physical and practical
4.3 Access: students
4.3.2 Student access to technological resources
4.3.2.2 Practical access
On-campus student access to practical resources Practical resources are the second component within technological access. We define this as control over computer use and to what extent they are used. Our research indicators focus on time and autonomy.
The first aspect of practical access we examined was the availability of computers in terms of time. Table 4.9 summarises the restrictions on computer laboratories, suggesting different ratios for use during weekday hours.
Table 4.9 demonstrates that 24 hours/7 days a week access is widespread in Stellenbosch University, and PenTech has 16 hours/7 days a week access for most of their computers.
However, for the other institutions only a small percentage of computers are available for extended hours during the week and on weekends, and this is better in some faculties than others (for example, at UCT two faculties offer 24/7 facilities).
When we examine the practical aspect of when students use computers on campus we can see – in Table 4.10 – that most students use on-campus facilities during the 9am – 5pm period.
Table 4.11 shows the distribution of when students access computers in each institution. Only 8% of students at CTech access computers after 5pm. However, 22% of students at Stellenbosch University access computers after 5pm.
This data reflects the availability of 24-hour access on campus (as shown in Table 4.9) as opposed to student preferences. For example, more students access computers after 5pm at the institutions with extended opening hours (e.g. PenTech and Stellenbosch University).
On the other hand, availability outside working hours is scarce at the other three institutions ( e.g. UWC only has 18% of computers available 12 hours a day, 7 days a week)
or limited to a small percentage in specific faculties ( e.g.
UCT offers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week access in only two specific faculties).
These limited hours of availability suggest that there is a high demand placed on computers during the day in most institutions. Student access may also be limited by other factors, including systems of booking as well as limits on how long students can use a computer. UWC, for example, has a booking system for computers and limits students to one hour of use at a time (Mlitwa 2005).
Table 4.9: Over view of opening hours of computer laboratories across institutions
Institution Central Faculty
CTech
Centrally available facilities (12% of
computers on campus) are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
88% of faculty computers are only available between 9am and 5pm
PenTech
All central computer facilities are available 16 hours a day, 7 days a week
Most faculty computers are available after working hours only by special request
UCT
Centrally available facilities (10% of
computers on campus) are available 14 hours a day, 6 days a week
Some faculties do have some facilities available for extended hours, for example:
Built Environment & Engineering: 66% of labs are available 24/7
COM: 59% of labs are available 24/7 Humanities: 20% of labs are available 14/7 Science: Only Computer Science department labs are open 24/7
UWC
Centrally available facilities (18% of
computers on campus) are available 12 hours a day 7 days a week
Some faculties do have some facilities available for extended hours, for example:
Economic & Management Sciences labs are available 12/7
Some Science labs are available 24/7
SU – 89% of faculty-based facilities are available 24/7
Source: Brown, Arendse & Mlitwa (2005), appendix 8
Table 4.10: Times when students access computers on campus
Count
Percentage of total
Before 9am 307 5%
Between 9 and 1pm 1426 23%
Between 1 and 5pm 1490 24%
Between 5 and 10pm 730 11%
After 10pm 213 4%
Equally across the day 2059 33%
(n) 6229
These issues also emerge from the qualitative data:
I am early on campus. Internet not always on. Long lines to book computers. Not enough computers available. Have to come before 8:30 am to book computer. Computer labs are not opened on weekends.
(UWC, no demographic details)
The computer lab at the [university] campus sometimes close at 5 & on a Friday at 4 & our classes only finish 4.40.
How are we supposed to type our projects if we do not get enough time.
(CTech, Management, preliminary, 1st year, female, <30, Afrikaans)
The chances of actually getting a pc in time to complete the task at hand are very slim. One has to wait in a queue for quite a long time while.
(UWC, no demographic details provided)
I have very limited access to computers & find it to time consuming to have want in lines to book computers. [time of accessibility - it closes too early. not enough time to use them] [i think every residence should have computers in their respective location to allow students to do their work effectively and efficiently.
(UWC, Community & Health Sciences, 2nd year undergrad., female,
<20, English)
Off-campus student access to practical resources Whilst the percentage of students with availability to computers paints quite a positive picture of off-campus access (Figure 4.1 shows that 77% of students have access to a computer off campus), practical considerations make the situation more complicated.
We examined this construct in terms of off-campus access by looking at autonomy of access, i.e. at how students shared computers.
We asked students to the following:
• Think about the computer that you most often use when not at [your institution]. How many people share use of this computer?
• If you share use of a computer, are you the primary (main) user?
Off-campus access looks less positive when one considers that only 22% of students have sole access to a computer off campus and the majority of students share a computer with three or more people (59%) (Figure 4.2).
In addition only 21% of those students who share a computer are the primary user with the majority indicating they are secondary users (46%) (Figure 4.3).
Although gender is addressed later (see section 4.3.2.5), it is also of note at this point that when students share computers at home, more female (48%) than male students (43%) in our study report being secondary users.
Table 4.11: Times of on-campus computer access across institutions
Institution Before 9am
Between 9am and 1pm
Between 1pm and 5pm
Between 5pm
and 10pm After 10pm
Equally across the day
CTech 6% 27% 24% 4% 4% 35%
PenTech 4% 18% 31% 14% 6% 28%
UCT 7% 24% 21% 13% 3% 31%
UWC 2% 24% 31% 12% 3% 29%
SU 1% 14% 12% 21% 1% 50%
Total 5% 23% 24% 11% 4% 33%
22%
19%
16%
12%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Just me 2 people 3 people 4 people more than 4 people
Figure 4.2: Percentage of students with sole use and
who share access to a computer off campus
Practical aspects of technological access are also dominant in the qualitative responses, where 79% of the responses focused on physical resources and 61% on practical resources.
Table 4.12 provides an overview of the qualitative responses grouped according to our constructs and indicators.
In terms of practical access, issues related to our indicators of time (18%) and location (48%) surfaced in the qualitative responses along with a third grouping, which we have called conduciveness of the learning environment (24%). Students commented that it was not enough to have access to a technology as it also needed to be in an environment that was conducive to its use. Factors which play a part in whether or not students can practically access the technological resources available include noise, safety, distance from where they live, as well as the actual configuration of space within the environment.
Students’ comments are revealing:
sometimes its too noisy during the day, sometimes its too rainy or too dark to come in the evenings … i’m usually out in the areas where there is not much infra structure in place for computers and internets
(SU, Health Sciences, 4th year undergrad., female, 31–40, isiXhosa)
i have to travel to the main campus for computer use … wi-fi access for students staying in accommodation near uct would-be fantastic.
(UCT, Engineering, 1st year undergrad., male, 21–25, siSwati)
it’s unsafe to walk to/from [the lab] at night to my res, my boyfriend often stays up so that i can use his pc
(SU, Arts, 1st year undergrad., female, <20, Afrikaans)
i do not have enough space to put out all my things i need to
… the fact that there is constant movement and noise around me
(SU, Education, 1st year undergrad., female, <20, Namibian)
…the labs ... need to be adequately air-conditioned the stuffiness of labs … hinders a conductive environment for working.
(UCT, Engineering, 3rd year undergrad., female, <20, English)
There were also some interesting associations of concepts in the qualitative data. If we examine issues about the practical access indicator conduciveness in relation to specific locations (by cross-tabulating all references to conduciveness with the references to location) we see (in Table 4.13) that this is most mentioned in terms of a home context (49%) and then a residence context (36%).
This suggests that “conduciveness” as a factor is more of an issue at home and in residence than on campus. On-campus labs are therefore more enabling of teaching and learning than are computers off campus.
It is interesting to look beyond the fact that issues of hardware dominate all locations and to consider where specific issues are a challenge or are resolved. Infrastructure is an issue for students off campus (54%) and in residence (43%), software is a greater issue off campus (31%), and cost is mentioned most often in relation to off-campus access (19%). On the other hand, free access is mentioned most often in relation to on-campus locations (14%).
This seems to indicate that off-campus student issues that constrain students’ physical access are infrastructure, software and cost of access, whilst in residences infrastructure is a constraining factor. On campus, free access is an enabling factor for students.
With regard to home use, family access can be either a positive or a negative determinant:
It’s a problem when my mom needs the computer at the same time.
(UCT, Health Science, 1st year undergrad., female, <20)
There is limited usage by family members, so can use at just about any time.
(SU, Health Sciences, 5th year undergrad., male, 21–25, English)
Figure 4.3: Percentage of students who share use and are primar y or secondar y users
46%
No Share equally Yes
Secondary user Share equally Primary user
Off campus access may even be easier:
At home i can use a computer at any time of the day without booking … if i use it in the library. there are not enough computers and you sometimes can stand in the queue
for about 40 minutes.
(UWC, Humanities, 2nd year undergrad., female, <20, Afrikaans)
In conclusion, when considering practical issues of technological access we can see that simply having a computer is not enabling of its own accord.
Table 4.12: Over view of qualitative responses about practical access
Construct
Category
% freq. of total comments
Code descriptor
% freq. within
category General code
Practical (61%)
time (18%) time (18%) time
location (48%) where (23%) home, res., campus on-campus facilities
(31%)
when (12%) weekends, open, closed, hours, night, 24/7
conduciveness (24%)
environment (1%) environment, children, air-conditioning, chairs
peaceful (1%) silence, friendly, peace, quiet, relaxed
chaotic (13%) noise, small, crowded, limit, booked, queues, lines, waiting, chaos, full, loud
transport (4%) car, shuttle, walk, bicycle near (5%) nearby, close, convenient, central far (3%) far, distance
security (1%) privacy, safe, freedom, security
As explained earlier, the frequency of codes was calculated in relation to the total number of responses. There were 3085 qualitative responses from students, so a percentage of 61% for our construct of practical access means that 61% of students mention something about practical access in their qualitative responses. This is then examined to see what indicators these related to. In most answers students mentioned more than one indicator, hence it was possible for a person’s response to occur or be counted in more than one category. Percentages in the indicators and descriptors column refer to the number of students who mentioned that concept and therefore do not add up to 100%. The column labelled “general code” indicates the codes that comprised each indicator.
Table 4.13: Cross-tabulation of issues relating to conduciveness with location of use
Conduciveness (n)
Home 72 49% 147
Residence 159 36% 442
On campus generally 68 29% 238
On-campus facilities 263 28% 941
(n) 749
Table 4.14: Cross-tabulation of main issues about physical access with location of use
Off campus On campus Residence (n)
Infrastructure (general) 27 18% 28 12% 54 12% 320
Infrastructure (Internet) 80 54% 77 32% 189 43% 898
Computer (hardware) 108 73% 185 78% 314 71% 1777
Computer (software) 45 31% 38 16% 98 22% 504
Affordability (cost) 28 19% 26 11% 46 10% 288
Affordability (free) 2 1% 33 14% 25 6% 157
(n) 147 238 442
Hours of opening, booking systems and congestion in labs make the computers on campus less accessible to students. Whilst a majority (77%) of students have access to a computer off campus, less than a quarter (22%) have sole use of these computers. An additional issue which emerges from the qualitative data is the conduciveness of the environment in which the computer is accessed. Issues related to privacy, noise, safety and physical space constrain student use of computers. When students have increased autonomy over the use of a computer they comment on how positive this is.