Context and Questions What is "ready" for online learning? As reported by Sloan-C, over 4 million students were enrolled in at least one online course in 2008, (Allen & Seaman, 2010). At the same time that online enrollments are up, college graduation rates are not (Callan, 2006). Who is enrolling in online courses and why? What role does readiness play in this equation and how can we measure readiness in our prospective students? According to Robert Gagne, students must be ready to learn before they can learn (Gagne, Briggs, Wager 1992). The authors of this presentation are interested in a better definition of readiness for online learning. Previous instruments have been designed to get at this question of readiness. The authors of this study reviewed validated instruments that illustrate the evolution of this question. Validated instruments include those created by Mattice and Dixon (1999), McVay (2000, 2001) later validated by Smith (2005), and Bernard, Abrami, Brauer and Surkes (2004) who also added McVay's questions as part of their study. These surveys of student readiness analyzed learner characteristics, attitudes and beliefs about online learning, and access to equipment and Internet by online or potentially online students. While these instruments provide a validated method to collect information about student preparedness, attitudes and preferences, they do not directly address questions about individual engagement with Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Engagement with ICT is an interesting and multi-faceted concept on its own. Initially ICT engagement was viewed through the lens of the Digital Divide and considered part of an economic divide. This view focused primarily on access and ownership of equipment and bandwidth (van Dijk, 2002, 2003) and (Selwyn, 2004). Selwyn and van Dijk find this focus too simplistic and misleading. In particular, van Dijk, sees digital divide as more dynamic, complex, and distributed across one's social and cultural framework. The notion of engagement with ICT examines economic and socio-cultural states of mind to determine one's affect toward technology. The authors of this study sought to create an instrument with two sub scales: Learner Characteristics, informed by previous instruments, and ICT Engagement. Within the ICT Engagement subscale are four specific concepts. These concepts are based on van Dijk's categorizations (2002, 2003) with some adjustments. They include the following: Relationship to ICT: Originally called "mental access" by van Dijk (2002) and expanded by the authors to review an individual's level of comfort, confidence, beliefs in the longevity of technology, intention to continue use, attitudes about usefulness, likability and confidence (self-efficacy). Questions in this conceptual area ask about level of comfort, anxiety and confidence. Access to ICT: Originally called "material access" from van Dijk's work and related solely to an individual's physical access and/or ownership of technology. In this survey the definition is compacted to include technology relevant to online learning. Questions in this conceptual area tell us what individuals own or are able to use and how often. Skill with ICT: Originally called "skills access" by van Dijk. This conceptual area examines an individual's level of skill with ICT. Questions ask individuals about what they are able to do with specific ICT tools. Use of ICT: Originally called "usage access" by van Dijk. This conceptual area examines the way in which individuals or groups engage with information and communication technology and the opportunities they have available for engagement. Questions ask about individual choices when engaging with ICT. Methods The survey was validated in a 3-phase analysis including (1) development and review by a team of experts, (2) item analysis of subscales based on survey answers including specific questions about the questions in the survey, and (3) analysis of data from 500 respondents to determine survey reliability and validity. Phase three included reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity. Results Outcomes from phases one and two culminated in several changes to question wording and presentation of concepts. The conclusions drawn in phase three led to a reconstruction of the second subscale into the five subscales described as ICT Engagement. Factor loadings were statistically significant and generally high. Correlation coefficients were in the right directions with statistical significance. The relationship between mental access, or ICT engagement, and other factors was the highest. Conclusions The results of this analysis reinforce the need for well constructed survey questions, item analysis and understanding the purpose of the instrument. Discussion/Interpretation The purpose of this study is to provide a reliable and valid instrument to help organizations better understand their students and/or applicants. Some questions within the ICT Engagement sub scale may be tailored to the specific technologies that an institution or program uses. Further, results from this survey may be used to improve learner outcomes, as pre- and post surveys to determine preparation of students for online study, or to correlate with services and/or program changes. Institutions are welcome to participate in this study. References: Bernard, R. M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P. C., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25, 31-47. Callan, (2006). Measuring up 2006: The national report card on higher education. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Retrieved from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_docs/2006/NationalReport_2006.pdf McVay, M. (2001). How to be a successful distance education student: Learning on the Internet. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. McVay, M. (2000). Developing a Web-based Distance Student Orientation to Enhance Student Success in an Online Bachelor's Degree Completion Program. Dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~mmlynch/McVay-dissertation.pdf. Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. News Media & Society, 6(3), 341-362. Smith, P. J. (2005). Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3-12. van Dijk, J. (2002). A framework for digital divide research. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 12(1), Retrieved from http://www.gw.utwente.nl/vandijk/research/digital_divide/Digital_Divide_overigen/a_framework_for_digital_divide.doc/ van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315-326.
