CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The data reported in this section were collected using a paper survey instrument (see Appendix C), a computer-administered survey instrument (see Appendix D), and content analyses of WWW sites. The analyses applied to these data include: descriptive statistics, t tests, principal components analyses and scale reliability, contingency table analyses, correlational analyses, and multiple regression analyses.

Demographic Variables

Respondents to the paper survey (n = 791) ranged in age from 10-21 years (M = 14.45) and were enrolled in the 6th grade (12%), 7th grade (130, 17%), 8th grade (123, 16%), 9th grade (14%), 10th grade (15%), 11th grade (12%), and the 12th grade (16%). Average self-reported grade point average (GPA) was 3.28, and 51% were male. Ethnicity of respondents is as follows: American Indian (2%), Asian (3%), Black (9%), Hispanic (16%), White (69%), and other (2%). Table 4.1 summarizes the frequencies of respondents to the paper survey instrument.

Table 4.1

Frequencies for the Paper Survey Instrument

Age (Q71) n 10 2 11 57 12 104 13 125 14 114 15 116 16 103 17 117 18 43 19 3 21 1

 

Grade (Q72) n 6th grade 91 7th grade 130 8th grade 123 9th grade 106 10th grade 120 11th grade 93 12th grade 125

 

GPA (Q73) n less than 1.0 1 1.0-1.5 10 1.6-2.0 48 2.1-2.5 27 2.6-3.0 140 3.1-3.5 188 3.6-4.0 219 above 4.0 3

 

	Gender (Q74) n Male 397 Female 381
	Ethnicity (Q75) n American Indian 15 Asian 20 Black 67 Hispanic 123 White 533 other 13

Descriptive statistics for the interval-level demographic variables from the paper survey instrument are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Descriptives for Demographic Variables from the Paper Survey Instrument

Measures Range M SD n Demographic Variables         Age (Q71) 10-21 14.45 2.06 785 Grade (Q72) 6-12 9.03 1.98 788 GPA (Q73) 1-4.14 3.28 0.62 635

 

Respondents to the computer-administered survey (n = 1083) were enrolled in the 6th grade (5%), 7th grade (21%), 8th grade (19%), 9th grade (14%), 10th grade (15%), 11th grade (12%), and the 12th grade (16%). Of these, 59% were male. Table 4.3 summarizes the frequencies of respondents to the computer-administered survey instrument.

Table 4.3

Frequencies for the Computer-Administered Survey Instrument

Demographic Variables n Grade (Q1)   6th grade 50 7th grade 216 8th grade 192 9th grade 142 10th grade 155 11th grade 123 12th grade 162 Gender (Q2)   male 615 female 432 Amount of time spent using the WWW(Q3)   less than 1 hour/week 377 1-2 hours/week 242 3-5 hours/week 187 6-10 hours/week 64 more than 10 hours/week 173

 

Results of the Paper Survey Instrument

The following sections will present the results from the 75-item paper survey (see Appendix C) that was administered to 791 students in 10 public schools located in five public school districts in the state of Colorado. Of those who completed the paper survey instrument, 644 (81%) indicated that they use the WWW at school, while 147 (19%) indicated that they do not.

Table 4.4

Measurement Summary for the Paper Survey Instrument

Measures Range M SD Cronbach alpha WWW affinity (Q1-5) 5-25 12.57 4.12 .83           WWW skill (Q14-17) 4-20 13.86 3.25 .78           WWW use motives (Q21-70)         Research and learning 12-60 41.52 9.25 .89 Easy access to entertainment 8-40 28.77 6.06 .84 Communication and social interaction 6-30 18.12 5.40 .82 Something to do when bored 5-25 17.52 4.28 .81 Access to things otherwise unavailable 4-20 13.61 3.08 .60 Product info and tech support 4-20 12.26 3.42 .65 Games & sexually explicit material 4-20 11.91 3.41 .62 Consumer transactions 2-10 5.68 2.09 .58

 

Attitudes Toward the WWW

The first research question to be addressed focused on students’ attitudes about the WWW and its defining characteristics. Questionnaire items 1 through 5 were statements designed with the goal of determining the students’ affinity for the WWW. This was operationalized by summing five Likert-scale responses with results ranging from 5-25 (M = 12.57, SD = 4.12, Cronbach’s alpha = .83). The statement "Using the WWW is very important to me" received the strongest support (M = 3.05) while the statement "I would feel lost without the WWW" received the least (M = 1.97). The fourth statement, "I could easily do without the WWW for several days" was rotated before statistical analysis was performed.

The next set of items (questions 6, 7, and 8) were designed to explore the students’ beliefs about the WWW—in particular the WWW’s value as a source of information, entertainment, and as a means of communication. As a source of information (M = 1.68, 1 = excellent, 4 = poor), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 44% of the time, "good" 46% of the time, "fair" 9% of the time, and "poor" 2% of the time. As a source of entertainment (M = 1.90), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 36% of the time, "good" 42% of the time, "fair" 18% of the time, and "poor" 4% of the time. And as a means of communication (M = 1.78), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 42% of the time, "good" 42% of the time, "fair" 14% of the time, and "poor" 3% of the time. Based on these responses, students rate the WWW highest for information, followed by communication, and then entertainment (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1

Rating the WWW as a Source of Information and Entertainment, and a Means for Communication

Continuing with this line of inquiry, respondents were asked to associate the WWW with traditional media. Expectancy-value theory as outlined in Chapter 2 and Salomon’s (1984) research comparing children’s perceptions of television and print suggests that students’ perception of the WWW as being more like print or television will likely affect their expectations and use of the WWW. Given a choice between "print-book/magazine," "audio/visual-television," or "other" media, 304 (50%) chose audio/visual-television while 247 (41%) of the respondents chose print-book/magazine. To the same question 23 (4%) students responded by checking both print and audio/visual options or by writing in "both" as a response, while 32 (5%) wrote in a variety of "other" responses (see Appendix E). Figure 4.2 visually presents a comparison of responses to this item.

Figure 4.2

Comparing the WWW to Traditional Media

Because a student’s skill level with computers in general, and with the WWW specifically, was believed to be a determining factor in how the student uses the WWW, questions were posed that required respondents to assess their skill at using computers and the WWW. The most common response to a general question asking overall skill at using computers was "good" (47%), followed by "average" (30%), "excellent" (20%), and "below average" (3%). Additional questions asked students how long they have being using the WWW, how many times per week, and how many hours per week they use the WWW. To the question, "For how long have you been using the World-Wide Web?" the most common response was "1-2 years" (32%), followed by "more than 2 years" (29%), "6 mo.-1 year" (23%) and "less than 6 months" (17%). To the question, "Approximately how many times per week do you use the World-Wide Web?" the most common response was "1-2 times" (35%), followed by "less than 1" (28%), "3-5 times" (23%), and "more than 5 times" (15%). And in response to the question "About how many hours per week do you use the World-Wide Web?" respondents answered "1-2 hours" (34%), "less than 1" (33%), "3-5 hours" (20%), "6-10 hours" (9%), and "10+ hours" (5%).

An additional four items assessed the respondent’s skill at using the WWW. Students’ self-reported skill at using the WWW was operationalized as the sum of responses to four Likert-scales. Statement 16, "I know less about using the World-Wide Web than most users," was rotated before statistical analysis was performed. Skill at using the WWW ranged from 4 to 20 (M = 13.86, SD = 3.25, Cronbach’s alpha = .78).

Reasons for Using the WWW

Questionnaire items 21 through 60 addressed reasons why students might choose to use the WWW. As described in Chapter Three, these items were generated from statements made by middle school and high school students who responded anonymously to an open-ended question asking them to list several things "that the World-Wide Web is good for." Additional use statements were taken from fill-in-the-blank responses to the computer survey questionnaire in the pilot study. Table 4.5 provides a summary of students’ responses to the 40 use statements.

Table 4.5

Measurement Summary for WWW Use Statements

Statement M SD n I use the WWW…       to find things not in the library. 3.53 1.04 630 to chat with other people. 3.18 1.25 631 because it is convenient. 3.56 1.01 629 because it is a good source of news. 3.60 1.03 632 to download software and other free stuff. 2.99 1.23 630 to complete homework assignments. 3.38 1.16 630 to find people. 2.81 1.19 632 to get sports information and statistics. 3.14 1.29 632 for shopping and making purchases. 2.38 1.20 630 to look up music and concert information. 3.30 1.29 633 to get up-to-date facts and information. 3.53 1.09 631 to get sounds, picture, or animations for projects. 3.64 1.11 631 to access sexually explicit sites. 1.97 1.35 631 to learn how to use computers better. 3.12 1.19 631 because it’s so easy. 3.40 1.03 532 because it’s fun. 3.80 0.95 630 to learn new things. 3.72 0.94 632 to play games. 3.56 1.11 630 because it’s exciting. 3.40 1.09 631 so that I can have foreign language friends. 2.50 1.10 626 for entertainment. 3.70 1.06 628 to get product information. 3.14 1.14 626 to e-mail friends. 3.67 1.20 626 to find interesting things. 3.78 1.00 626 because it provides a new outlook on learning. 3.25 1.11 626 to talk with people from around the world. 2.98 1.27 625 because it’s educational. 3.18 1.17 623 to get information about games. 3.25 1.24 625 because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me. 3.52 1.16 624 to find articles and references. 3.63 1.07 627 for browsing. 3.57 1.04 627 to get technical support. 2.89 1.13 626 to meet new people. 2.98 1.26 621 because its is an excellent source of information. 3.81 1.02 625 because it gives me something to do. 3.49 1.17 627 to find out what’s going on in the world. 3.23 1.19 625 when I’m bored. 3.43 1.21 626 because computers are cool. 3.36 1.17 625 so that I can do better in school. 3.26 1.16 626 to conduct research for class. 3.75 1.06 626

 

Because of the paucity of research in uses and gratifications of the relatively new WWW, exploratory factor analysis (SPSS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation) was employed to group these use statements into categories. As described in Chapter Three, a preliminary principal components analysis was performed on an incomplete data set in order to arrive at a list of "use statements" that became part of the computer-administered survey instrument. Those seven use statements were: "for research and learning," "to communicate with other people," "for access to material otherwise unavailable," "to find something fun or exciting," "for something to do when I’m bored," "for sports and game information," and, "for shopping and consumer information." Once the complete data set was collected via the paper survey instrument, another principal components analysis was conducted. This time the result was eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for a total of 58% of the total variance (see Appendix H). These factors differed slightly from those derived from the earlier analysis.

Factor one was comprised of 12 items, (eigenvalue = 10.57, variance after rotation = 14%, alpha = .89), and suggests the WWW is used for "research and learning" (see Table 4.6). The items that make up "research and learning" and their factor loadings are as follows: "because it is a good source of news" (.49), "to complete homework assignments" (.55), "to get up-to-date facts and information" (.45), "to learn how to use computers better" (.42), "to learn new things" (.50), "because it provides a new outlook on learning" (.73), "because it’s educational" (.75), "to find articles and references" (.68), "because it’s an excellent source of information" (.68), "to find out what’s going on in the world" (.57), "so that I can do better in school" (.76), and, "to conduct research for class" (.77).

Table 4.6

Items Loading on Factor 1

Factor 1: Research and Learning Factor Loading Because it is a good source of news .49 To complete homework assignments .55 To get up-to-date facts and information .45 To learn how to use computers better .42 To learn new things † .50 Because it provides a new outlook on learning .73 Because it’s educational .75 To find articles and references .68 Because it is an excellent source of information .68 To find out what’s going on in the world .57 So that I can do better in school .76 To conduct research for class .77     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .89

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The second factor was comprised of eight items, (eigenvalue = 3.73, variance after rotation = 9%, alpha = .84), and suggests the WWW is used for "easy access to entertainment" (see Table 4.7). The items that make up "easy access to entertainment" and their factor loadings are as follows: "because it’s so easy" (.52), "because it’s fun" (.75), "to learn new things" (.55), "to play games" (.43), "because it’s exciting" (.71), "for entertainment" (.51), "to find interesting things" (.57), and, "because computers are cool" (.45).

Table 4.7

Items Loading on Factor 2

Factor 2: Easy Access to Entertainment Factor Loading Because it’s so easy .52 Because it’s fun .75 To learn new things † .55 To play games † .43 Because it’s exciting .71 For entertainment † .51 To find interesting things .57 Because computers are cool † .45     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .84

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The third factor was comprised of six items, (eigenvalue = 2.19, variance after rotation = 9%, alpha = .82), and suggests the WWW is used for "communication and social interaction" (see Table 4.8). The items that make up "communication and social interaction" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to chat with other people" (.72), "to find people" (.64), "so that I can have foreign language friends" (.59), "to e-mail friends" (.52), "to talk with people from around the world" (.79), and, "to meet new people" (.80).

Table 4.8

Items Loading on Factor 3

Factor 3: Communication and Social Interaction Factor Loading To chat with other people .72 To find people .64 So that I can have foreign language friends .59 To email friends .52 To talk with people from around the world .79 To meet new people .80     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .82

 

The fourth factor, "something to do when bored," was made up of five items, (eigenvalue = 1.68, variance after rotation = 7%, alpha = .81) (see Table 4.9). The items that make up "something to do when I’m bored" and their factor loadings are as follows: "for entertainment" (.47), "for browsing" (.51), "because it gives me something to do" (.76), "when I’m bored" (.80), and, "because computers are cool" (.43).

Table 4.9

Items Loading on Factor 4

Factor 4: Something to Do When Bored Factor Loading For entertainment † .47 For browsing .51 Because it gives me something to do .76 When I’m bored .80 Because computers are cool † .43     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .81

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The fifth factor was comprised of four items, (eigenvalue = 1.53, variance after rotation = 6%, alpha = .60), and suggests the WWW is used for "access to things otherwise unavailable" (see Table 4.10). The items that make up "access to things otherwise unavailable" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to find things not in the library" (.65), "because it is convenient" (.54), "to download software and other free stuff" (.43), and, "because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me" (.62).

Table 4.10

Items Loading on Factor 5

Factor 5: Access to Material Otherwise Unavailable Factor Loading To find things not in the library .65 Because it is convenient .54 To download software and other free stuff † .43 Because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me .62     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .60

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The sixth factor was also made up of four items, (eigenvalue = 1.17, variance after rotation = 5%, alpha = .65), and suggests the WWW is used for "product information and tech support" (see Table 4.11). The items that make up "product information and tech support" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to download software and other free stuff" (.43), "to get product information" (.49), "to get information about games" (.47), and, "to get technical support" (.61).

Table 4.11

Items Loading on Factor 6

Factor 6: Product Info and Tech Support Factor Loading To download software and other free stuff † .44 To get product information .49 To get information about games † .47 To get technical support .61     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .65

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The seventh factor was also comprised of four items (eigenvalue = 1.09, variance after rotation = 5%, alpha = .62) and suggests the WWW is used for "games and sexually explicit material" (see Table 4.12). The items that make up "games and sexually explicit material" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to get sports information and statistics" (.44), "to access sexually explicit sites" (.67), "to play games" (.54), and "to get information about games" (.47).

Table 4.12

Items Loading on Factor 7

Factor 7: Games and Sexually Explicit Sites Factor Loading To get sports information and statistics † .44 To access sexually explicit sites .67 To play games † .54 To get information about games † .51     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .62

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The eighth and final factor was comprised of two items (eigenvalue = 1.08, variance after rotation = 4%, alpha = .58) and suggests the WWW is used for "consumer transactions" (see Table 4.13). The items that make up "consumer transactions" and their factor loadings are as follows: "for shopping and making purchases" (.70), and, "to look up music and concert information" (.67).

Table 4.13

Items Loading on Factor 8

Factor 8: Consumer Transactions Factor Loading For shopping and making purchases .70 To look up music and concert information .67     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .58

 

One item, "to get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects," did not meet the criteria for loading on any factor and was eliminated from any further analysis.

Table 4.14

Items Not Meeting Criteria for Factor Loading

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 To get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects .259 .360 .077 .091 .366 .097 .180 .199

 

In each case, alpha reliability coefficients were computed for each factor to determine if any item had a negative effect on the overall reliability score. Item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," loaded on factor seven, and secondarily, on factor eight. However, its inclusion in factor eight caused the alpha reliability to fall from .58 to .52. For this reason item 28 was removed from factor eight and retained only on factor seven. The inclusion of item 33, "to access sexually explicit sites," in factor seven caused the alpha reliability to fall from .65 to .62. However, the item was retained for two reasons: 1) the item had a strong loading at .67 and no other loading above .08, and, the other three items comprising factor seven had high secondary loadings on other factors. So while these three items may have appeared to gain reliability by the exclusion of item 33, there appears to be some other dimension at work here. One possibility is that the items loading on factor seven are highly correlated with the WWW use and behavior of male students. In support of this hypothesis, an independent-samples t test of gender and the use of the WWW for "games and sexually explicit sites" was significant, t (610) = 139.82, p < .001.

Various approaches have been advocated with regard to criteria to apply when deciding item loading on a particular factor. McCroskey and Young (1979) advocated a conservative approach suggesting that an item be considered significant if it had a primary loading at .60 or higher on one factor, and no secondary loading above a value of .40 on any other factor. This combined with a "scree test" was advocated for determining the number of factor to retain. Stevens (1996, p. 372) took a more liberal approach by citing Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988) and concluding that "sample size" and "component saturation" are the most important issues when determining the reliability of the factors. The size of the sample in this analysis (n = 564) justified the retention of eight components as outlined above.

However, it should also be noted that several items were split on two components. Item 25, "to download software and other free stuff," was split between factors five, "access to material otherwise unavailable," and six, "product info and tech support." Item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," was split between factors seven, "games and sexually explicit sites," and eight, "consumer transactions." Item 37, "to learn new things," was split between factor one, "for research and learning," and factor two, "easy access to entertainment." Item 38, "to play games," loaded on factor two, "easy access to entertainment," and on factor seven, "games and sexually explicit sites." Two items—item 41, "for entertainment," and item 58, "because computers are cool"—were split between factors two, "easy access to entertainment," and four, "something to do when I’m bored." Item 48, "to get information about games," was split between factors six, "product info and tech support," and seven, "games and sexually explicit sites." With the exception of item 28, it was decided to include these items on both factors rather than delete the item from one or both factors. In the case of item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," reliability analysis found that the secondary loading on factor eight reduced the alpha reliability of that factor from .58 to .52, and in this instance the item was retained only on factor seven, "games and sexually explicit sites."

Considering a Simpler Component Structure

Several uses and gratifications studies have suggested that as few as two factors may actually suffice to explain most of the variance (see Cutler & Danowski, 1980; McQuail, 1984; Rubin, 1984; and Finn & Gorr, 1988). Swanson (1992) noted the emergence of "a fundamental distinction" in Cutler and Danowski’s (1980) "content and process," McQuail’s (1984) "cognitive and cultural" and Rubin’s (1984) "instrumental and ritual" gratifications (p. 310). Swanson concluded that these findings taken together reveal a distinction between, "gratifications that result from the pleasurable experience of media content and are realized during consumption (process, cultural, or ritual gratifications) and gratifications that result from learning information from media content and subsequently putting it to use in practical affairs (content, cognitive, or instrumental gratifications)" (p. 310). This dichotomy is very similar to the results of Dobos and Dimmick’s (1988) critical analysis of factor analytic methods. After analyzing the methodology employed by several uses and gratifications studies they concluded that media uses might best be understood by dividing them into two categories: cognitive and affective. Yet another study attempted to align the traditional television viewing motives "along two distinctive axes, which reflect (a) inadequacies in the viewer’s social environment and (b) a generally unconscious psychological need to regulate physiological arousal" (Finn & Gorr, 1988, p. 139) resulting in the motivation categories labeled "social compensation and mood management." With this in mind, a factor analysis was performed with a two-factor solution specified. The results are shown in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15

Rotated Factor Matrix of Gratifications Sought—Two Factor Solution

Items FAC1 FAC2 Factor 1: Education     To find things not in the library .40 .02 Because it is a good source of news .62 .15 To complete homework assignments .50 .14 To get up-to-date facts and information .57 .23 To learn how to use computers better .46 .26 To learn new things .63 .32 Because it provides a new outlook on learning .77 .13 Because it’s educational .76 -.01 To find articles and references .71 -.04 Because it is an excellent source of information .73 .10 To find out what’s going on in the world .58 .35 So that I can do better in school .72 .11 To conduct research for class .73 -.10 Factor 2: Diversion     To chat with other people -.00 .61 To download software and other free stuff .07 .54 To find people .11 .55 For shopping and making purchases .02 .41 To look up music and concert information .08 .47 Because its fun .29 .61 To play games .07 .60 Because its exciting .39 .54 So that I can have foreign language friends .21 .43 For entertainment .11 .69 To e-mail friends .18 .48 To talk with people from around the world .16 .55 To get information about games .06 .57 To meet new people .13 .60 Because it gives me something to do .07 .66 When I’m bored .03 .59 Because computers are cool .31 .50       Because it is convenient * .33 .37 To get sports information and statistics * .18 .28 To get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects * .41 .40 To access sexually explicit sites * -.26 .30 Because it’s so easy * .39 .39 To get product information * .33 .31 To find interesting things * .54 .42 Because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me * .38 .35 For browsing * .37 .44 To get technical support * .42 .43       Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .90 .90

* Denotes items that did not meet the criteria for factor loading

The two factors appear to support Swanson’s (1992) dichotomous orientation of "learning information" and "pleasurable experience." In this case these constructs might be understood using the terms "education" and "diversion." However, because of the exploratory nature of this study and in order to retain the full range of possible uses of the WWW, the eight-factor solution was retained for further data analyses.

Reasons for Avoiding the WWW

In addition to seeking reasons why students choose to use the WWW in a school setting, questions were asked in an attempt to discover possible reasons why students would choose to avoid using the WWW. Ten avoidance statements (Questions 61-70) were presented to students who were asked to respond on the same agree/disagree scale. The results are summarized in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16

Measurement Summary for Avoidance Statements

Statement M SD n I DO NOT use the WWW because…       things are too hard to find 2.11 1.13 689 I’m not very good at using computers 2.29 1.17 735 there is too much pornography out there 2.85 1.41 723 the information is not accurate or reliable 2.13 1.00 716 I don’t have access to a computer with Internet access 2.13 1.27 725 of all the sick people out there 2.64 1.28 720 there is a lot of information about illegal activity 2.70 1.26 721 computer are for nerds 1.82 1.09 728 I’d rather spend time with my friends (in person) 3.51 1.22 728 the WWW is too slow 2.71 1.25 726

 

An analysis of the avoidance statements suggested that face-to-face interaction with peers is the leading reason given for not spending time using the WWW. Other important factors included several statements about negative issues commonly attributed to the WWW, e.g., pornography, illegal activity, and other users who may have suspect motives. And while schools often have fast connections to the Internet, these users appeared to be consistent with the general population of WWW users who perceive the WWW to be too slow, especially when downloading graphically intensive sites. On a positive note, the social stigma that has been associated with computer expertise—i.e., that "computers are for nerds"—does not appear to carry much weight with these respondents.

Gender appeared to be a significant variable with regard to specific reasons why students choose to avoid using the WWW. In an independent-sample t test, male and female students differed significantly in their responses to 10 avoidance statements. In response to statement 62, "I do not use the WWW because I’m not very good at using the computer," t = -2.15, p = .032, male students (M = 2.19, SD = 1.17) were on average less likely to agree than female students (M = 2.38, SD = 1.16). In response to statement 63, "I do not use the WWW because there is too much pornography out there," t = -5.54, p < .001, male students (M = 2.58, SD = 1.38) again were less likely to agree than were female students (M = 3.15, SD = 1.38). However, in response to statement 68, "I do not use the WWW because computers are for nerds," t = 2.19, p = .029, male students (M = 1.91, SD = 1.17) were more likely to agree than were female students (M = 2.19, SD = 1.00).

A correlational analysis of the avoidance statements with the students’ self-reported skill level yielded predictable results. Increased skill level was significantly negatively correlated with all of the avoidance statements except statement 63, "I do not use the WWW because there is too much pornography out there" (r = -.049, p = .241). Affinity for the WWW was also significantly negatively correlated with most of the avoidance statements. In the case of affinity, the only statements that were not significantly correlated were statement 63, "I do not use the WWW because there is too much pornography out there" (r = .035, p = .420); statement 66, "I do not use the WWW because of all the sick people out there" (r = -.062, p = .159); and, statement 67, "I do not use the WWW because there is a lot of information about illegal activity" (r = -.021, p = .629). All other correlations between affinity and the 10 avoidance statements were significant at or below the p = .05 level (Table 4.17).

Table 4.17

Correlations for Avoidance Statements

Q61 Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q66 Q67 Q68 Q69 Q70 Correlates                     Affinity -.24** -.22** .04 -.09* -.12** -.06 -.02 -.19** -.31** -.12** Skill -.37** -.46** -.05 -.16** -.29** -.13** -.10* -.23** -.27** -.14**

*p <.05; **p <.01

It appears that students who have a strong affinity for the WWW and who believe that they are skillful at using the WWW are less likely to avoid using the WWW either because they do not believe that the WWW contains dangerous or questionable content or, if they do, they are not so concerned about it.

Reasons for Using the WWW

In order to facilitate further statistical analysis, responses to each of the items comprising each of the eight factors were summed to create new scales. For factor one, labeled "Research and Learning," the 12 use statements comprising that factor were summed to create a scale ranging from 12 to 60. Responses to the eight items making up the second factor, labeled "Easy Access to Entertainment," were summed to create a scale ranging from 8 to 40. Responses to the six items making up the third factor, labeled "Communication and Social Interaction," were summed to create a scale ranging from 6 to 30. Responses to the five items making up the fourth factor, labeled "Something to Do When I’m Bored," were summed to create a scale ranging from 5 to 25. Responses to the four items making up the fifth factor, labeled "Access to Material Otherwise Unavailable," were summed to create a scale ranging from 4 to 20. Responses to the four items making up the sixth factor, labeled "Product Info and Tech Support," were summed to create a scale ranging from 4 to 20. Responses to the four items making up the seventh factor, labeled "Games and Sexually Explicit Sites," were summed to create a scale ranging from 4 to 20. And lastly, responses to the two items making up the eight factor, labeled "Consumer Transactions," were summed to create a scale ranging from 2 to 10. Once this was done it was possible to explore the relationship between these WWW use scales and other variables.

Gender appeared to be a significant variable as indicated by male and female students’ responses to the various use statements. In an independent-sample t test, male and female students differed significantly in their responses to the statements that made up the summed use scales. In response to the items making up the first factor, "Research and Learning," t = -1.98, p = .048, male students (M = 40.79, SD = 9.73) were on average less likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 42.29, SD = 8.74). In response to the items making up the second factor, "Easy Access to Entertainment," t = 2.35, p = .019, male students (M = 29.31, SD = 6.36) were on average more likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 28.16, SD = 5.71). In response to the items making up the third factor, "Communication and Social Interaction," t = -2.35, p = .019, male students (M = 17.57, SD = 5.61) were on average less likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 18.60, SD = 5.11). In response to the items making up the fourth factor, "Something to Do When I’m Bored," t = 2.98, p = .003, male students (M = 17.99, SD = 4.36) were on average more likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 16.97, SD = 4.16). In response to the items making up the fifth factor, "Access to Material Otherwise Unavailable," t = 2.55, p = .011, male students (M = 13.91, SD = 3.25) were on average more likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 13.27, SD = 2.90). In response to the items making up the fifth factor, "Product Info and Tech Support," t = 7.79, p < .001, male students (M = 13.24, SD = 3.42) were on average more likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 11.17, SD = 3.00). In response to the items making up the sixth factor, "Games and Sexually Explicit Sites," t = 11.82, p < .001, male students (M = 13.33, SD = 3.42) were on average more likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 10.37, SD = 2.69). Finally, in response to the items making up the eighth factor, "Consumer Transactions," t = -2.11, p = .035, male students (M = 5.51, SD = 2.17) were on average less likely to agree with the statements than were female students (M = 5.87, SD = 2.01).

Correlation Analyses

Following the independent-sample t tests, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed among the eight WWW use scales and three variables measured at the interval level. The three variables that were correlated with the eight factors were grade, affinity for the WWW, and skill level at using the WWW. Table 4.18 displays the results of the correlation analysis.

Table 4.18

Correlations for WWW Use Motivations

FAC1 FAC2 FAC3 FAC4 FAC5 FAC6 FAC7 FAC 8 Correlates                 Grade -.01 -.18*** -.01 -.16*** .14* -.10* -.12** -.03 Affinity for the WWW .47*** .53*** .43*** .49*** .43*** .50*** .32*** .26*** Skill level at using the WWW .36*** .44*** .27*** .40*** .46*** .41*** .20*** .13***

*p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

Not surprisingly, both affinity and skill are positively correlated with every type of use as defined by this study. The few significant correlations between grade and uses suggest that students in the lower grades are more likely to say that they use the WWW for easy access to entertainment, for something to do when bored, for product information and technical support, and for games and sexually explicit sites. Likewise, students in the higher grades are more likely to say that they use the WWW for access to material otherwise unavailable.

In addition to the findings presented in Table 4.17, a significant negative correlation exists between grade level and affinity for the WWW (r = -.15, p = .001). This suggests that as respondents increase in age and grade level, they become less enamored with the WWW. Note however that this reduction in affinity for the WWW does not appear to result in less use with increased age. The correlation between grade level and skill level was not significant (r = -.02, p = .717). The lack of correlation between grade and skill level may be accounted for by the likelihood that students rated their skill level against that of their peers rather than against an objective scale.

Multiple Regression

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine which variables predict specific types of use of the WWW, which were entered as the dependent variables. Control variables (demographics) were entered first to account for their contributions. Following this the predictor variables (affinity, skill) were entered. Table 4.19 summarizes the results of the eight analyses.

Table 4.19

Summary of Regression Analysis: Predictors of WWW Use

WWW Use Motivation F df R2 b Research and Learning 40.26*** 459 .31   Age       .02 GPA       .02 Gender       .13** Affinity       .41*** Skill       .23***           Easy Access to Entertainment 53.66*** 468 .37   Age       -.09* GPA       -.07 Gender       .00 Affinity       .39*** Skill       .30***           Communication and Social Interaction 29.33*** 461 .24   Age       .05 GPA       -.09* Gender       .12** Affinity       .40*** Skill       .16**           Something to do when I’m bored 43.12*** 469 .32   Age       -.10* GPA       -.05 Gender       -.05 Affinity       .37*** Skill       .25***           Access to Material Otherwise Unavailable 48.76*** 467 .35   Age       .20*** GPA       .05 Gender       -.02 Affinity       .31*** Skill       .36***           Product Info and Tech Support 55.84*** 468 .38   Age       -.01 GPA       -.07 Gender       -.25*** Affinity       .35*** Skill       .27***           Games and Sexually Explicit Sites 37.36*** 466 .29   Age       -.05 GPA       -.16*** Gender       -.38*** Affinity       .22*** Skill       .11*           Consumer Transactions 9.91*** 475 .10   Age       .03 GPA       -.11* Gender       .13** Affinity       .24*** Skill       .09

Note: Gender; male = 1, female = 2

*p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

Research and learning motive

Higher levels of affinity and skill, as well as female gender, explained self-reported WWW use for research and learning (R = .55, R² = .31, F [5, 454] = 40.26, p <.001). Affinity for the WWW and skill at using the WWW were the strongest predictors.

Easy access to entertainment motive

Higher levels of affinity and skill, as well as younger age, explained self-reported WWW use for easy access to entertainment (R = .61, R² = .37, F [5, 464] = 53.66, p <.001). Again, affinity and skill were the strongest predictors.

Communication and social interaction motive

Higher levels of affinity and skill, as well as female gender and lower GPA, explained self-reported WWW use for communication and social interaction (R = .49, R² = .24, F [5, 456] = 29.33, p <.001). For this variable, affinity contributed the most to the equation.

Something to do when I’m bored motive

Once again affinity and skill explained self-reported use of the WWW for something to do when bored (R = .56, R² = .32, F [5, 464] = 43.12, p <.001). Another contributing factor was younger age.

Access to material otherwise unavailable motive

For the predictor variable labeled "access to material otherwise unavailable," affinity, skill, age, and GPA were all contributing factors (R = .55, R2 = .35, F [5, 462] = 48.76, p <.001). Skill, affinity, and age were the strongest predictors.

Product information and technical support motive

Higher levels of affinity and skill, as well as male gender and age, explained self-reported WWW use for product information and technical support (R = .61, R2 = .38, F [5, 463] = 55.84, p <.001). Once again, skill and affinity were the strongest predictors.

Games and sexually explicit sites motive

For users who reported WWW access for the purpose of games and sexually explicit sites, higher levels of affinity and skill, as well as male gender and lower GPA, predicted use of the WWW (R = .54, R2 = .29, F [5, 461] = 37.36, p <.001). Male gender, affinity for the WWW, and lower GPA were the strongest predictors.

Consumer transactions motive

Higher levels of affinity, as well as female gender and lower GPA, predicted self-reported use of the WWW for consumer transactions (R = .31, R2 = .10, F [5, 470] = 9.91, p <.001). Affinity for the WWW, followed by female gender, were the strongest predictors.

Other Questions

The following survey items were not tied to specific research questions but were included for heuristic purposes. Respondents were asked to provide the URL of their "favorite site on the WWW" (see Appendix F) and what they believed to be the "most useful site on the WWW" (see Appendix G). Four hundred and forty-four students responded in the affirmative to the question asking about their favorite site, with 303 students providing complete URLs or other detailed information about a specific WWW site. Of the 203 responses providing complete URLs, 197 were from the .com domain, three were from .net, two from .org, one from .gov, and none from .edu. The remaining responses made reference to a more general category or type of WWW site; e.g., "anything to do with entertainment," "games," "sports," or "shopping sites." In response to the question asking about the "most useful site" on the WWW, 339 respondents indicated a WWW site or type of site that they believed to be useful. The most frequent response was Yahoo, Yahooligans or some other search site. Another 107 students responded by writing either a question mark (?), "none," "don’t know," or "unsure" in response to the question.

Students were also asked to indicate the locations where they access the WWW. The 625 students who responded to question 20 indicated the following places were used to access the WWW; home (69%), school (61%), friend’s house (32%), public library (23%), and, other (11%). Figure 4.3 visually displays the results of question 20.

Figure 4.3

Location of Access to the WWW

NOTE: percentages do not add up to 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Also, it is interesting to note that more students report use of the WWW at home than at school.

Results of the Computer-administered Survey

The following section will present results of data that were collected electronically using a short survey instrument administered via computer in the same 10 public schools. Students attending middle and high schools in the five districts had access to the WWW using computers available in the schools’ media centers. Each school employed an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that was to be read and signed by student and parent or guardian before access to the WWW was granted. AUPs are "rapidly becoming an integral part of education" according to Schrum and Day (1998, p. 86) and as indicated by a Quality Education Data study reported in the New York Times (Mendels, 1998, July 28). According to the study, 80% of schools surveyed use AUPs while 39% used filtering software. While the form and contents of the AUPs in the schools represented in this study varied slightly, the general purpose of the policy was to inform the student and parents of what is and is not acceptable use of the Internet, WWW and related services provided on school premises (see Appendix K). Only those students who agreed to and signed the policy, and obtained a signature of a parent or guardian, were allowed to use the computers for online applications, e.g., the WWW and e-mail, and to access the computer-administered short survey. Of these, participation in this second phase of the survey was voluntary and by self-selection. More than 1,000 responses were collected in the several-week time period during which the computer survey was made available to the students.

The computer-administered survey was intentionally kept brief in order to alleviate concern about student time off task. Only four questions were asked: grade in school, gender, average amount of time that the respondent uses the WWW on a weekly basis, and the respondent’s purpose for using the WWW at this time. Questions were presented in a multiple-choice format with selections made by clicking on the appropriate radio button or selecting from a pull-down menu (see Appendix D).

Unlike the nearly even split by gender in the paper survey, the respondents to the computer-administered survey were slightly more than 59% male. This could indicate that males are heavier users of the WWW at school, or that they were more likely to respond to the survey. While the breakdown of respondents by grade level to the paper and computer surveys was identical for high school students, there was a substantial difference in the number of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students responding to the two surveys (see Figure 4.4). The reduced percentage of sixth grade students responding to the computer-administered survey was explained in part by the fact that one district did not provide Internet access to sixth grade students.

Figure 4.4

Student Respondents to the Two Survey Instruments by Grade Level

In response to the question asking the average amount of time spent using the WWW each week, the most common response was, "less than 1 hour per week" (36%) followed by "1 to 2 hours per week" (23%), "3 to 5 hours per week" (18%), "more than 10 hours per week" (17%), and "6 to 10 hours per week" (6%). Respondents to the computer-administered survey gave the following reasons for using the WWW: "for research and learning" (n = 541, 52%), "to communicate with other people" (n = 74, 7%), "for access to material otherwise unavailable" (n = 55, 5%), "to find something fun or exciting" (n = 85, 8%), "for something to do when I’m bored" (n = 56, 5%), "for sports and game information" (n = 65, 6%), and, "for shopping and consumer information" (n = 10, 1%). In addition, 165 students (16%) chose not to select from the seven options presented. Of these, 94 students elected to write-in a response to this question. The write-in responses offered by students to explain their purpose for using the WWW were grouped into categories as follows: specific research topics (n =20), sexually explicit material (n =20), games and amusements (n =14), general research and learning (n =11), combinations of things (n =10), communication (n =5), and other unclassified (n =14) (see Appendix I).

Contingency Table Analyses of the Computer-administered Survey Data

In order to determine whether any significant relationship existed between grade level, gender, and amount of use with the seven categories describing WWW use, a two-way contingency table analysis was conducted for each variable. For the first set of analyses the two variables were grade with two levels (middle school and high school), and reason for using the WWW, with seven categories (research and learning, communication with other people, access to material otherwise unavailable, find something fun and exciting, something to do when bored, sports and game information, and shopping and consumer information). Grade and purpose for using the WWW were found to be significantly related (Pearson X² [7, n = 1047] = 41.78, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .20). Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to evaluate the difference among the purpose statements. The Holm’s sequential Bonferroni method was used to control for Type I error at .05 across all comparisons (Keppel, 1991, pp. 167-170). Table 4.20 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 4.20

Results for the Pairwise Comparisons (Grade) Using the Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni Method

Comparison Pearson X2 p-value Required p-value for significance Significance Cramér’s V Use 1 vs. Use 2 13.04 .000 .008 * .146 Use 1 vs. Use 3 16.73 .000 .008 * .168 Use 1 vs. Use 4 .88 .348 .008 .038 Use 1 vs. Use 5 11.66 .001 .008 * .140 Use 1 vs. Use 6 9.98 .002 .008 * .129 Use 1 vs. Use 7 .34 .562 .008 .025 Use 2 vs. Use 3 .71 .398 .010 .074 Use 2 vs. Use 4 4.77 .029 .010 .174 Use 2 vs. Use 5 .04 .841 .010 .018 Use 2 vs. Use 6 .00 .981 .010 .002 Use 2 vs. Use 7 4.04 .044 .010 .219 Use 3 vs. Use 4 7.92 .005 .013 * .239 Use 3 vs. Use 5 .37 .542 .013 .058 Use 3 vs. Use 6 .67 .413 .013 .078 Use 3 vs. Use 7 6.16 .013 .013 * .308 Use 4 vs. Use 5 4.86 .027 .017 .186 Use 4 vs. Use 6 3.94 .047 .017 .168 Use 4 vs. Use 7 .78 .376 .017 .091 Use 5 vs. Use 6 .05 .833 .025 .020 Use 5 vs. Use 7 4.32 .038 .025 .256 Use 6 vs. Use 7 3.77 .052 .050 .239

* p < required p

For the second set of analyses the two variables were gender and reason for using the WWW, with the same seven categories. As was the case with the paper survey data, there appeared to be some clear differences in the way that males and female students described their purpose for using the WWW. Gender and purpose for using the WWW were found to be significantly related (Pearson X² [7, n = 1047] = 50.50, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .22). Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to evaluate the difference among the purpose statements. Table 4.21 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 4.21

Results for the Pairwise Comparisons (Gender) Using the Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni Method

Comparison Pearson X2   p-value Required p-value for significance Significance Cramér’s V Use 1 vs. Use 2 4.08 .043 .008 .082 Use 1 vs. Use 3 .04 .834 .008 .009 Use 1 vs. Use 4 7.94 .005 .008 * .113 Use 1 vs. Use 5 5.17 .023 .008 .093 Use 1 vs. Use 6 23.49 .000 .008 * .197 Use 1 vs. Use 7 .67 .412 .008 .035 Use 2 vs. Use 3 2.49 .115 .010 .139 Use 2 vs. Use 4 13.38 .000 .010 * .290 Use 2 vs. Use 5 10.32 .001 .010 * .283 Use 2 vs. Use 6 28.30 .000 .010 * .451 Use 2 vs. Use 7 .00 .974 .010 .004 Use 3 vs. Use 4 3.19 .074 .013 .151 Use 3 vs. Use 5 2.47 .116 .013 .150 Use 3 vs. Use 6 13.04 .000 .013 * .330 Use 3 vs. Use 7 .72 .397 .013 .105 Use 4 vs. Use 5 .00 .968 .017 .003 Use 4 vs. Use 6 4.67 .031 .017 .176 Use 4 vs. Use 7 3.47 .063 .017 .191 Use 5 vs. Use 6 4.12 .042 .025 .185 Use 5 vs. Use 7 3.13 .077 .025 .220 Use 6 vs. Use 7 10.28 .001 .050 * .370

* p < required p

For the third set of analyses the two variables were amount of time typically spent using the WWW with two levels (0-2 hours per week, 3 or more hours per week), and reason for using the WWW. Amount of time spent using the WWW and purpose for using the WWW were found to be significantly related (Pearson X² [7, n = 1043] = 76.85, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .27). Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to evaluate the difference among the purpose statements. Table 4.22 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 4.22

Results for the Pairwise Comparisons (Time) Using the Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni Method

Comparison Pearson X2   p-value Required p-value for significance Significance Cramér’s V Use 1 vs. Use 2 24.72 .000 .008 * .201 Use 1 vs. Use 3 32.05 .000 .008 * .233 Use 1 vs. Use 4 7.88 .005 .008 * .113 Use 1 vs. Use 5 29.07 .000 .008 * .221 Use 1 vs. Use 6 10.14 .001 .008 * .130 Use 1 vs. Use 7 11.30 .001 .008 * .144 Use 2 vs. Use 3 1.10 .294 .010 .093 Use 2 vs. Use 4 2.93 .087 .010 .137 Use 2 vs. Use 5 .59 .441 .010 .068 Use 2 vs. Use 6 1.24 .265 .010 .095 Use 2 vs. Use 7 1.58 .209 .010 .137 Use 3 vs. Use 4 6.83 .009 .013 * .223 Use 3 vs. Use 5 .08 .785 .013 .026 Use 3 vs. Use 6 4.14 .042 .013 .187 Use 3 vs. Use 7 .53 .465 .013 .091 Use 4 vs. Use 5 5.54 .019 .017 .200 Use 4 vs. Use 6 .26 .612 .017 .042 Use 4 vs. Use 7 4.18 .041 .017 .212 Use 5 vs. Use 6 3.16 .076 .025 .162 Use 5 vs. Use 7 .76 .384 .025 .107 Use 6 vs. Use 7 3.13 .077 .050 .206

* p < required p

Content Analysis of Sites Visited

Because there are normative expectations for media content consumed in school for educational purposes, content analysis of sites visited by students was employed to better understand the nature of the content being consumed. At the beginning of the data collection phase the cache files on the computers in the schools’ Media Centers were deleted. At the end of the collection period the cache files were copied to a disk and the data prepared for analysis. A total of 123,071 URLs were collected from the more than 80 Macintosh™ and Windows™ personal computers on which the survey instrument had been installed. First, the number of occurrences of web sites from the five generic top-level domains (commercial [.com], educational [.edu], governmental [.gov], network [.net], and organizational [.org]), and the United States (.us) domain was computed. These generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and country code TLDs (ccTLDs) are used to designate a WWW page or site as belonging to a particular category of Web sites. Coordination and registration of TLDs is presently administered by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and accredited registrars.

Of the total URLs collected, 77% (n = 94,426) were from the .com domain, 5% (n = 6,289) were from .net, 5% (n = 5,704) were from .org, 4% (n = 4,842) were from .edu, 1 percent (n = 1,640) were from .gov, 1% (n = 1,403) were from .us, and 7% (n = 8,767) were from another or unidentified domain names. These numbers stand in contrast to the distribution of domain names that makes up the current state of the WWW. According to the latest survey of WWW domain names by host count, conducted by Network Wizards in January of 1999, the actual make-up of the WWW is not as heavily skewed towards the commercial domain sites as the student sample would suggest (see Table 4.23).

Table 4.23

Top Domain Names by Host Count, Network Wizards, January 1999

Domain Name Number of sites % of total (com, net, edu, us, org, gov) com (commercial) 12140747 42% net (network) 8856687 31% edu (education) 5022815 17% jp 1687534 us 1562391 5% mil 1510440 uk 1423804 de 1316893 ca 1119172 au 792351 org (organization) 744285 3% gov (government) 651200 2% Total 28,978,125 100%

 

Figure 4.5

Comparison of Student-Visited Sites with Domain Name Totals

In order to facilitate content analysis of the sites visited, URLs ending with .gif and .jpg were first stripped from the list and then a UNIX grep script was written and applied to the remaining sites to reduce the list to a number that could be evaluated and coded given the time and resources available. The subsequent 500 URLs were then collected into a single WWW page and two educators/media specialists, one male and the other female, from a nearby school district were asked to analyze these WWW pages and serve as evaluators. The pages were assigned a "use" category based on the same choices that had been presented to the students on the computer-administered survey and were rated for "suitability as a source for academic research" on a scale of 1-3: 1 = not suitable, 2 = questionable, and 3 = suitable. The evaluators were instructed to look at each WWW page with consideration for the grade level of the students being studied.

In preparation for determining the educational value of the sites the evaluators were asked to visit and explore the EvalWEB tutorial developed by Schinker. This web-based resource "is a tutorial on evaluating web pages to determine their suitability for use as research sources for middle and high school research" (Schinker, 1997). A meeting was held with each of the evaluators to discuss criteria to be applied to the WWW pages and to answer questions about the coding process. Intercoder reliability was tested by first having each evaluator rate a randomly selected sample of 50 pages and comparing results on the three-step scale for suitability as an educational resource. Alpha reliability for the "suitability" assigned by the two evaluators was .92.

Once intercoder reliability was established at an adequate level, the 500 WWW pages were analyzed for educational value and use category. Of the 500 sites, 82% (n = 410) were from the com domain, 5% (n = 25) were from org, 3% (n = 16) were from edu, 2% (n = 12) were from net, 2% (n = 9) were from gov, 1% (n = 5) were from us, and 4% (n = 22) were from another domain name. These percentages were judged to be sufficiently similar to the percentages found in the entire population of 123,071 sampled URLs to provide additional assurance that the smaller sample was representative of the larger initial sample. The "suitability" rank most often assigned by the evaluators was "not suitable" (n = 262, 57%), followed by "suitable" (n = 135, 29%), and "questionable" (n = 65, 14%)

The use category most often assigned by the evaluators was "for research and learning" (n = 126, 27%), followed by "access to material otherwise unavailable" (n = 102, 22%), "to find something fun and exciting" (n = 76, 17%), followed by "for shopping and consumer information" (n = 61, 13%), "for something to do when I’m bored" (n = 45, 10%), "for sports and game information" (n = 30, 7%), and finally, "to communication with other people" (n = 22, 5%).

Table 4.24

Assigned Use Category by Domain Name

Use Category Number of sites com org edu net gov us other total Research & learning 84 19 7 3 7 2 4 126 Communication 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Access 77 3 9 2 1 2 8 102 Fun & exciting 74 0 0 1 1 0 0 76 Something to do 40 0 0 1 0 1 3 45 Sports & game info 28 0 0 2 0 0 0 30 Shopping info 56 1 0 3 0 0 1 61 Total 381 23 16 12 9 5 16 462

 

NOTE: Thirty-eight sites were not assigned a use category for one of the following reasons: a) the site was not longer available to the evaluators (see Appendix J, site number 482), b) the site was a search engine, with no key words or other data available to provide information as to the intent of the searcher, (see Appendix J, site number 8), or c), the site was a foreign language site and was not able to be interpreted by the evaluators, (see Appendix J, site number 498).

Figures 4.6 through 4.10 illustrate the evaluators’ assigned use category for each of the leading domain names.

Figure 4.6

Assigned Use Category for Commercial Sites

Figure 4.7

Assigned Use Category for Organizational Sites

Figure 4.8

Assigned Use Category for Educational Sites

Figure 4.9

Assigned Use Category for Network Sites

Figure 4.10

Assigned Use Category for Governmental Sites

When compared to the use categories self-reported by the students responding to the computer-administered survey there is clearly a disparity between the way that students and media specialists view the content and potential use of these WWW sites. Students’ self-reported uses of the WWW was as follows: "for research and learning" (n = 541, 52%), followed by "to find something fun and exciting" (n = 85, 8%), "to communication with other people" (n = 74, 7%), "for sports and game information" (n = 65, 6%), "for something to do when I’m bored" (n = 56, 5%), "for access to material otherwise unavailable" (n = 55, 5%), and finally, "for shopping and consumer information" (n = 10, 1%). For a comparison of self-reported use with evaluator assigned use, see Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.11

Student Self-Reported Use Compared to Use as Assigned by Content Analysis by Media Experts

NOTE: Use categories are as follows. 1 = research and learning, 2 = to communicate with other people, 3 = for access to material otherwise unavailable, 4 = to find something fun or exciting, 5 = for something to do when I’m bored, 6 = for sports and game information, 7 = for shopping and consumer information

The disparity between self-reported uses of the WWW and evaluators’ assessments of actual sites visited invites several possible explanations. First, students may simply be responding to the survey with answers that they believe are socially acceptable. Even with the anonymity provided by the computer survey technique, students may feel some pressure to respond in a manner that is congruent with the stated purpose of the WWW in school as elaborated in the school district’s Acceptable Use Policy—namely, academic research. However, there may be another factor at work here. It could be that students are starting out with intentions of conducting academic research, but are finding themselves frustrated or distracted by the other offerings so readily available on the WWW.

Analysis comparing domain name and "suitability for academic research" indicated low ratings for .com and .net, with higher values for .org and .gov (see Table 4.25). In fact, the most frequently visited domain name (.com) had the lowest educational value and one of the least frequently visited domain names, (.gov), had the highest educational value as determined by the evaluation of the media specialists.

Table 4.25

Mean Suitability for Academic Research of Sites by Leading Domain Names

Domain Name (n) Mean suitability for academic research as assigned by evaluators * .com (410) 1.59 .org (25) 2.78 .edu (16) 2.44 .net (12) 1.75 .gov (9) 3.0 .us (5) 2.0 other (23) 1.94

Note: * 1 = not suitable, 2 = questionable, 3 = suitable

Summary

This study was designed to explore how some students in 10 Colorado public schools view the WWW and how their attitudes and opinions affect their use of this new medium in an educational context. In response to the paper survey instrument, the typical (median) student expressed the belief that the WWW is an important part of his or her life, believed that the WWW is a "good" or "excellent" source of information, means to communicate, and source of entertainment. Students most often described their skill at using computers as good, and 50% of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "I am very skilled at using the WWW." When asked to associate the WWW with a traditional medium, more students choose "audio/visual-television" (50%) than choose "print-book/magazine" (41%). Most students had been using the WWW for "1-2 years" (32%) or "more than 2 years" (29%). Most reported using the WWW "1-2 times per week" for a total of approximately "1-2 hours/week." Places where students access the WWW include, in descending order: home, school, friend’s house, public library, and other.

An exploratory principal components analysis of 40 use statements resulted in an eight-factor solution which were labeled with the following use category titles: "for research and learning," "for easy access to entertainment," "for communication and social interaction," "for something to do when I’m bored," "for access to material otherwise unavailable," "for product information and technical support," "for games and sexually explicit sites" and, "for consumer transactions." An alternative two-factor solution yielded two factors labeled "education" and "diversion." In addition to the use statement, 10 avoidance statements were presented to the respondents who indicated that spending time with friends, avoiding the negative content attributed to the WWW, and the slow speed of access to the WWW were leading factors in their decision to sometimes not use the WWW at school.

The gender of the student respondents was a significant factor in how they responded to the survey instruments. In response to the paper survey instrument, male and female differed significantly in the way that they described their reason or purpose for using the WWW. Male students were more likely to say that they used the WWW for easy access to entertainment, for something to do when bored, for access to material otherwise unavailable, for product information and technical support, and for games and sexually explicit sites. Female students were more likely to respond that they used the WWW for research and learning, for communication and social interaction, and for consumer transactions.

Correlation analysis revealed predictable significant positive correlations between the students’ affinity for the WWW and skill level at using the WWW with each of the use categories. The few significant correlations between grade and uses suggest that students in the lower grades are more likely to say that they use the WWW for easy access to entertainment, for something to do when bored, for product information and technical support, and for games and sexually explicit sites. Likewise, students in the higher grades are more likely to say that they use the WWW for access to material otherwise unavailable.

Regression analyses supported the findings of the correlation analyses with regard to students’ self-reported affinity and skill levels with the eight use categories. In addition, age and grade point average were significant predictors of WWW use in several categories.

Student responses to the computer-administered survey instrument were collected and analyzed using descriptive techniques. Cross-tabular analyses revealed significant differences in the way that students describe their use of the WWW. Gender, grade level, and amount of time spent using the WWW were used to create between-group comparisons in the seven WWW use categories that made up the computer-administered survey instrument.

The final phase of data analysis was a content analysis of sites visited by students. A total of 123,071 URLs were collected from the computers used to administer the computer survey instrument. These were reduced to a total of 500 sites which were reviewed by media specialists who served as evaluators. Students appear to be visiting commercial sites at a much higher proportion than the other leading domain names. Also, the commercial sites received the lowest rating for "suitability for academic research" of all the domain names. And while students reported their purpose for using the WWW as "research and learning" 52% of the time, the evaluators found only 27% of the sampled sites to be "suitable" for that purpose.

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | References | Appendix