime of communicating with them
electronically.

Although I did not have enough participants to analyze differences between
minority and majority students, I heard minority students speak of feeling like outsiders,
particularly because the college “is so small and so very white” (F2). Connecting with
their ethnic group via computer communication appeared to be an additional form of
support for these students. Adapting to college life might be assisted by encouraging
students to connect with their support networks and by creating campus-based support
networks of students, administrators and faculty. Chat room discussions of strategies
for survival to connect students intentionally may provide better support for these
students and allow development of cohort groups.

Students described the extent to which they corresponded with their parents
electronically, with some noting that parental correspondence is almost exclusively
through the computer. These students, as members of the Millennial generation, have
been sheltered by parents, are seeking success, and yet feel pressured to achieve (Howe
& Strauss, 2002). Many students, particularly women, described the connection with
parents as one that helped sustain them in adjusting to college. Since students
communicate extensively with parents via computer communication, college
administrators might consider the new Opportunities to support students through
information that could be provided by computer communication to parents.

I found that students relied on parents for support through computer

communication, but felt that parents knew much less about using the computer for

communication. As students identified ways in which their parents communicated by
computer, they also described ways they helped their parents understand how to use the
computer. I saw evidence of their Millennial generation characteristics in this process:
these students liked their parents, enjoyed communicating with them, and were glad to
help them in this way.

Additionally, college administrators and faculty can develop ways to connect
routinely with students using computer communication. In this study, students
suggested that having a very good campus email system, coupled with timely and
complete information on its use, helps connect incoming students to each other and to
the college. Beyond initial chat room opportunities, the college can initiate ongoing
discussion areas such as virtual counseling, Opportunities to ask questions, and ongoing
forums and town hall types of discussions.

To accomplish these initiatives, it is imperative that students use the institution’s
email system. College administrators and faculty can help encourage this by providing
an email system that is competitive with the ones students seek externally. Colleges
also need to consider providing some critical information only through the campus
email system so that students are encouraged to keep using it, and avoid sending too
much information that is of the bulletin board variety. Students in the focus groups
indicated that they disregarded bulletin board communication, and its distribution gave
them one more reason to avoid using the campus email system. By encouraging
students to continue using their campus email addresses, administrators, faculty and
students can more easily connect electronically, and formation of community

environment may be more possible. Once students become dissatisfied with the college

130

email system and change to another email provider, they are not likely to switch back

and the campus community loses a valuable communication opportunity.

Experience Three: Gender Similarities and Differences

Men and women used the same types of computer processes to communicate, to
be entertained, and to accomplish academic work. However, differences emerged
regarding ways that students used those computer processes. For example, men tended
to be direct in asking others, particularly women, for screen names, while women
indirectly sought screen names, particularly from men. Women’s description of
computer communication emphasized a more detailed communication with friends than
did men’s. In both instances, computer communication appeared to be an extension of
the characteristics of the individual user. The extent that men and women use different
tactics and styles to communicate transferred to their use of computer communication.
Both men and women discussed communicating electronically with parents, although
women emphasized the support aspects of that communication more than men did.

As computer communication opportunities are more intentionally developed on
campus, it is important for administrators and faculty to consider ways in which those
processes can be positive experiences for men and women, taking the preferences of
each group into account. By identifying opportunities for support that help strengthen
the student experience, college administrators and faculty can use knowledge of

students’ needs to help positively structure the collegiate experience.

131

Experience Four: Students, “the College ” and Computer Communication

The relationship between the student and the college is directly affected by
student satisfaction with computer access, particularly access for social purposes.
Students like to have technology in classrooms and courses but are not nearly as
passionate about any lack in academic technology as they are about a lack of technology
for social purposes.

Students in my study evaluated their satisfaction with the college in large part
through their access to computer communication. While colleges report to prospective
students, parents, and others the number of computers available for students in
computer laboratories and residence lobbies, these indicators are less important to
students than the particulars of access from their rooms. Students emphasized a need
for reliability of the computer network, inexpensive access at a level that is not less than
they have experienced in the past, and they did not want to have to leave their rooms to
use it. Tinto’s (1987) research on social integration and student satisfaction with the
campus experience related to student life in past decades; today’s students may
additionally need to maintain social integration with their pre-college friends to feel

socially connected.

Eflect One: Computer Communication and Time Evaporation

Students are living away from home, typically for the first time, and often turn

to the computer to connect with those to whom they are emotionally closest. That

132

connection can be positive and grounding, carrying students through the uncertainty of
a new set of experiences, helping them cope with serious issues, and even reinforcing
the reasons they selected and attended the college. That connection can also be
distracting and time-consuming.

The latter point is exacerbated by the fact that students in their first year of
college have not yet adapted to the shorter blocks of time in class and the increased
expectations of academic work outside of class as compared to high school.
Additionally, while parental supervision of homework may have existed during their
high school years, students are on their own in college. As students adjust to the
expectations of college, they may believe that they have significant time to fill, and it is
natural that they turn to their pre-college friends, who have been important in their lives
for years. Because lntemet communication is easily accessible, and because many have
a direct connection for the first time in their lives, the initial weeks and months of
college easily become filled with email and Instant Messaging.

Through my research, I discovered that computer communication consumed a
significant amount of students’ time, potentially displacing academic or other activities.
Also, while students did not necessarily see a connection between time spent
maintaining social networks via computer communication, and an impact on campus
activities, they described a shortage of time, particularly for studying. Despite being
computer-savvy eighteen-year old students, students typically enter college as
unsophisticated learners who may have difficulty prioritizing and protecting their time.
First-year college students cope with significant adjustment and feel a lot of pressure to

do well (Howe & Strauss, 2002). Computer communication helps them feel more

133

connected, more comfortable, and more in touch. They use it to fill the perceived
spaces in their schedules and messages come to them even as they try to use the
computer for academic work. When they are not on their computers, the “beeps” of
arriving messages can be heard, luring them back into conversation.

Because of this potential drain on time, and the possibility that students will not
engage sufficiently in establishing a college social network, they may find that they do
not ‘fit’ at the institution. Social integration has long been equated with the satisfaction
students have with their campus experience (T into, 1987). Today, the social connection
with the campus has the potential for a dual effect: not only might students bond to a
lesser degree with their peers at their academic institution, but they might also be
dissatisfied if they can not connect to pre-college friends.

Some students stated that communication with pre-college friends took time
away from academic work but did not impact their level of participation in campus
activities. These students also stated that the reason they did not participate more in
campus activities was because they needed to focus on academic work (see Figure 2a
and 2b). My research showed a substantial influence of computer communication on
time available and initiative for developing campus friendships. The situation and
personality of the student appeared to be the determining factors influencing the ways in
which students were affected by maintenance of concurrent social networks.

Because there is a saturation point in seeking relationships, people do not feel
compelled to pursue replacement of one social bond with another (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). My research identified some students who may have had their ‘relationship

quota’ met and chose to maintain old social networks rather than developing new ones.

134

Figure 2a

Relationship between electronic communication, participation in campus activities,
and time spent on academic activities such as homework.

 

Students talked about spending
a significant amount of time
using computer
communication.

 

 

 

/ \

 

 

 

 

Yet they said that when Students said they
they spent time in were less involved in
computer ‘ college activities than
communication, what ’ they were in high
they were not doing was school because they
their academic work. needed to spend time
on academia...not
because they spent
time in computer
communication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

 

 

Figure 2b

Relationship between electronic communication, participation in campus activities, and time
spent on academic activities such as homework, using actual student comments.

 

 

I asked, “Give me a sense of how you use the computer — what kinds of things do
you do — like do you email a lot — [M a lot?”

A young man replied, “1M - 1M — constantly!” Another young man replied,
“we’re always on” (M2). The group nodded in affirmation.

“...my roommate last year... every time I walked into the room she was sitting
there talking - that’s all she did” (FZ).

“...There’s a girl across the hall from me and I’ve seen her all the time - she’s
always in her room - she’s always on her computer. She really doesn’t have any
fiiends, and I’m just like ‘if you’d take that [computer communication] away from
her, she could get involved in some other things’” (F2).

ll ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet they said that when they Students said they were less involved in

spent time in computer college activities than they were in high

communication, what they were school because they needed to spend

not doing was their mdanic time on academia...not because they

work. spent time in computer communication.
I asked “When you spend time

using email or IM, what are you I said, “I’m asking about. the reasons
not doing? In other words, what college mvolvement rs different than
_> high school involvement, what 1 was

xxx: 2:31:33:th did really trying to get at in that question
communicate? was does lM-ing, emailing, etc. with

folks take people away at all from
The entire group replied, *_ involvement in college?”

“Homework!” A young woman “ , .
clarified, “Every time you sit I don tthrnk that [computer _
down to your desk, like, I’ll be communication] has much to do With my
writing or typing or something involvement because I. chose to be less
and I’ll have [M on and someone mvollved. I Ilad szmelqulvementlwgh

- 9, peopernco ege ut ’m essinvov
Will talk to you (F1) because I have a scholarship and my
grades are really important to me. So
that’s why I chose to be less involved —

it was to keep my grades [up]” (F1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

136

Because they stayed in touch with their pre-college friends, they had less need — and
thus less willingness — to try to make friends on campus. Some of these students felt
that they would have better attempted to make friends in the new environment if they
had not had access to their old networks. As I listened to these students describe their
struggles with adjustment to college, I realized anew that the individuals in the focus
groups were students who had returned for the second year of college. Many other
students leave after completing only a first term or year of college. A study of the
experience of those students and their use of computer communication is a study for a
later time.

Given the significant number of contacts and extensive communication that
students described in this study, I thought that students would also tell me that they had
a lot of close friends. But their comments on this were fairly inconclusive. Some
students claim to have only a few very good friends, while other students claim to have
many. Yet all students seemed to communicate extensively with many individuals
beyond an initial network of friends. A feeling of social isolation often leads first year
students’ dissatisfaction with the institution. Connections between students and the life
of the institution need to be made early in the first term of enrollment (Martin &
Arendale, 1993). It is possible that for some students, extensive communication with the
pre-college network lessens both the time and the need for development of on—campus

friendships.

137

Effect Two: Computer Communication and the Balance of Old and New Social

Networks

Scholars have long recognized the importance of student involvement on
campus with their peers, their academic work, and with faculty in retaining students at
the institution (Astin, 1975, 1984, 1993). Other research noted that communicating with
friends at a distance took time away from development of local friendships (Lenhart,
2001). The lack of sufficient interaction with the campus community was identified as
the primary indicator of college attrition (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1979). Given the
support students feel computer communication provides, new questions arise: if
students rely on their pre-college friends to provide support, does that actually make
them more likely to be dissatisfied with the campus? Might it actually be a new way of

meeting the needs of first-year college students?

The Draw of Old Social Networks

Tinto’s (1987) description of the separation, transition, and incorporation stages
of student adjustment to college were described by the student experience in my focus
group sessions, although no two students seemed to have exactly the same experiences
relative to college adjustment. The passion for retaining the old social network
sometimes diminished as students built new friendship networks. My research
indicated that students may take longer to separate from pre-college friends because

they communicate with them so frequently, and in that process, they may lengthen the

138

separation stage of their shift from high school to college. In this study, some
sophomore students moved away emotionally from pre-college friends and turned
toward campus friends for emotional support. Other students were still very dependent
on pre-college friends for emotional support, and it was not obvious to me whether or
not they would ever transition away from that.

It is possible that students who bond less strongly to the college may be more
vulnerable to leaving the institution. Astin states that making the transition to college
requires purposeful effort. The amount of physical and psychological energy students
exert is an indication of the likelihood of a successful transition. Connecting to the new
community takes purposeful prompting and requires time spent together to develop a
true community (Kuh, 1991). Of particular concern are students who are less actively
involved in constructing their own educational communities (Winston, 1965). Since
participation in the research project was completely voluntary, and focus group
discussions were very active, it is likely that the group of students in my study were not
‘low interactors.’ And yet, even in this group, some effects of online communication on
community building were evident. This study did not determine whether low interactors
are more willing to maintain old social networks, but it identified other categories of
students who might do so. For example, students undergoing periods of stress, or
students who do not fit into either their residence hall or the initial group of students
around them may rely heavily on computer communication. My research indicates that
students, particularly in times of difficulty, reach toward the group with whom they find

the most comfort. Often this group was their pre-college friends, as well as their

139

families. For these students, maintaining the old social networks may be especially
important.

As college communities and cohort groups are maintained over a shorter time
span than most other communities, the need for early bonding, and the implications
when it does not occur are significant (Tinto, 1987). Students are relatively short-term
members of college communities, remaining in the community group only a few years.
As short-term members, students may be more affected by events that occur outside
their acadenric community than they would be in a longer-term, home community
environment. Because of the significant ties students maintain with their pre-college
communities, events that occur in those communities remain important to them after
entering college. I witnessed the strength of the pre-college relationships and students’
strong interest in maintaining them. New opportunities to remain in almost the minute-
by-minute lives of friends and family kept students much more connected to the details
of their pre-college communities than they could have been in the absence of computer

communication.

Pre-College Friends and Leaving College

This process of potentially lengthening the separation stage of adjustment to
college life may mean that students experience an extended period of vulnerability in
their transition, and that they are more likely to leave the institution. Tinto (1987) also
asserted that pre-college friends can inhibit students’ academic and social integration

into the campus community. Students related to me that pre-college acquaintances

140

exerted a pull on them that manifested itself as a draw back into the previous life and
support structures. Students generally felt that the choice was theirs: they never blamed
friends from the old social network for any aspect of their college adjustment or
activities. The closest they came to criticizing was a male who said that his friends
were asking him why he went away, and were encouraging him to return to their
company. Generally, students said their friends were supportive of their academic
work, particularly if they knew that the student was happy with the college choice. If
friends detected unhappiness, they encouraged students to leave college.

Student life administrators work to help students connect to each other and join
in the campus community. My research indicates that development of new campus
community may be affected by pre-college social networks that students build from
significant face-to-face relationships, and which provide day-to-day information and
support for students. While distance typically causes the fading of relationships,
computer communication maintains pre-college relationships well beyond a point that
was possible before such communication existed. As a result, student life
administrators may need to develop different strategies for orienting students to campus
that incorporate pre-college networks. For example, the orientation process might
support students connecting with family and pre-college friends, and also suggest ways
to connect with peers on campus. Student life adnrinistrators could design experiences
that connect students on campus electronically, as well as the more traditional face-to-
face activities. Such experiences may include chat rooms to encourage students to get

to know other students on campus.

141

Students in the focus groups seemed to be well aware of peers who were overly-
engaged in computer communication. Student life administrators should consider ways
to work with students to identify those who are extensively communicating with off-
campus social networks that they lack connection to on-campus students. These
individuals may have problems adjusting to college, such as being in a residence hall of
students with whom he or she just can not connect. By recognizing extensive computer
communication as a symptom of a potential problem, administrators might address the

source of the problem and help students cope with their campus environment.

Individual construction of concurrent social networks

In some sense, students’ passion to maintain their concurrent social networks
was woven through each section in this work. For each student, the amount and type of
support from each social network varied (see Figure 2a and 2b). Some students needed
only general information from their pre-college networks; they turned almost
exclusively to their college network for emotional support, feeling that college peers
understood their challenges. For others, the pre-college network provided most of the
students’ support and the college network provided much less support. Most students
maintained some type of balance between the two extremes.

Strong ties are typified by frequent contact, a sense of affection, and a sense of
responsibility in regard to the other individual; weak ties represent relationships that
lack depth, whose bonds are easily broken bonds, and contact may be infrequent (Kraut,

1998). Strong and weak ties are often discussed in the development of online

142

relationships. I found that through the use of computer communication, strong ties for
pre-college, face-to-face friendships were maintained. Additionally, the new college
environment offers, at the point of entry, a weaker set of ties, and a weaker support
network. However, over time, the campus community may become a network of strong

ties for the individual student.

Computer Communication Sustains

Kraut (1998) expressed concern that lntemet use could promote social
withdrawal and decreased psychological well being. In my study, I found that extensive
communication with the pre-college social network may discourage connection to the
campus community. Students who connected extensively with off—campus contacts
may not have been satisfied with their campus social experiences, but I did not hear
them speak of decreased psychological well being. In fact, I found that computer
communication often sustained students and thus, increased their psychological well
being.

Tinto (1993) states that a major cause of student attrition from college is an
inability to make the transition into the college’s social and intellectual life. In my
research, I noted that some students have difficulty transitioning to the college’s social
life. I also noted that lntemet communication was often used by these students as a
communicating and a coping mechanism. Some students stated that they would have

adjusted to the college better if they had let go of friends from high school. It appears

143

that there may be an inverse relationship between letting go of pre-college fiiends and a
general willingness to participate in the social life of the college.

My research indicated that maintaining relationships with high school fiiends
can help ground students, stabilize and support them, and generally help them deal with
the pressures and changes in their lives that the college transitions bring. However, it is
also possible that whatever the length of time involved in the separation process,
students are more grounded and better supported due to their own balance of old and
new friendship networks. Therefore, it is possible that computer communication makes
the separation stage more comfortable and bearable for students. This raised for me the
question of how necessary it is for students to transition into college friendships. If they
are satisfied with their academic experience, and satisfied with their social experiences
by remaining connected to pre-college fiiends, they may be satisfied with their overall
experience enough to continue at the institution through graduation. For these students,
lntemet communication may support the separation phase and assist with the transition
to college. The extent to which computer communication is present in students’ lives
and appears to be such a necessary part of the transition process warrants asking
whether previous research (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Tinto, 1987)
describing student transition, involvement, and retention need to be reworked around
these new experiences. At least for some students, computer communication may have
changed the separation phase significantly enough to transform the process.

Some scholars herald the Internet as a tool that can lessen isolation and promote
relationships (CNN, 2-7-2002; McKenna et al., 2000; Pew Foundation). While I

observed that students appeared to be isolated, spending time alone in their rooms, they

144

were not really alone; they were simply talking with a different group of people. Even
exclusive external communication combined with an unwillingness to connect to local
people may not necessarily mean that the individual is worse off, but it does suggest
problems in that person’s relationship with the campus community. The questions for
me then revolved around the effect of those maintained relationships on development of

new relationships.

Theoretical Implications

As I speculate about the future of Alpha College and the ways in which
computer communication might be present in students’ lives, I think there will be
significant change ahead. Technology will continue to evolve, and communication
opportunities will reach into new areas. As this occurs, the computer might become an
even more visible and natural extension of students. Effects of pre—college networks,
observable now, might be stronger once voice and visual display, via microphones and
cameras, are a part of the day-to-day communication opportunities.

Campus influences on residential life might significantly diminish as pre-college
peers are present to a greater extent in the day-to-day lives of students. It is likely that
students will have little patience with academic communities that do not significantly
engage them via computer, as that type of communication will be so well-used by
students. The computer network and opportunities to connect will likely be as

important to students the academic reputation of the college or the physical facilities.

145

Because computer communication helps students create a world of their choice,
where pre-college friends and college friends are present when and where they wish,
continued erosion of time for academic preparation may occur. Academic institutions
that can help students come to terms with time for academic work and time for social
interaction might help students have a more satisfying college experience.
Additionally, those students who are able to balance their old and new social networks,
maintaining the old and developing the new, might find the college experience more
rewarding, and their connections to the social and academic life of the institution more
solid. Through use of computer communication, students nright find that the transition
to college is not as traumatic as students did in years past. We may learn that the
separation phase identified in literature on the four-year college experience (T into,
1993) diminishes to the point that it no longer exists.

The experience of computer communication for young men and women likely
transcends the boundaries of my research project. Students in my study described their
interactions with peers on the Alpha College campus, on campuses of other institutions,
and at home. All of the individuals with whom students were connecting also had
experiences of using computer communication. Students described the passion with
which their younger brothers and sisters used computer communication. The students
in my study are probably very similar to their younger siblings and to students entering
many types of colleges. The experience of today’s students may be a larger
transformation of human relationships and interaction through computer

communication.

146

Students obviously enjoyed the opportunity to use Instant Messenger to carry
out multiple concurrent conversations. I wondered why this was so exhilarating.
Perhaps it was invigorating as it challenged students to keep up, and made them feel
very capable as they succeeded. The activity reminds me of fast-paced, sound-bite
television ads, where images are quickly portrayed and then disappear. As I considered
the relationship between reflection and subsequent learning that acts as building blocks,
I wondered how this generation will commit to memory those images and conversations
that pass so quickly. I also wondered whether the press for multi-tasking in the student
experience would explain a society which seems to increasingly become less patient.

In considering the students’ desire for information provided at the speed of the
lntemet, preferably in full text, I wonder about the role of the library in future years. If
the lntemet is actually only a fraction of its future presence, will the lntemet become the
library? And will the lntemet virtually become the source of all information? Will
paper communication become a second choice, only used for very special occasions, as
the young man in one focus group indicated? And if a society is represented and
recorded through electronic impulses, what is archived for future generations? Will the
next several generations commit documents to paper or retain sufficient old software to
read electronic text?

If one always has a visible face to the world, be it physical or via a computer
presence, and if we are always reachable, connected, and communicating, I wonder if
we will become a society that does not know how to be alone. Will silence have a
place? Or will we require constant connection to other people to meet minute-to-minute

expectation for contact?

147

lntemet technology and computer communication provide, and likely will
continue to provide, opportunities for many good things in our lives. The students in
my study were sustained by computer communication. Because they did not need to be
physically present with their networks of friends, they could be sustained from any
location. This might change the meaning of being absent from one another. As modern
families relocate to significant distances from their families of origin, perhaps computer
communication will re-create, in a virtual sense, a semblance of communication
opportunities of years past, when family members lived close to their birthplace.

Previous generations have worried that those who follow will lack the quality of
thought and action that are necessary for a healthy society. Each society determines
how it will use the innovations available (Bruce, 1993). Computer communication
opens new options that were not previously accessible, providing individuals with
significantly more choice than previous generations. It is important to remember that
the next several years will contain significant changes and today’s students will become
the parents of another generation of students. We are experiencing more and better
opportunities to choose how we wish to live and communicate. For those who seek
constant communication with others, opportunities are available. Even though I wonder
where computer technology will take us in the next several years, I believe that we will

have the chance to create the best opportunities for the connections we desire.

148

Summary

College administrators and faculty recognize that students have myriad
experiences, needs and pressures. Computer communication is critical to students as a
pastime and as an important support mechanism. Administrators and faculty can use
this knowledge to better meet the emotional needs of students and help them adjust to
college. In some situations, the process of using lntemet communication may actually
work against desired outcomes (Thompson and Nadler, as cited in Tyler, 2002). One
example is new community development, when the old community remains at hand
through computer communication. However, negative aspects of this may be
ameliorated by a student’s conscious effort to develop campus community through use
of the same medium. Rather than discouraging the use of computer communication,
college faculty and administrators can consider ways to expand opportunities for
students to better meet their emotional needs through more effective use of computer
communication.

This may be the most significant finding of this study: as an individual
construction, computer networks may provide a better mix of support for students than
they have ever had before. It is unclear whether or not students are more likely to leave
the institution but I believe that students are likely to be better supported emotionally
and psychologically through computer communication.

Computer communication can be used to develop campus Opportunities. In my
research, I saw this happening primarily unintentionally. If used purposefully,

computer communication that seems such a central connection to student life might

149

better connect students to campus life in addition to connecting them to off-campus

friends and family.

Suggestions for Additional Research

Pace (1974, as cited in Kuh, 1991) states that the extent to which students are
personally and socially connected to the life of the campus, connected with faculty, and
involved in campus activities is related to a breadth of positive personal and social
benefits. My research indicates that computer communication impacts the personal and
social connections on campus, and suggests that additional research is needed to
determine the extent of the impact on those personal and social connections to the
college.

I could not pinpoint whether or not contact with the Old social network pulled
students away by not supporting the goals of education, or whether it simply inhibited
the development of campus friendships. For the most part, students did not claim that
off-campus friends actively pulled them away from the campus but this affiliation could
cause students not to develop campus friendships. In turn, this nright cause students to
become dissatisfied with the college experience and leave the institution.

Several other questions emerged from my research. For example, we need to
better understand the extent to which computer communication affects the academic
preparation of students on campus. In what ways does this communication impact the
time they spend on connecting with the life of the campus? We need to determine how

to best develop connections for students entering college, using their own medium of

150

computer communication, to ease the transition to college and help them become part of
the campus community.

The primary determinant of the effect of lntemet communication is based on the
particular characteristics of the individual(s) involved (Bargh, 2002a; Kraut et al.,
1998). Students acclimate to college differently and use computer communication in
ways that they construct as best in their situations. Females and males in my study
differed in the specifics of their use of computer communication. Males appeared to
value and emphasize convenience of access, in their connection with others and in their
opportunities to access information. Females were interested in specifics of individuals’
daily lives and also in being supported by others. However, it is not possible to say
these are completely male or female characteristics; there was simply a trend in those
directions through the groups in my study. How are particular groups of students
(females, males, minority students, transfer students, first generation college students)
likely to use lntemet communication? Particularly interesting for future study is
identification of the ways lntemet communication could be used to form support for
students on the college campus and help them successfully transition to the college
environment.

We need to better understand how computer communication affects students’
transition to college. For some, computer communication with an Off-campus network
of friends may lengthen the process of transition and increase the likelihood of
departure. Others students might be better supported through the transition to college
and more likely to continue enrollment. Since my research involved sophomores who

remained at the college into their second year, those who left should also be studied.

151

The environment of a small liberal arts college is unique from those of other
kinds of institutions, so developing social “fit” likely differs somewhat from campus to
campus. How do attributes of different campus types contribute to the effect of lntemet
communication on that particular group of students?

Also, many first-year programs are based on factors that predict student success,
including perception of community, student involvement in the life of the campus, and
academic/social integration (Light, 2001; Nagda, et al., 1998). We need to revisit these
factors to identify ways in which lntemet communication affects their enactment.

Finally, the lack of time and its impact on homework, studying, and social
activities should be more fully explored. Although students denied being affected by the
latter, they said that they did not have time for activities and, separately, that lntemet

communication was a big consumer of time.

Limitations

I began this study focused on the term “computer communication” or “computer
mediated communication” (CMC). The latter term came from my literature sources
Jablin, et al., 1987; Spears, 1994; Walter et al., 1994). However, as I progressed with
the study, as a result of revisiting the topic and, in turn, attempting clarity in my
presentation of the information derived, I began to think that “computer-mediated
communication” as a term left open questions of definition. For example, would it
include any communication that had computer logic at the base, such as cell phone
technology? I initially resisted the term “lntemet communication” because I felt that I

might be seen as jumping on the lntemet bandwagon. The Internet has become a

152

household term and sometimes discussion of its use seems more hype than substance.
But rather than using the term “computer communication” as I used initially, I felt that
the term “Internet communication” seemed to more directly describe the process I was
studying.

I began framing my research by using a cultural lens. I used this to develop a
rationale for the study, and referenced Morgan (1997), stating that culture is dynamic
and changing, and that communication is a critical process for a healthy culture. The
cultural lens helped explain the existence of the student body as a distinct entity on a
college campus, and validate the importance of communication in maintaining the
health of that subculture. It helped develop the concept that the campus community
changes over time, and that the student culture may change over time. However, as I
proceeded through the research and findings processes, I discovered that the cultural
lens did not allow me the opportunity to develop the student experience as well as the
other literature bases, and therefore I discontinued its use.

In doing this study, I heard the experiences of sophomores, reflecting on both
their first year and their sophomore year experience thus far. These were students who
returned to the campus for the second year. However, 16.3% of first-year students did
not return to Alpha College for the second year. Students who left the institution might
have been affected differently, possibly more intensely, by a lack of bonding to the
institution. Of course, any such lack may or may not be rooted in maintenance of Old

social networks.

153

Conclusion

Discoveries of this research stress the importance of understanding the culture of
students entering our colleges and universities. This Millennial generation, now in
college and continuing toward college for the next several years, brings attributes,
experiences and expectations that differ from previous generations. The experience of
computer communication engaged and affected students differently. We do not yet
understand the effect of computer communication on the maintenance of old social
networks for students adjusting to the new college community. Those experiences,
attributes, and expectations need to be understood to effectively develop social and
academic environments in which students can maximize their opportunity to participate

and learn.

154

Appendix A

Initial Contact letter

October 20, 2002
Dear [personalized],

You might have thought that faculty and administrators just don’t understand what it’s
like to be a student at this point in time. That’s probably true — but you can help
develop this understanding and make your voice heard.

I am a doctoral student, studying the experiences of students and communication on this
campus. I’d like to hear your Opinions and experiences; this understanding might help
to make improvements for college students in the future. To create the opportunity for
discussion, I am holding a get-together on [day]. The group will be about 7-9 first-term
sophomores, discussing their experiences in their first year of college; it will begin at
5:15 pm. and end before 7:00 pm. [alternate discussion will begin at 7:15 pm. and end
before 9:00 p.m.] I’ll buy the meal — pizza and subs from Mancino’s; and I’ll reserve
the room. There will be two groups of women and two groups of men (and later, a “big
issues” follow up group, made up of volunteers from the first groups). Participation in
this discussion is completely voluntary; you have no obligation whatsoever to
participate.

To create the Opportunity for discussion, I am holding four group sessions. I will call to
see if you would be willing to attend ONE of these:

Men’s groups: Oct. 28 (Monday) at 7:15 pm, or Nov. 4 (Monday) at 5 :15 pm.
Women’s groups: Oct. 30 (Wednesday) at 7:15 pm. or Nov. 11 (Monday) at 5:15
pm.

The gathering is for the purpose of discussing computer communication by college
students. I am particularly seeking students who lived on campus as freshmen last year
and who used the computer quite a bit during the freshman year to communicate with
friends (on-campus and/or off-campus friends). I plan to audio-tape the discussion to
help me develop an analysis of the experiences.

Computer technology has changed the world in so many ways in the last several years,
and college administrators and faculty grew up in a world that is different than that of
students. I hope to develop a better understanding of the environment that students
experience; this information will be used by the college, and hopefully beyond the
college.

Sincerely - Karen Klumpp —— Asst. Provost & Registrar — Alpha College (ext. 7244)

155

Appendix A

Script for phone call

Hi, I’m Karen Klumpp — I am a college administrator and also a doctoral student. I sent
you a memo last week regarding a study I’m doing as part of doctoral research at
Michigan State University. Did you get that? [If no, I will go through the initial memo
first]

As I noted in the memo, I’m gathering a focus group on [day] and would be interested
in having you participate. You need to remember that your participation is voluntary.
The development of this information will hopefully make a difference in understanding
the experiences and environment of students, and thus in better anticipating student
needs. Your comments and information will be kept private, shared only with my
academic advisor — Dr. Marilyn Amey -— at MSU. In referring to the information
developed in the group, I will not use names.)

Do you think you would be interested? As I noted in my memo, I am particularly
seeking students who lived on campus as freshmen last year and who use the computer
quite a bit to communicate with friends (particularly off-campus friends).

1. Did you attend Alpha College as a freshman last year? (I will actually pre-screen
my list so it should consist of sophomores who were freshmen at the college in the
previous year.)

2. If yes, do you use the computer as a primary way to correspond with friends? (At
this point, I will not differentiate between friends Off campus and friends on campus
because I think that both kinds of information would be useful. I will ask what
friends they communicate with while in the focus group discussion, however.)

If the student answers no to any of these questions, I will thank them for their time &
say that I will contact them if another opportunity arises, but they aren’t eligible for this
study.

If the student answers yes to all of these, I will say:

The upcoming discussion group will consist of 7-9 students and will meet in VanDusen
Fireside Lounge. Do you know where that is? [explain] Can you attend the meeting on
[day] at 5:15 or 7:15 pm? [If no, terminate; if yes, continue] I will have pizza & subs
for the group. I’ll ask you to provide me with some written information and sign for
permission for me to use your responses in my study. If you are interested in the results
of my research, I will be glad to share that with you when it is available.

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions — if you need to reach me, my number
is ext. 7244.

156

Appendix A

Confirmation letter

Dear [personalized],

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the focus group discussion on the student
experience and computer communication. You are in Group 1 [or 2] and will meet on
[day], at 5:15 pm. [or 7:15 p.m.] in Van Dusen Fireside Lounge. I know you are busy
and Will be sure to end the session by 6:55 pm.

As I noted in my phone call, the purpose of this discussion to hear about your
experiences of using the computer to communicate with friends; I will record the
discussion for later review and analysis. You will be part of a group of 7-9 people who
are also first term s0phomores and who spent their freshman year at Alpha College. I
will bring in pizza and subs from Mancino’s.

As you arrive on [day] I will give you a consent form with a sign-off area for voluntary
participation in the study. I’ll distribute a brief survey, and then begin the discussion.
As I noted previously, I will make every effort to maintain your privacy.

I hope you are able to participate; if for any reason you are not able to attend, please let
me know as soon as possible.

I’m looking forward to meeting with you on [day].

Sincerely,

Karen Klumpp
Ext. 7244

157

Appendix A

Script for follow-up reminder call

Hi — this is Karen Klumpp & I’m calling to remind you about the session tomorrow —
[day] at 5:15 pm. [or 7:15 p.m.] in Van Dusen Fireside Lounge. Are you going to be
able to attend? Do you know where to find the room? We’ll be starting right at 5:15 —
will you have any problem getting there by then? I’ll have the pizza & subs; you don’t
need to bring anything.

Do you have any questions! [responses follow, if questions are asked] Thanks, bye.
[If a student indicates he/she will not be able to attend, I will call one of the pre-set
“alternates” with whom I’ve already arranged attendance in the event that someone

indicates they can’t attend. The alternates will not be different from the rest of the
group, and will be as good a choice as the original attendee would be.]

158

Appendix A

Statement of Informed Consent

To participants:

By signing this form, you are agreeing to participate in this research project on
"Students, Computers, and Communication" that is being conducted by Karen Klumpp
from Alpha College (through Michigan State University).

You are being asked to participate in this focus group study to find out about students
and computer communication; the discussion will be based primarily on the experiences
of first-year students in using computer mediated communication while developing
social integration. This discussion will last less than two hours, and will be audio-taped.
The audio tapes will be used to construct a transcript of the focus group and at the
conclusion of the research they will be erased.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and if you wish to withdraw
from the study or to leave, you may do so at any time, without explanation, reason, or
any penalty. If you do withdraw from the study that withdrawal will have no effect on
your relationship with this college or any other organization. You will not receive
compensation or other direct benefits from participating in this study, but your presence
may help others in the future.

As a participant, your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law; in turn, you have an obligation to respect the privacy of others in the group by
keeping any personal information shared during our discussion confidential.

As the researcher, I am glad to answer any questions you may have about the study and
what you are expected to do. If you would like information about the focus group
discussion, I would be glad to share that with you. If you would like to keep a copy of
this form, I will make a copy for you.

I have read and understand this information and agree to take part in the study.

Today's Date:

 

Your signature: Your name (printed):

 

 

If you have any questions about this study, please contact either the researcher, Karen
Klumpp — 989-463-7244 or the chair of the doctoral dissertation committee, Dr.
Marilyn Amey — 51 7-432-1056.

159

N

Appendix A

Survey — distributed with Informed Consent form

Name:

 

Did your parents attend college? (circle one) Yes NO

 

 

3. How many miles away do your parents/relatives live? OR, how long does it take
you to get there, if that’s easier than figuring out miles? miles OR
hours
4. Do you live on campus? (circle one) Yes NO
5. Are you working? (circle one) Yes No
How many hours per week?
On campus or off campus?
6. Do you have easy access to a computer at your residence? (circle one) Yes No
7. How many people do you consider to be “very good” friends?
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 7-9
(1. 10-12
C. over 12
8. How do you stay in touch with friends who are {191 at this college (email, phone,
IM .)?
9. Some off-campus friends may be attending another college; some may have decided

NOT to go to college.
Do you think there is a difference in the way you relate to these two groups of
friends?

(circle one) Yes No

Does it ever feel as though one group “pulls you away” from your college work?
(circle one) Yes No

If you said yes, which one?
a. friends attending another college

160

b. friends who are not in college

Do these off campus friends ever make you feel glad you’re at this College?
(circle one) Yes No

10. What level of college activities are you involved in as compared to your high
school activities? (circle one) More Less Same

11. How many hours per week do you use the computer to:
0 email friends?
° surf the web?
0 participate in chat rooms or Instant Messaging (or equivalent)?

12. Do you think you are involved in fewer face-to-face activities and communications
with friends on campus because you have kept your former friends?
a. Yes

b. No
c. Neither a nor b
Why or why not?

 

13. DO you stay in touch with your parents using the computer? (circle one) Yes No
Not much

If yes, does that contact:

a. help you feel good about college
b. pull you away from college

c. neither a nor b

14. How has your computer communication with Off-campus friends affected the

number of campus friendships?

a. fewer on-campus friendships because of computer communication with off
campus friends

b. no difference in number of campus friendships because of computer
communication with Off campus friends

c. more on-campus friendships because of computer communication with off
campus friends

15. Overall, what is the effect of computer communication on your adjustment to Alpha
College?

 

 

 

16. Is there any important area that I missed? Any additional thoughts you’d like to
share?

 

161

 

 

Thank you!

162

Appendix B

Focus group questions

The group assembled here is all first-term sophomores. You were all here and lived
on campus for your freshman year. And you all survived it and returned! For this

discussion, I want you to think back on your freshman year — remember what it felt
like, how you reacted, what mattered to you.

Opening question (students have nameplates; no need to introduce by name)

Let’s start by talking just a little about who you know here - do you know some of the
people here? All of them? And then talk a little bit about what kind of computer you
have, and the ways that you use it (typing papers, searching the web, emailing friends,
IM, etc.). Then — as a group — we’ll identify on the flip chart which uses are the most
important to you.

Transition

Can you give me a sense of how much you use the computer to communicate with on
campus friends and with off campus friends?

Can you describe a bit about how involved you were in high school activities -- how
many and what kind -- and how involved you now are in college activities. Do you see
a difference in your amount of involvement?

For those of you who felt there was a difference, what do you think are the 1-2 primary
reasons that your college involvement is different than high school? What are you
doing more or less than you were?

What was the biggest obstacle (which you experienced or which you witnessed) for
students in joining and feeling a part of the campus community?

Some studies have shown that males and females use the computer differently. Since
this is a group of [women/men], what can you tell me about differences you've seen in
the ways men & women use the computer? (I'm intentionally NOT saying "to
communicate" here because females have been shown to communicate more and males
to play games more. I don't want to narrow the question by naming a category of use.]

Key questions
Now can you talk about how close you feel to your friends off campus and how close
you feel to your friends on campus. You don't need to explain the level of personal

relationships, but give an idea of how connected you are on campus and off campus to
friends.

163

How does computer communication fit into this? Does email keep you connected?
Would you classify yourself as a “joiner,” a “mid-level joiner” or a “non-joiner” in
relation to joining committees, groups, and events on campus? Does communication

with off-campus friends make you more or less likely to join?

When you spend time using email, what are you not doing. In other words, what would
you be doing if you didn't use the computer to communicate?

When you communicate with off-campus friends, how much help are they in dealing
with problems you experience on campus? Do you feel like they understand? Do they
help you or do you feel like they pull you toward what they are doing?

Ending questions

What should the college understand about life as a freshman (first year student) and the
ways that computer communication impacts that experience?

How might the college structure that environment to make it better?

Would you recommend that any changes be made in ways we help students connect to
each other and to the campus?

Summary questions

[review for 2-3 minutes the information students have shared]

Did I “get it” — does this summary correctly describe what was said?

Does this adequate capture the conversation?

Final question

Is there anything I've left out, or anything that seems important to add?

We will have one more follow up meeting, to deal with the “bigger issues” that arose
from both focus group sessions. DeveIOping this understanding is really important to
students coming in and to the college. How many of you might be interested in
participating in one more discussion? (I’ll feed you again!) I appreciate your time, and

if you care to share any additional thoughts, please feel free to call me or to email me
with them.

164

Appendix B

Fifth Focus Group Session — Survey Questions

 

Name

Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No
Yes — No

8.

9.

. Does email allow you to express ideas to a professor that you

would not have expressed in class?

Do you use the Internet more than the library for information
searching?

. Are you required to use the lntemet to contact other students in at

least some of your classes?

Do you subscribe to one or more mailing lists to carry on
discussions about topics covered in classes?

. Do you use email to discuss or find out a grade from an instructor?

If you do email a professor, do you use email to report absences?
Do your professors email you to stay in touch with you?
Do you use email to keep in touch with professors?

Are you required to use email in your classes?

10. Are you more likely to use the phone than the lntemet to

communicate socially?

11. Do you often meet someone online before meeting them face-to-

Face on campus?

165

12. Please rank order your frequency of use of the lntemet for the following purposes
(1 = most; 5 = least)
__ communicate socially
_ engage in work for classes
_ be entertained
_ communicate professionally
_ not sure / don’t know

13. Please rank order those with whom you communicate most frequently using the
lntemet (1 = most; 5 = least)
_ friends
__ family
_ professors
_ significant other
__work colleagues

14. Please rank order the lntemet tool you use most frequently
_ email
_ instant messaging
_ web boards
_ chat rooms
_ news groups

Please circle response:

15 . Regarding online information searching, do you:

a. Use the lntemet more than the library?

b. Use the Internet and the library about the same?
c. Use the lntemet less than the library?

d. Don’t know.

166

Appendix C

Generational Attributes of Current College Students

(Howe & Strauss, 2002, p. 31)

Special. From precious-baby movies of the mid-‘SOS to the media glare
surrounding the high school Class of 2000, now in college, older generations have
inculcated in Millennials the sense that they are, collectively, vital to the nation and
to their parents’ sense of purpose.

Sheltered. From the surge in child-safety rules and devices to the post-
Columbine lockdown of public schools, Millennials are the focus of the most
sweepig youth-protection movement in American history.

Confident. With high levels of trust and optimism — and a newly felt connection
to parents and the future — Millennial teens are beginning to equate good news for
themselves with good news for their county.

Team-oriented. From Barney and soccer to school uniforms and group learning,
Millennials are developing strong team instincts and tight peer bonds.

Conventional. Taking pride in their improving behavior and quite comfortable
with their parents’ values, Millennials provide a modern twist to the traditional
belief that social rules and standards can make life easier.

Pressured. Pushed to study hard, avoid personal risks, and take full advantage of
the collecive opportunities adults are offering them, Millennials feel a “trophy kid”
pressure to excel.

Achieving. With accountability and higher school standards rising to the very

top of America’s political agenda, Millennials are on track to become the smartest,
best-educated generation in US. history.

167

Bibliography

Al-Motrif, A. (2000). The effects of college students' educational level and gender on
their use of the Internet as: (a) an instructional tool, (b) a research tool, (c) a
communication tool, and (d) an entertainment tool. Dissertation.

Anderson, R., Bikson, T., Law, S. & Mitchell, B. (1995). Universal access to e-mail:
Feasibility and societal implications. (RAND Report MR-650-MF). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. (1984). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher
Education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Audy, J. R. (1980). Man the lonely animal: Biological roots of loneliness. In J.
Hartog, J.R. Audy & Y.A. Cohen (Eds), The anatomy of loneliness, 11 1-128.
New York: International Universities Press.

Baumeister & Leary. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Interpersonal
Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological
Bulletin,117 (3), 497-529.

Bargh, J. (2002a). Beyond Simple Truths: The Human-lntemet Interaction. Journal
of social issues, 58 (1), 1-8.

Bargh, J ., McKenna, K., & Fitzsimmons, G. (2002b). Can you see the real me?
Activation and expression of the “true self” on the lntemet. Journal of Social
Issues, 58(1), 33-48.

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning — a new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12—25.

Baxter-Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship:
Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Vanderbilt University Press.

Borgida, E., Sullivan, J ., Oxendine, A., Jackson, M., Riedel, E., Gangl, A. (2002).

Civic culture meets the digital divide. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 125-
141.

168

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Princeton,
NH: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New
York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation anxiety and anger. New
York: Basic Books.

Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson (1997). Appraising Tinto's theory of college student
departure. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research, 12, 107-164. New York: Agathon Press.

Bruce, B. (1993). Innovation and Social Change. In Network-Based Classrooms,

Bruce, B., Peyton, J., Batson, T., eds., Cambridge University Press.

Carey (2000). Refiguring language, space, and identity: Modes of being and
transformation online. Dissertation.

Chen, A. (1999). Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning
systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 217-230.

Chickering, A. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming
educational inequities of living off campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CNN (2000). Survey disputes notion that lntemet encourages isolation. May 10,
2002. [Online] Available at:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/OS/10/intemet.study.index.html.

 

Cohen S., & Wills, T. (1995). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: On the
usefulness of weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7, 119-

135.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage
Publications.

Donne, J. (1975). Devotions upon emergent occasions. Montreal, Canada: McGill
Queens University Press.

169

Euske, N. & Roberts, K. (1987). Evolving perspectives in organization theory:
Communication implications. In Jablin, F ., Putnam, L., Roberts, K. & Porter, L.
(Eds), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary
perspective, 41-69. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Feldman, A., Coulter, B., Knold, C. (2000/2001). Linking technology, learning, and
school change. Learning and leading with technology. 28 (4), 42-47.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. London: Hogarth Press.

Gatz, L., & Hirt, J ., (2000). Academic and social integration in cyberspace: Students
and email. The Review of Higher Education, 23.3, 299-318.

Ginzberg, E. (1982). The mechanization of work. Scientific American, 247, 66-75.

Gove, W. & Geerken, M. (1977). The effect of children and employment on the
mental health of married men and women. Social Forces, 56, 66-76.

Government Publication (1999). Touchstone variables: Persistence, completion,
aspirations, parents and parenthood. Answers in the tool box: Academic
intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. June
publication. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/‘I‘oolbox/PartZ.html.

Gross, E., Juvonen, J., Gable, S. Internet use and well-being in adolescence. Journal
of Social Issues, 58 (1), 75-90.

Hazen, C. & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 68-70.

Hiltz., S. & Turoff, M. (1978/1992). The network nation: Human communication via
computer. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

Horrigan, J ., Rainie, L., Fox, S. (2001). Online communities: Networks that nurture
long distance relationships and local ties. Pew Foundation: Internet and
American Life. 10/31/01 Report

Howe, . & Strauss, W. (1993). 13'“ Generation:Abort, retry, ignore, fail? Vintage
Books.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation.
Vintage Books.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2002). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new
generation on campus. AACRAO-Life Course Associates publication.

170

Hughes, C. (1999). The relationship of use of the Internet and loneliness among
college students. Dissertation.

Hunderson, C. (2001). How the lntemet is changing our lives. The Futurist. 35(4),
38-45.

Jablin, F., Putnam, L., Roberts, K., Porter, L. (1987). Handbook of Organizational
Communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sage Publications.

Katz, J. & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communication of the ACM. 40
(12), 81-86.

Krackhardt. (1994). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in
organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.). Networks and organizations:
Structure, form and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kraemer, B. (1997). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students into
college. The Review of Higher Education. 20.2, 163-179.

Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mkopadhyay, T., Schleris, W.
(1998) lntemet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Keisler, S. & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Communication and information: alternative uses of the lntemet in households.
In Proceedings oflre CHI 98, 368-383. New York: ACM.

 

Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd
edition). Sage Publications.

Krueger, R. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results, volume 6. Sage
Publications.

Kuh, G.; Schuh, J .;,Whitt, E.; and Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the
classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. & Hu, S. (2001). The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction in the 19903.
The Review of Higher Education, 24.3, p. 309-332.

Kuh, G., Douglas, K., Lund, J. & Ramin-Gyumek, J. (1994). Student learning
outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Reports, 1994 Report Eight.

Lake, 2000. Email brings good things to life. The Industry Standard, 5-10-2000.

171

Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., and Lewis, 0. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the
instant-message generation and the Intemet's impact on friendships and family
relationships. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.

Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Harvard
University Press.

Lowell, N. & Persichitte, K. A Virtual Ropes Course: Creating Online Community.
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol4_issueI/lowell.htrn.

 

Mann, L. (1980). Cross-cultural studies of small groups. In H. Triandis & R. Brislin

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social psychology, Vol., 5, 155-
209. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Markoff, J. (2002). How lonely is the life that is lived online? New York Times, New
York, January 21, 2002.

Martin, D. & Arendale, D. (1993). Supplemental instruction: Improving first-year
student success in high-risk courses. National Resource Center for The
Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electronic
communication in the late nineteenth century. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, Van Nostrand.

Mchen, S. (2001). How fluent with information technology are our students?
Education Quarterly, No. 4.

McKenna, K. & Bargh, J. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
lntemet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4, 57-75.

McKenna, K., Green, A.& Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the
lntemet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, 9-31.

Moneta, L. (1997). The integration of technology with the management of student
services. New Sources for Student Services, no. 78, p. 15-16.

Morgan, D. (1998). Planning focus groups: Focus group kit 2. Sage Publications.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations. Sage Publications.

172

Nagda, B., Gregerrnan, S., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., Lerner, J. (1998).
Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships that affect student
retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 1, 55-71.

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2002). NACAC. [Online]
Available at www.nacac.com/fairs_ocf_enewsletter.html.

Nie, N. and Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report [On-line].
Stanford, CA: Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. Available:
www.stanford.edu/groups/siqss.

Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority students’ educational aspirations:
Help or hindrance? Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 9,
212-247

Pace, C. (1974). Demise of diversity: A comparative profile of eight types of
institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1979). Interactive influences in Spady and Tinto’s
conceptual models of college attrition. Sociology of Education, 52, 197-210.

Pascarella E. & Terenzini, P. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51,
p. 60-75.

Peterson, M., (Ed.). (1991). Organization and governance in higher education. Ashe
Reader Series. Simon & Schuster Custom Printing.

Pew Foundation, 2002. Internet and American Life Project. Online 2/6/2002.
http://www.pewintemet.org/

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community.
Touchstone.

Reis H. & Shaver, P. (1988). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 15-30.

Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or Panopticon? The hidden power in computer-
mediated communication. Communication Research, vol. 21, no. 4. August
1994

Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M.& Wolbert, A. (2002). When are net effects gross

products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-
mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 58, No. 1, p. 91-107.

173

Sproull, L. & Keisler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the
networked organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Standage, T. (1998). Victorian Internet: the remarkable story of the telegraph and the
nineteenth century’s on-line pioneers. New York, Walker & Co.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. McGraw
Hill.

Thompson, L. & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory
and application. Journal of Social Issues. vol. 58, 1, 109-124.

Tierney, W. G. (1992, November/December). An anthrOpological analysis of student
participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 604-618.

Tinto, V. (Nov./Dec. 1977). Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational
character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education
(Columbus, Ohio) v. 68, 599-623.

Tinto, V. (198'7). Leaving college. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1987). The principles of effective retention. Paper presented at the Fall
Conference of the Maryland College Personnel Association, November 20,

1987.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2"d ed.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. Review of Higher Education, v. 21, n. 2, p. 167-177.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. Touchstone.
Tyler, T. (2002). Is the lntemet changing social life? It seems the more things
change, the more they stay the same. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 58, 1,

195-205.

Van Dijk, J. (1993). Communications network and modernization. Communication
Research, 20, 384-407.

Van Gennep, A. (1960). Rites of Passage, University of Chicago Press.

Weiser, E. (2000). The functions of Internet use and their social, psychological, and
interpersonal consequences. Dissertation.

174

Wheeler, L. & Nazlek, J. (1977). Sex differences in social participation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 742-754.

Wilson, L., ed. (1965). Emerging patterns in American Higher Education. American
Council on Education, Washington, DC.

175