This study was undertaken to ascertain how networking technology was being utilized for education and research at Lehigh University as well as to determine user attitudes toward this technology. The method of determining this was through the analysis of an on-line questionnaire which was placed on Lehigh's campus-wide information system for completion by students, faculty, and staff. Research questions which were explored included:
1) What is the relationship between user classification and level of utilization of networking technology for educational and research purposes at Lehigh University?
2) What are the attitudes of users toward the utilization of networking technology for education and research at Lehigh University?
Over the two week period from September 23, 1994 through October 7, 1994, a number of system bulletins were placed on the Network Server requesting that all users of the system complete the on-line Networking Technology Questionnaire. Overall, 497 individuals completed the survey.
The research question "What is the relationship between user classification and level of utilization of networking technology for educational and research purposes at Lehigh University?" was answered through the testing of a number of hypotheses. It was hypothesized that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the perceived users of networking technology. This was tested through an analysis of responses to items 5 through 8 (percentages of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty members, and staff members which respondents felt utilized networking technology) with respect to item 2 (campus status).
The hypothesis of no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the perceived users of networking technology was not accepted. As shown in Table 2, the majority (82.6%) of undergraduate respondents felt that at least 60% of their fellow undergraduate students utilized networked services; a lesser majority (65.6%) felt that at least 60% of the faculty members utilized networked services. Graduate students responded in a similar manner with the majority (75.8%) feeling that at least 60% of fellow graduate students utilized networked services and a lesser majority (57.6%) feeling that at least 60% of faculty members utilized networked services. On the other hand, less than half (48.5%) of faculty respondents felt that at least 60% of undergraduate students utilized networked services while over two-thirds (67.6%) of faculty respondents felt that at least 60% of graduate students and their fellow faculty members utilized networked services.
Table 2 Perceived Usage of Networking Technology: Campus Status by Perceived Usage +----------+---------------------------------------------+ | | Campus Status | | +----------+-----------+-----------+----------+ | | Freshman | Sophomore | Junior | Senior | +----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+ |Undergrad | | | | | |0-19% | 2 | | | | |20-39% | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |40-59% | 2 | 9 | 7 | 11 | |60-79% | 28 | 24 | 17 | 15 | |80-100% | 36 | 29 | 18 | 13 | | | | | | | |Grad | | | | | |0-19% | 7 | 12 | 3 | | |20-39% | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |40-59% | 10 | 8 | 4 | 8 | |60-79% | 20 | 23 | 15 | 14 | |80-100% | 33 | 15 | 18 | 18 | | | | | | | |Faculty | | | | | |0-19% | 5 | 5 | | | |20-39% | 4 | 10 | 1 | 4 | |40-59% | 9 | 22 | 7 | 8 | |60-79% | 17 | 16 | 16 | 10 | |80-100% | 36 | 10 | 19 | 19 | | | | | | | |Staff | | | | | |0-19% | 7 | 10 | 4 | 5 | |20-39% | 9 | 16 | 10 | 6 | |40-59% | 17 | 18 | 9 | 7 | |60-79% | 17 | 14 | 12 | 11 | |80-100% | 21 | 5 | 8 | 12 | +----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+ Table 2 (continued) +----------+---------------------------------------------+ | | Campus Status | | +----------+-----------+-----------+----------+ | | Grad | Faculty |Non-Exempt | Exempt | +----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+ |Undergrad | | | | | |0-19% | 12 | 9 | 9 | 5 | |20-39% | 9 | 13 | 6 | 7 | |40-59% | 23 | 13 | 12 | 6 | |60-79% | 31 | 16 | 12 | 11 | |80-100% | 24 | 17 | 15 | 29 | | | | | | | |Grad | | | | | |0-19% | 4 | 6 | 10 | 7 | |20-39% | 5 | 3 | 6 | 7 | |40-59% | 15 | 13 | 8 | 11 | |60-79% | 26 | 17 | 11 | 11 | |80-100% | 49 | 29 | 19 | 22 | | | | | | | |Faculty | | | | | |0-19% | 8 | 2 | 6 | 2 | |20-39% | 14 | 6 | 9 | 8 | |40-59% | 20 | 14 | 12 | 13 | |60-79% | 16 | 22 | 16 | 17 | |80-100% | 41 | 24 | 11 | 18 | | | | | | | |Staff | | | | | |0-19% | 15 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |20-39% | 23 | 13 | 6 | 8 | |40-59% | 16 | 12 | 9 | 11 | |60-79% | 27 | 10 | 15 | 15 | |80-100% | 18 | 28 | 21 | 23 | +----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which members of the groups utilize campus networking technology. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 37, 38, 39, and 40 (frequency of use of the Network Server, Compute Servers, remote use of AFS workstations, and direct use of AFS workstations, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which members of the groups utilized the Network Server was accepted [Chi-Squared(28,N=497)=32.29,p·.05]. The vast majority of respondents (96.7%) used the Network Server (i.e., Lehigh's campus-wide information system) on either a daily (89.3%) or weekly (7.4%) basis.
Table 3
Frequency of Using the Network Server by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 64 | 5 | 1 | 1 | | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 61 | 1 | 1 | | | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 36 | 6 | 1 | | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 36 | 3 | | 1 | 1 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 80 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 65 | 2 | | | 1 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
7 | 47 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 54
Non-Exempt | | | | | | 10.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
8 | 55 | 2 | 1 | | | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 444 37 7 4 5 497
Total 89.3 7.4 1.4 .8 1.0 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which members of the groups utilized the compute servers was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=35.47,p<.05]. As shown in Table 4, less than forty percent of undergraduate students at the freshman and sophomore levels utilized compute servers on a daily or weekly basis. This percentage rose to 46.5% at the junior level and 58.6% at the senior level. This was expected as the computing power offered by the compute servers is typically only needed within higher-level courses within engineering and the sciences.
Table 4
Frequency of Using a Compute Server by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 14 | 14 | 7 | 23 | 13 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 8 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 8 | 12 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 18 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 20 | 16 | 18 | 23 | 22 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 8 | 15 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 84 71 60 93 77 385
Total 20.8 18.4 15.6 24.2 20.0 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which members of the groups remotely utilized AFS workstations was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=29.47,p·.05]. The AFS workstations would also be used primarily within engineering and the sciences, however, the use of these workstations is incorporated into those curriculums starting at the freshman level.
Table 5
Frequency of Remotely Using an AFS Workstation by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 24 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 15 | 19 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 26 | 14 | 6 | 16 | 37 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 13 | 36 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 74 52 34 77 148 385
Total 19.2 13.5 8.8 20.0 38.4 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which members of the groups directly utilized AFS workstations was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=38.44,p<.05]. Just under half of respondents at the sophomore, senior, and graduate levels utilized AFS workstations directly on a daily or weekly basis. This percentage dropped to 27.9% at the junior level and 38.0% at the freshman level, but dropped even further to 22.1% for faculty members. Almost two-thirds (66.2%) of faculty respondents rarely or never utilized AFS workstations directly. This was most likely due to the fact that while all faculty members have microcomputers in their offices, few have workstations.
Table 6
Frequency of Directly Using an AFS Workstation by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 10 | 17 | 11 | 11 | 22 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 13 | 16 | 14 | 11 | 9 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 17 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 29 | 19 | 12 | 15 | 24 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 14 | 31 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 74 77 58 64 112 385
Total 19.2 20.0 15.1 16.6 29.1 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of electronic mail for communications by members of the groups. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 9 and 10 (frequency of utilizing on-campus and off-campus electronic mail, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized on-campus electronic mail for education and research was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=24.60,p·.05]. The majority (88.1%) of respondents utilized on-campus mail on either a daily (61.6%) or weekly (26.5%) basis.
Table 7
On-campus to On-campus Use of Electronic Mail by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 52 | 14 | 2 | 3 | | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 35 | 18 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 27 | 11 | 2 | 3 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 25 | 14 | 1 | | 1 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 53 | 26 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 45 | 19 | 2 | | 2 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 237 102 21 16 9 385
Total 61.6 26.5 5.5 4.2 2.3 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized off-campus electronic mail for education and research was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=28.35,p·.05]. The majority (85.5%) of respondents utilized off-campus mail on either a daily (52.5%) or weekly (33.0%) basis.
Table 8
Off-campus Electronic Mail (Sent or Received) by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 46 | 18 | | 2 | 5 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 37 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 13 | 22 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 24 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 49 | 31 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 33 | 27 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 202 127 21 21 14 385
Total 52.5 33.0 5.5 5.5 3.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of electronic mail for student-faculty communications. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 11, 12, and 13 (frequency of utilizing electronic mail with undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which students send electronic mail to faculty members was not accepted [Chi-squared (16,N=317)=36.46,p<.05]. Fewer than a quarter of sophomore (23.8%) or junior (18.6%) respondents sent electronic mail to faculty members on a daily or weekly basis while freshmen (45.1%), seniors (43.9%), and graduate students (35.4%) did so at a higher level. This could be that freshmen are still getting used to the institution while seniors and graduate students are working closely with faculty members regarding projects; sophomores and juniors are comfortable with the institution and don't yet have senior projects with which to contend.
Table 9
Frequency of Student-sent Electronic Mail to Faculty by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 2 | 30 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 22.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 3 | 12 | 29 | 17 | 2 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 19.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | 8 | 21 | 14 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 13.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 3 | 16 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 12.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 6 | 29 | 25 | 28 | 11 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 31.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 14 95 100 84 24 317
Total 4.4 30.0 31.5 26.5 7.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which faculty members send electronic mail to undergraduates was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=27.58,p·.05]. Slightly less than half (47.0%) of faculty respondents, regardless of campus affiliation, sent electronic mail to undergraduate students on either a daily or weekly basis.
Table 10
Frequency of Faculty-sent Electronic Mail to Undergrads by Faculty Affiliation
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 1 | | 3 | 4 | 1 | | 8
Humanities | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | | 8
Social Sci | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 3 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 21
Sciences | | | | | | 30.9
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 5 | | 17
Engineering | | | | | | 25.0
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | 9
Business | | | | | | 13.2
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3
Education | | | | | | 4.4
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Academic- 8 | 1 | | | | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
9 | | 1 | | | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 6 26 18 14 4 68
Total 8.8 38.2 26.5 20.6 5.9 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which faculty members send electronic mail to graduate students was not accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=68)=47.45,p<.05]. As shown in Table 11, the most likely cause of this is that a disproportionate number of humanities faculty members never sent electronic mail to graduate students. It could be that these particular individuals seldom teach graduate courses.
Table 11
Frequency of Faculty-sent Electronic Mail to Grad Students by Faculty Affiliation
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 1 | | 2 | | 1 | 5 | 8
Humanities | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8
Social Sci | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 3 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 21
Sciences | | | | | | 30.9
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 17
Engineering | | | | | | 25.0
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9
Business | | | | | | 13.2
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3
Education | | | | | | 4.4
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Academic- 8 | 1 | | | | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
9 | | | | | 1 | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 3 20 18 14 13 68
Total 4.4 29.4 26.5 20.6 19.1 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of electronic mail by faculty members for non-student-faculty communication. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 13 and 15 (frequency of utilizing electronic mail with faculty members and with off-campus individuals, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which faculty members send electronic mail to other faculty members was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=68)=29.82,p·.05]. As can be seen in Table 12, over two-thirds (67.6%) of faculty respondents utilized electronic mail for communications with other faculty members on either a daily or weekly basis. Another quarter (23.5%) utilized electronic mail on a monthly basis for this purpose.
Table 12
Faculty to Faculty Electronic Mail (On-campus) by Faculty Affiliation
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 1 | 3 | 5 | | | | 8
Humanities | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | | 8
Social Sci | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 3 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 21
Sciences | | | | | | 30.9
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 1 | | 17
Engineering | | | | | | 25.0
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9
Business | | | | | | 13.2
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Education | | | | | | 4.4
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Academic- 8 | | | | 1 | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
9 | | 1 | | | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 19 27 16 4 2 68
Total 27.9 39.7 23.5 5.9 2.9 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which faculty members send electronic mail to off-campus colleagues was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=68)=36.08,p·.05]. About two-thirds (63.3%) of faculty respondents utilized electronic mail to communicate with off-campus colleagues on either a daily or weekly basis with about a fifth (22.1%) doing so on a monthly basis..pm 1
Table 13
Faculty to Off-campus Colleague Electronic Mail by Faculty Affiliation
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | | 8
Humanities | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 2 | 5 | 2 | | 1 | | 8
Social Sci | | | | | | 11.8
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
A&S- 3 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 1 | | 21
Sciences | | | | | | 30.9
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 17
Engineering | | | | | | 25.0
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 2 | 6 | | | 1 | 9
Business | | | | | | 13.2
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3
Education | | | | | | 4.4
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Academic- 8 | | | | 1 | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
9 | | | 1 | | | 1
Other | | | | | | 1.5
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 21 22 15 8 2 68
Total 30.9 32.4 22.1 11.8 2.9 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of electronic mail by students for non-student-faculty communication. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 11, 12, and 15 (frequency of utilizing electronic mail with undergraduate students, graduate students, and off-campus individuals, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which students send electronic mail to undergraduate students was not accepted [Chi-squared (16,N=317)=124.93,p<.05]. While the majority (84.9%) of undergraduate student respondents sent electronic mail to other undergraduates on a daily or weekly basis, only about a quarter (26.2%) of graduate student respondents sent electronic mail to undergraduates that frequently. Over half (59.6%) of graduate student respondents rarely or never sent electronic mail to undergraduates.
Table 14
Electronic Mail Sent to Undergraduates from Undergraduates and Graduate Students
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 41 | 20 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 22.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 37 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 19.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 19 | 16 | 5 | 3 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 13.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 20 | 14 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 12.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 10 | 16 | 14 | 36 | 23 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 31.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 127 84 30 46 30 317
Total 40.1 26.5 9.5 14.5 9.5 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which students send electronic mail to graduate students was not accepted [Chi-squared (16,N=317)=122.48,p<.05]. While almost two-thirds (64.6%) of graduate student respondents sent electronic mail to other graduate students on a daily or weekly basis, well under a quarter (16.1%) of undergraduate respondents sent electronic mail to graduate students that frequently. Almost three-quarters (71.6%) of undergraduate respondents rarely or never sent electronic mail to graduate students.
Table 15
Electronic Mail Sent to Graduate Students from Undergraduates and Graduate Students
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 16 | 41 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 22.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 23 | 20 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 19.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 14 | 16 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 13.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 13 | 13 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 12.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 27 | 37 | 18 | 12 | 5 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 31.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 33 66 45 78 95 317
Total 10.4 20.8 14.2 24.6 30.0 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which students send electronic mail to off-campus individuals for educational or research purposes was not accepted [Chi-squared (16,N=317)=39.46,p<.05]. While over half (54.5%) of graduate student respondents and almost half (48.8%) of senior respondents sent electronic mail to off-campus individuals for educational or research purposes on a daily or weekly basis, significantly fewer do so at the freshman (36.6%), sophomore (27.0%), and junior (25.6%) levels. At those levels, well over half of respondents (freshman: 59.2%; sophomore: 65.1%; junior: 60.5%) rarely or never sent electronic mail off-campus for educational or research purposes.
Table 16
Electronic Mail Sent Off-campus for Collaboration from Undergraduates and Graduate Students
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 10 | 16 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 22.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 6 | 11 | 5 | 24 | 17 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 19.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 15 | 11 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 13.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 9 | 11 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 12.9
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 23 | 31 | 18 | 17 | 10 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 31.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 50 78 38 88 63 317
Total 15.8 24.6 12.0 27.8 19.9 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of sharing files electronically. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 18 (frequency of uploading or downloading a file for sharing purposes) and 19 (frequency of utilizing a LAN to exchange files).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals uploaded or downloaded files as a means of exchanging information with other individuals was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=43.04,p<.05]. Well over half of freshmen (60.6%) respondents rarely or never shared files in this manner, while well over half of sophomores (69.8%), juniors (58.2%), and seniors (78.0%) shared files in this manner on at least a monthly basis as did about half of graduate student (51.5%) and faculty member (52.9%) respondents. This was most likely due to freshmen not yet being involved in group projects.
Table 17
Frequency of Uploading or Downloading Files by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 6 | 14 | 8 | 20 | 23 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 7 | 21 | 16 | 10 | 9 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 4 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 4 | 5 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 6 | 26 | 19 | 28 | 20 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 4 | 22 | 10 | 25 | 7 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 35 102 79 97 72 385
Total 9.1 26.5 20.5 25.2 18.7 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized local area networks to exchange files with other individuals was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=29.24,p·.05]. Almost two-thirds of respondents (62.8%) rarely or never exchanged files in this manner while the remaining third (37.2%) did so on at least a monthly basis.
Table 18
Frequency of LAN File Exchange by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 14 | 33 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 24 | 15 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 14 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 36 | 29 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 23 | 26 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 33 51 59 114 128 385
Total 8.6 13.3 15.3 29.6 33.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of off-campus computing (excluding library and database systems which are analyzed elsewhere). This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 20, 21, 22, and 36 (frequency of utilizing archive servers, anonymous ftp, Gopher and Mosaic, and connecting to off-campus computers for purposes other than library or database usage, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed archive servers (i.e., Archie) to search for publicly available files or software was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=23.46,p·.05]. Over half of the respondents (56.1%) rarely or never accessed archive servers; the rest (43.9%) did so at least monthly.
Table 19
Use of Archive Servers by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 3 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 27 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 4 | 16 | 12 | 17 | 14 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 3 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 33 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 4 | 19 | 15 | 29 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 17 74 78 88 128 385
Total 4.4 19.2 20.3 22.9 33.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed and retrieved publicly available files and software (via anonymous FTP) was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=33.20,p<.05]. Over two-thirds (67.6%) of faculty respondents rarely or never accessed files in this manner, with only about a tenth (13.2%) of faculty respondents accessing files in this manner on a daily or weekly basis. Less than half of undergraduate (46.8%) and graduate (49.5%) respondents rarely or never accessed files in this manner, while approximately a third of undergraduate (36.7%) and graduate (29.3%) respondents accessed files in this manner on a daily or weekly basis. Students could be accessing files in this manner to aid in course work.
Table 20
Use of Anonymous FTP
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 6 | 16 | 10 | 12 | 27 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 11 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 13 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 5 | 24 | 21 | 23 | 26 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 26 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 36 82 70 83 114 385
Total 9.4 21.3 18.2 21.6 29.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the utilization of Gopher and Mosaic was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=61.79,p<.05]. Almost two-thirds (64.8%) of freshman respondents utilized these systems on either a daily or weekly basis as did approximately half of sophomore (52.4%), junior (44.2%), and senior (56.1%) respondents. Only about a fifth of freshman (19.7%), sophomore (15.9%), junior (20.9%), and senior (29.3%) respondents rarely or never utilized Gopher and Mosaic. About a third (36.4%) of graduate student respondents used these systems on either a daily or weekly basis while another third (38.4%) rarely or never did so. The majority (58.8%) of faculty respondents rarely or never utilized Mosaic and Gopher; about a quarter (27.9%) accessed these systems on a daily or weekly basis. It could be that faculty members are unfamiliar with these systems.
Table 21
Use of Gopher and Mosaic by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 18 | 28 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 11 | 22 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 3 | 16 | 15 | 6 | 3 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 8 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 11 | 25 | 25 | 18 | 20 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 5 | 14 | 9 | 19 | 21 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 56 120 86 68 55 385
Total 14.5 31.2 22.3 17.7 14.3 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the utilization of off-campus computers through the Internet for purposes other than library or database usage was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=27.92,p·.05]. Over half of the respondents (58.2%) rarely or never accessed off-campus computers for this purpose; about a quarter (24.2%) of respondents did so on either a daily or weekly basis.
Table 22
Use of Off-Campus Computers(Excluding Library and Database Systems) by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 8 | 16 | 9 | 11 | 27 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 17 | 23 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 14 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 13 | 9 | 19 | 26 | 32 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 21 | 28 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 36 57 68 89 135 385
Total 9.4 14.8 17.7 23.1 35.1 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of Usenet News and BITNET LISTSERVs. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 16 (frequency of reading a group) and 17 (frequency of posting to a group).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals read Usenet news groups or BITNET LISTSERVs was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=48.37,p<.05]. As shown in Table 23, well over half of sophomore (58.7%), junior (58.1%), senior (65.9%), and graduate student (62.6%) respondents read these groups on either a daily or weekly basis. On the other hand, almost half of freshman (49.3%) and faculty (44.1%) respondents rarely or never read these groups. This was most likely due to freshmen and, to a lesser extent, faculty members not being familiar with what information is available through Usenet and LISTSERVs. Also, as much of the information available through these groups is of questionable value, faculty members may avoid them.
Table 23
Frequency of Reading Usenet News Groups or a LISTSERV by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 8 | 20 | 8 | 20 | 15 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 30 | 7 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 15 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 19 | 8 | | 8 | 6 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 42 | 20 | 13 | 8 | 16 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 20 | 8 | 10 | 18 | 12 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 134 73 40 70 68 385
Total 34.8 19.0 10.4 18.2 17.7 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of posting to a Usenet news group or a BITNET LISTSERV was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=30.18,p·.05]. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64.2%) rarely or never posted messages; about a quarter (23.6%) of respondents posted on either a daily or weekly basis.
Table 24
Frequency of Posting to a Usenet News Group or LISTSERV by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 23 | 35 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 4 | 14 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 6 | 21 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 23 | 27 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 25 66 47 105 142 385
Total 6.5 17.1 12.2 27.3 36.9 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of local library resources. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 23, 30, 31, 32, and 33 (frequency of remote connection to ASA, and frequency of utilization of the library's CD-ROM LAN, on-line forms, REFERENCE aids, and electronic texts, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed the ASA library system remotely (i.e., without being in the library) was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=67.27,p<.05]. As shown in Table 25, slightly less than half of graduate student (45.5%) and faculty (48.5%) respondents utilized ASA on either a daily or weekly basis. On the other hand, about half of sophomore (55.6%), junior (48.8%), and senior (43.9%) respondents and about a third of freshman (33.8%) respondents rarely or never utilized ASA. This was as expected with graduate students and faculty members doing more research than is typically done at the undergraduate level.
Table 25
Use of Remote Connections to ASA by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 24 | 23 | 17 | 7 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | 7 | 21 | 23 | 12 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | 7 | 15 | 17 | 4 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 15 | 3 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 5 | 40 | 40 | 11 | 3 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 2 | 31 | 24 | 5 | 6 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 8 118 136 88 35 385
Total 2.1 30.6 35.3 22.9 9.1 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized the library's CD-ROM local area network was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=56.56,p<.05]. As shown in Table 26, the majority (79.8%) of respondents rarely or never utilized the CD-ROM local area network. About a third of senior (39.0%) and graduate student (36.4%) respondents utilized the CD-ROM LAN on at least a monthly basis. This was somewhat expected in that the CD-ROM databases on the LAN would be of more use for upper-level undergraduate and graduate student research. What wasn't expected was the low level of faculty member respondent utilization. Most faculty members would need to physically go to the library to access the CD-ROM LAN so they may send graduate students to do the work.
Table 26
Use of the Library's CD-ROM LAN by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 1 | 6 | 17 | 47 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 3 | 20 | 40 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 7 | 12 | 24 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 5 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | | 11 | 25 | 24 | 39 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 20 | 39 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 18 59 105 202 385
Total .3 4.7 15.3 27.3 52.5 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized on-line forms for library requests was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=73.51,p<.05]. As shown in Table 27, the majority (81.1%) of respondents rarely or never utilized on-line forms. About a third of graduate student (30.3%) and faculty (42.6%) respondents utilized on-line forms on at least a monthly basis. This was expected in that graduate students and faculty members are the groups most likely to be utilizing library-based research methods.
Table 27
Use of On-line Forms for Library Services by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | | 5 | 24 | 42 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 3 | 20 | 40 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 1 | 9 | 33 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | | 5 | 12 | 24 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 2 | 8 | 20 | 28 | 41 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 7 | 22 | 20 | 19 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 2 15 56 113 199 385
Total .5 3.9 14.5 29.4 51.7 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized on-line reference aids from the library was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=37.18,p<.05]. As shown in Table 28, the majority (81.3%) of respondents rarely or never utilized on-line reference aids. About a quarter of graduate student (25.3%) respondents utilized on-line reference aids on at least a monthly basis. This was expected in that graduate students are the group most likely to be utilizing on-line reference aids for help in writing research papers.
Table 28
Use of the Library's Reference Aids by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 4 | 9 | 26 | 32 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 4 | 20 | 39 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | 1 | 3 | 14 | 25 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 2 | 5 | 4 | 30 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 35 | 39 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 4 | 15 | 26 | 23 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 18 53 125 188 385
Total .3 4.7 13.8 32.5 48.8 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized on-line electronic texts from the library was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=33.51,p<.05]. The majority (92.7%) of respondents rarely or never utilized on-line electronic texts. The primary exceptions to this were a number of freshman (14.1%) and graduate student (9.1%) respondents. This was expected in that freshmen and graduate students are the groups most likely to be utilizing on-line electronic texts for help in understanding covered topics with which they were not familiar.
Table 29
Use of Electronic Texts by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 5 | 5 | 20 | 41 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 1 | 15 | 47 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 2 | 3 | 38 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | | 3 | 6 | 32 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 30 | 60 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 47 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 2 8 18 92 265 385
Total .5 2.1 4.7 23.9 68.8 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of locally mounted databases. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 26 and 27 (frequency of utilization of ERIC and EngIndex, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed the ERIC database was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=45.18,p<.05]. As shown in Table 30, the majority (83.4%) of respondents rarely or never utilized the ERIC database. The primary exceptions to this were about a quarter of graduate student (29.3%) and faculty member (22.1%) respondents. This was as expected with graduate students and faculty members doing more research pertinent to the ERIC database than is typically done at the undergraduate level.
Table 30
Use of the ERIC Database by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 1 | 6 | 17 | 47 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | 1 | 2 | 20 | 40 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 4 | 9 | 30 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 1 | 5 | 6 | 29 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 2 | 13 | 14 | 26 | 44 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 2 | 13 | 15 | 38 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 2 18 44 93 228 385
Total .5 4.7 11.4 24.2 59.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed the Engineering Index database was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=28.10,p·.05]. As shown in Table 31, the majority (86.0%) of respondents rarely or never utilized the Engineering Index database.
Table 31
Use of the Engineering Index Database by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 3 | 7 | 13 | 48 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 2 | 20 | 41 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 3 | 9 | 31 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 1 | 5 | 6 | 29 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 26 | 50 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 3 | 7 | 13 | 45 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 17 36 87 244 385
Total .3 4.4 9.4 22.6 63.4 100.0
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency of use of off-campus libraries and databases. This was tested through analyses of crosstabulations of responses to item 2 (campus status) with responses to items 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, and 35 (frequency of use of CARL/Uncover, WorldCat, Dow Jones News Retrieval, Lexis/Nexis, off-campus library systems, and off-campus database systems, respectively).
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals used CARL/Uncover from the Network Server was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=52.17,p<.05]. The majority (86.7%) of respondents rarely or never utilized CARL/Uncover. The primary exception to this were about a third of faculty member (30.8%) respondents. This may have to do with convenience; all faculty members can access CARL/Uncover from their offices while other library resources such as the CD-ROM LAN may require a trip to the library.
Table 32
Use of CARL/Uncover by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 1 | 4 | 12 | 54 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 2 | 14 | 47 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | | 1 | 4 | 38 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | | 3 | 7 | 31 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 25 | 55 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 6 | 15 | 17 | 30 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 13 37 79 255 385
Total .3 3.4 9.6 20.5 66.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals utilized WORLDCAT from the Network Server was not accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=44.94,p<.05]. As shown in Table 33, the majority (79.5%) of respondents rarely or never utilized WORLDCAT. The primary exceptions to this were about a third of graduate student (31.3%) and faculty member (32.4%) respondents. This was as expected with graduate students and faculty members doing more research pertinent to information found within WORLDCAT than is typically done at the undergraduate level.
Table 33
Use of WorldCat by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 1 | 8 | 16 | 46 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | 2 | 2 | 22 | 37 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | 1 | 4 | 7 | 31 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 1 | 7 | 5 | 28 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 13 | 17 | 25 | 43 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | | 8 | 14 | 19 | 27 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 26 52 94 212 385
Total .3 6.8 13.5 24.3 55.1 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed Dow Jones News Retrieval from the Network Server was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=17.48,p·.05]. The majority of respondents (85.7%) rarely or never utilized this service while about a tenth (9.6%) utilized it on a daily or weekly basis.
Table 34
Use of Dow Jones News Retrieval by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 51 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 3 | | 4 | 15 | 41 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 28 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 25 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 24 | 65 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 45 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 18 19 18 75 255 385
Total 4.7 4.9 4.7 19.5 66.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed LEXIS/NEXIS from a local area network was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=26.49,p·.05]. The majority of respondents (90.9%) rarely or never utilized this service while well under a tenth (3.7%) of respondents utilized it on a daily or weekly basis.
Table 35
Use of LEXIS/NEXIS by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | | 2 | 3 | 11 | 55 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | | | 3 | 18 | 42 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | | 2 | 1 | 12 | 28 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | | 3 | 6 | 7 | 25 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | | 5 | 2 | 23 | 69 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 45 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 1 13 21 86 264 385
Total .3 3.4 5.5 22.3 68.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed other off-campus library systems through the Internet was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=29.41,p·.05]. The majority of respondents (71.7%) rarely or never utilized this service while about a tenth (10.9%) utilized it on a daily or weekly basis.
Table 36
Internet Use of Off-Campus Library Systems by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 3 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 29 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 16 | 36 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 22 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 3 | 9 | 22 | 34 | 31 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 27 | 23 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 13 29 67 116 160 385
Total 3.4 7.5 17.4 30.1 41.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the frequency with which individuals accessed other off-campus database systems through the Internet was accepted [Chi-squared (20,N=385)=30.89,p·.05]. The majority of respondents (66.5%) rarely or never utilized this service while about a tenth (15.6%) utilized it on a daily or weekly basis.
Table 37
Internet Use of Off-Campus Database Systems by Campus Status
|Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 27 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 18.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
2 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 16 | 28 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 16.4
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
3 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 20 | 43
Junior | | | | | | 11.2
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
4 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 19 | 41
Senior | | | | | | 10.6
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
5 | 1 | 11 | 21 | 31 | 35 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 25.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
6 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 27 | 27 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 17.7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Column 12 48 69 100 156 385
Total 3.1 12.5 17.9 26.0 40.5 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The questionnaire items 56 through 60 related to the intellectual skills being utilized through networking technology. Item 56, "I constantly find new information available to me through the use of network services," pertains to the knowledge acquisition intellectual skill. Item 57, "By accessing information through the Network Server and the Internet, my abilities to distinguish the value of information I encounter has greatly increased," pertains to the comprehension intellectual skill. Item 58, "Utilizing different search techniques to find information through the Network Server and the Internet has increased the scope of information available to me," pertains to the application intellectual skill. Item 59, "My skills in assembling information into a more usable form have increased due to the use of networking technology," pertains to analysis, synthesis, and evaluation intellectual skills. And, item 60, "Using networking technology has had a significant positive impact on my ability to get my work done," pertains to all of the intellectual skills found within the cognitive domain of learning. It was hypothesized that there were no significant relationships among user classification groups for any of these items.
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and constantly finding new information through network services was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=497)=38.19,p·.05]. Over three-quarters (76.7%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "I constantly find new information available to me through the use of network services." Only 8.6% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Table 38
Constantly Find New Information
|Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
| Agree Disagree Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
1 | 22 | 34 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
2 | 26 | 26 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
3 | 19 | 16 | 8 | | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
4 | 20 | 14 | 5 | 2 | | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
5 | 32 | 45 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
6 | 15 | 29 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
7 | 15 | 24 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 54
Non-Exempt| | | | | | 10.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
8 | 21 | 23 | 7 | 7 | | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
Column 170 211 73 34 9 497
Total 34.2 42.5 14.7 6.8 1.8 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and improvements in abilities to distinguish the value of information was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=497)=36.96,p·.05]. Over half (54.7%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "By accessing information through the Network Server and the Internet, my abilities to distinguish the value of information I encounter has greatly increased." Only 10.7% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.
Table 39
Improved Abilities to Distinguish Value of Information
|Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
| Agree Disagree Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
1 | 15 | 23 | 24 | 7 | 2 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
2 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 3 | 2 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
3 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 3 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
4 | 15 | 11 | 12 | 3 | | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
5 | 25 | 32 | 31 | 9 | 2 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
6 | 5 | 16 | 33 | 13 | 1 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
7 | 11 | 22 | 19 | 2 | | 54
Non-Exempt| | | | | | 10.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
8 | 14 | 20 | 18 | 5 | 1 | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
Column 117 155 172 45 8 497
Total 23.5 31.2 34.6 9.1 1.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and search techniques increasing the scope of available information was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=497)=29.12,p·.05]. The majority (78.8%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "Utilizing different search techniques to find information through the Network Server and the Internet has increased the scope of information available to me." Only 5.0% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Table 40
Different Search Techniques Increase Scope of Available Information
|Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
| Agree Disagree Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
1 | 25 | 29 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
2 | 25 | 28 | 7 | | 3 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
3 | 20 | 14 | 8 | 1 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
4 | 20 | 16 | 4 | 1 | | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
5 | 42 | 39 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
6 | 19 | 32 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
7 | 14 | 24 | 14 | 2 | | 54
Non-Exempt| | | | | | 10.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
8 | 20 | 25 | 10 | 3 | | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
Column 185 207 80 17 8 497
Total 37.2 41.6 16.1 3.4 1.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and the increase of information assembly skills was accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=497)=39.67,p·.05]. Over half (56.6%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "My skills in assembling information into a more usable form have increased due to the use of networking technology." Only 13.7% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Table 41
Increased Skills in Assembling Information
|Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
| Agree Disagree Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
1 | 15 | 18 | 26 | 10 | 2 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
2 | 17 | 16 | 25 | 4 | 1 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
3 | 14 | 15 | 13 | 1 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
4 | 18 | 15 | 4 | 4 | | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
5 | 28 | 30 | 26 | 14 | 1 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
6 | 10 | 21 | 24 | 11 | 2 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
7 | 9 | 20 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 54
Non-Exempt| | | | | | 10.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
8 | 16 | 19 | 12 | 11 | | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
Column 127 154 148 61 7 497
Total 25.6 31.0 29.8 12.3 1.4 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The subhypothesis that there was no significant relationship between user classification and networking technology being a positive impact on work was not accepted [Chi-squared (28,N=497)=51.08,p<.05]. Over two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "Using networking technology has had a significant positive impact on my ability to get my work done." While only about half of respondents at the freshman and sophomore levels either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, this level increased to over two-thirds for all other respondents. This suggests that as individuals become more comfortable with networking technology, they perceive it to have a more positive impact on their work.
Table 42
Positive Impact on Work
|Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
| Agree Disagree Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
----+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
1 | 17 | 20 | 21 | 12 | 1 | 71
Freshman | | | | | | 14.3
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
2 | 17 | 15 | 21 | 6 | 4 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | | 12.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
3 | 14 | 16 | 9 | 4 | | 43
Junior | | | | | | 8.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
4 | 21 | 11 | 6 | 3 | | 41
Senior | | | | | | 8.2
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
5 | 40 | 35 | 14 | 9 | 1 | 99
Grad | | | | | | 19.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
6 | 18 | 29 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 68
Faculty | | | | | | 13.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
7 | 13 | 27 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 54
Non-Exempt| | | | | | 10.9
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
8 | 24 | 22 | 10 | 2 | | 58
Exempt | | | | | | 11.7
+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
Column 164 175 100 50 8 497
Total 33.0 35.2 20.1 10.1 1.6 100.0
____________________________________________________________
The second research question "What are the attitudes of users toward the utilization of networking technology for education and research at Lehigh University?" was answered through the testing of a number of hypotheses. It was hypothesized that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups enjoyed the utilization of networking technology for retrieving information. This was tested through an analysis of combined means of responses to item 41, "I like working with networked information resources," item 44, "The challenge of obtaining information through computer networks does not appeal to me," item 47, "I think that working with networked information resources is enjoyable and stimulating," item 50, "I do as little work with networked information resources as possible," and item 53, "I enjoy talking to others about networked information resources and networks." For this specific question, a low score (1 on a scale of 1 to 5) signified a high level of enjoyment. Since items 44 and 50 were negatively worded, responses were coded in reverse for analysis.
The hypothesis that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups enjoyed the utilization of networking technology for retrieving information was not accepted. As shown in Table 43, the analysis of variance reported significance due to campus status with senior respondents showing a greater level of enjoyment in utilizing networking technology than any other group; faculty member respondents showed the lowest level of enjoyment in utilizing networking technology. As networking technology has been an integral part of Lehigh for a number of years now, it was expected that senior respondents would show the highest level of enjoyment in utilizing this technology; they had been using it for four years and were comfortable with its use. Other undergraduates, and most graduate students, are newer to the University so would naturally be less comfortable with the technology at the University. Faculty members may simply not have the time to keep up with the rapid changes in networking technology to have a particularly high level of enjoyment in its use.
Table 43 Enjoyment in Utilizing Networking Technology by Campus Status C E L L M E A N S Total Population 1.80 Freshman 1.84 Sophomore 1.73 Junior 1.74 Senior 1.60 Grad 1.82 Faculty 1.99 Non-Exempt 1.94 Exempt 1.67 A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E Enjoyment by Campus Status EXPERIMENTAL sums of squares Covariates entered FIRST Source of Sum of Mean Sig Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 6.771 7 .967 2.596 .012 Campus Status 6.771 7 .967 2.596 .012 Explained 6.771 7 .967 2.596 .012 Residual 182.177 489 .373 Total 188.948 496 .381
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups had a high anxiety level toward the utilization of networking technology. This was tested through an analysis of combined means of responses to item 43, "Whenever I use something that is computerized I am afraid I will break it," item 46, "I know that I will not understand how to access networked information resources," item 49, "Using networked computing resources is too time consuming," item 52, "I have had bad experiences accessing networked computing resources," and item 55, "I do not like using networked information resources because I do not know from where the information is coming." For this specific question, a low score (1 on a scale of 1 to 5) signified a high level of anxiety.
The hypothesis that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups had a high anxiety level toward the utilization of networking technology was accepted. As shown in Table 44, the analysis of variance reported no significant differences due to campus status or to gender. No group of individuals showed any real level of anxiety in using this technology. This is as expected since individuals with a high level of anxiety toward this technology would not have been likely to take the survey.
Table 44 Anxiety Level of Utilizing Networking Technology by Campus Status and Gender C E L L M E A N S Total Male Female Total Population 4.18 4.20 4.15 Freshman 4.10 4.14 3.96 Sophomore 4.26 4.34 4.05 Junior 4.36 4.33 4.44 Senior 4.38 4.46 4.05 Grad 4.12 4.08 4.24 Faculty 4.13 4.11 4.23 Non-Exempt 4.10 4.13 4.09 Exempt 4.19 4.16 4.21 A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E Anxiety by Campus Status and Gender EXPERIMENTAL sums of squares Covariates entered FIRST Source of Sum of Mean Sig Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 4.766 8 .596 1.663 .105 Campus Status 4.552 7 .650 1.815 .082 Gender .083 1 .083 .232 .631 2-Way Interactions 3.261 7 .466 1.300 .248 Status Gender 3.261 7 .466 1.300 .248 Explained 8.027 15 .535 1.494 .103 Residual 172.337 481 .358 Total 180.364 496 .364
____________________________________________________________
It was hypothesized that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups were confident in their abilities to utilize networking technology. This was tested through an analysis of combined means of responses to item 42, "I would prefer finding information through a computerized database instead of a book," item 45, "Having a networked computer available to me helps with my job, research, or studies," item 48, "I prefer not to learn more about computer networking and available resources," item 51, "I would like to have a networked computer connection in my home," and item 54 "I like to browse through networked information resources to find what is available." For this specific question, a low score (1 on a scale of 1 to 5) signified a high confidence level. Since item 48 was negatively worded, responses were coded in reverse for analysis.
The hypothesis that there were no significant differences among user classification groups regarding the degree to which members of the groups were confident in their abilities to utilize networking technology was not accepted. As shown in Table 45, the analysis of variance reported significance due to campus status with junior and senior respondents showing a greater level of confidence in utilizing networking technology than any other groups; faculty member respondents showed the lowest level of confidence in utilizing networking technology. This was somewhat expected in that junior and senior respondents had been utilizing this technology for a number of years and were confident in their abilities to use it. Other undergraduates, and most graduate students, are newer to the University so would naturally be less confident in their abilities to utilize a technology that was still relatively new to them. Faculty members may simply not have the time to utilize networking technology sufficiently to be particularly confident in their abilities to utilize this technology.
Table 45 Confidence in Ability to Utilize Networking Technology by Campus Status and GenderC E L L M E A N S Total Male Female Total Population 1.64 1.61 1.72 Freshman 1.68 1.65 1.79 Sophomore 1.60 1.53 1.78 Junior 1.46 1.43 1.56 Senior 1.46 1.44 1.55 Grad 1.59 1.57 1.65 Faculty 1.88 1.89 1.83 Non-Exempt 1.80 1.71 1.84 Exempt 1.58 1.57 1.60 A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E Confidence by Campus Status and Gender EXPERIMENTAL sums of squares Covariates entered FIRST Source of Sum of Mean Sig Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 9.489 8 1.186 4.113 .000 Campus Status 8.241 7 1.177 4.083 .000 Gender .914 1 .914 3.170 .076 2-Way Interactions .636 7 .091 .315 .947 Status Gender .636 7 .091 .315 .947 Explained 10.125 15 .675 2.341 .003 Residual 138.696 481 .288 Total 148.821 496 .300
____________________________________________________________
Since networking technology is constantly changing, and not everything available through the technology is specifically educational or job related, item 61 of the questionnaire was included to get a feel for how the technology was utilized. Significant relationships between user classification and how networking technology was being utilized were found [Chi-squared (21,N=497)=105.10,p<.05]. Approximately half of all undergraduate (freshmen: 45.1%; sophomores: 69.8%; juniors: 62.8%; seniors: 43.9%) respondents utilized networking technology for educational or research purposes less than half of the time. On the other hand, almost half (44.4%) of graduate student respondents and almost two-thirds (66.2%) of faculty member respondents utilized networking technology for educational or research purposes at least seventy percent of the time. This could be part of the reason that undergraduates on a whole seem to be more comfortable with utilizing networking technology than were faculty members and graduate students. As undergraduates utilized networking technology more as entertainment and a diversion than they utilized it for strictly educational purposes, it is only natural that undergraduates would be very comfortable with the technology when they are utilizing it for education.
Table 46
Percent Usage for Education, Job, or Research by Campus Status
|90-100% 70-90% 50-70% Less than
| 50% Row
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Total
----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
1 | 4 | 10 | 25 | 32 | 71
Freshman | | | | | 14.3
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
2 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 44 | 63
Sophomore | | | | | 12.7
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
3 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 27 | 43
Junior | | | | | 8.7
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
4 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 18 | 41
Senior | | | | | 8.2
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
5 | 18 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 99
Grad | | | | | 19.9
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
6 | 24 | 21 | 11 | 12 | 68
Faculty | | | | | 13.7
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
7 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 23 | 54
Non-Exempt | | | | | 10.9
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
8 | 15 | 17 | 15 | 11 | 58
Exempt | | | | | 11.7
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
Column 77 97 128 195 497
Total 15.5 19.5 25.8 39.2 100.0
____________________________________________________________