10: Nontraditional Student Access to OWI

Access and the Plight of the Underserved

Access to computers, digital technologies, and the Internet for OWI normally is achieved through one or more of three sources: the home, school, or one’s workplace. If none of those sources is available, students often are left to use the local public library as their only resort for finding the tools necessary for access to OWCs.

The first source of computer use—the home—is one that many WPAs and OWI teachers take for granted. Family income is a factor in computer ownership; the US Department of Commerce found that in 2003 just under 50% of the families in the $25,000 to $35,000 income range were Internet users as opposed to nearly 83 percent of those earning $75,000 and above. For very low-income people (under $15,000 a year), just over 31% had access to the Internet at home (Lamb, 2005). For the more desirable high-speed broadband use that is almost a necessity with LMS software, the numbers are 13.4% for the lower income group versus 45.4% for the over $75,000 group (US Department of Commerce, 2004).

In recent years, the situation has not changed significantly. In 2013, children from families with incomes over $75,000 were projected to be twice as likely to have computer access in the home as very low-income families. The numbers for Internet access are even more striking. Ninety three percent of upper-income families were projected to have Internet access versus only 29% for very low-income families. For half of the low and very low-income families, then, access to the Internet typically can only be had at school, the public library, or work (Lamb, 2005).

But even the ability to access the Internet at home is not necessarily sufficient for access to online courses. Of the 50% of people earning under $35,000 a year who do have computer access in the home, many cannot afford to purchase the newer computers needed to remain compatible with current technology and learning strategies (Haythornthwaite, 2007). As educational institutions update their technology, many of the students in online classes are left behind. For example, students with computers without speakers are unable to hear lectures and other audio tools such as Vokis, the small avatars that show on screen and lip-sync messages recorded by the professor. Such students are not able to access any audio-based or audio/video-based asynchronous or synchronous OWI (Elliot, Haggerty, Foster, & Spak, 2008), as outlined in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. For all practical purposes, then, many students with computers and Internet access at home still lack the ability to fully use the Internet or their digital technologies for writing class purposes.

A second source for computer technology that students may access is in the school environment. For many students, their first exposure to computers comes in the classroom. Let us begin with an examination of elementary and secondary schools. A Department of Education study (2010) completed in 2009 found that 97% of teachers had one or more computers located in their classroom every day. Of those, Internet access was available for 93%. This high percentage would suggest that most young students do, indeed, have at least limited access to computers and the Internet as a part of their lower school education process. A limiting factor might be the student-to-computer ratio. The same report identified that ratio as 5.3 students per computer. This ratio indicates that while there is availability, there must be some sharing if all students are to have access. That sharing decreases the likelihood that on any given day all students who need computer and Internet access will have it.

But computers are only helpful if they actually are used. In the same Department of Education study (2010), teachers reported that they or their students used computers in the classroom during instructional time “often” (40%) or “sometimes” (29%). That leaves 31% of students with little access for whatever reasons. In addition to the computers actually located in the classroom, some teachers reported that they or their students used computers in other locations in the school during instructional time “often” (29%) or “sometimes” (43%). Therefore, in the elementary and secondary school environments, most students appear to have computers and the Internet in their classroom environment. Access to the machines, however, is limited by the frequency of teacher use and the ratio of students to computers. And access to the technology is only part of the equation. To have full access to online work, students need to have a degree of experience with and preparation in the use of such tools.

The numbers cited above for current student usage of computers in school seem hopeful for OWI. However, these students are growing up with greater access to digital technologies than currently underserved populations of nontraditional students in postsecondary OWCs. The college situation and (hopefully) access to common technologies of today’s average fifth or tenth graders will differ from a contemporary 34-year old worker who returns to college to get a degree that may help her to keep a job, become promoted, or find a new position in a poor economy. To the end of using computers for higher education and OWI, it is helpful to understand that students with less preparation for using computers educationally may have different access challenges once they begin attending college.1 In some hybrid settings and in most fully online settings, students will need to complete much of their online writing work somewhere other than the actual classroom. Asynchronous courses typically require students to do most or all of their writing on their own. Lack of frequent opportunities to use the computer educationally in postsecondary work, in addition to the potential lack of a home computer—or, at least, an up-to-date computer—can hamper students significantly in feeling comfortable with the levels of work they need to address online for a writing course. To this end, OWI Principle 10 was written to promote adequate preparation for students who take OWI and to prepare them for its unique technological and pedagogical components, thereby increasing students’ opportunities to succeed and thrive in the digital setting (pp. 21-22). Even if they have computer access at home, hybrid and fully online writing students will need to seek outside access and assistance.

Finally, using the computer at work, of course, depends entirely on whether one’s job calls for computer-based writing. For the most part, service-industry jobs require little-to-no composition on the computer, leaning instead on completing forms and addressing numbers. Positions where written reports and other such communications tend to be in the industries that pay a higher wage.

What happens if someone has no computer access at home, school, or work? Denise Narcisse (2010) reported that nearly 19 million of the US national poor rely on public library computers as their sole source for online work (2010). But public library access, even when available, generally is limited. Many libraries limit screen time, often to 30 minutes particularly when there is a line of potential users. Postsecondary school libraries and computer labs also have time and other use limits; however, the nontraditional student who takes an OWC often does so for geographical and time reasons, which in and of themselves limit students’ abilities to use their school’s libraries and labs. These time limitations alone create an insufficient scenario for any serious work in an OWC, but they are especially problematic in the writing class where prewriting assignments and drafts must be written, submitted, and revised in response to professors’ comments. And they are particularly problematic when students have to rely on access to these technologies to synchronously participate in a class. Some libraries censor Internet sites that might be considered unacceptable for public viewing (Narcisse, 2010), which can limit certain types of research. In addition, most libraries impose printing restrictions or charge for hardcopy printing. Many students still prefer to revise on printed copy, which is a recommended strategy for students with a variety of reading and learning styles (Hewett, 2015a). When printing is banned for any reason, these students are disadvantaged. For students dependent on a library for their computer access, although some access exists, it is limited and may contribute to student frustration, attrition, and failure.

These situations have long-term effects. Samantha Blackmon (2003) found that some underserved students developed attitude issues, thinking there was some kind of a conspiracy that keeps them marginalized by denying them full access to technology. In addition to feeling disadvantaged because of their socioeconomic status, they had little or no educational interaction with the technology that would be critical to success in OWCs. Certainly, with lots of time, effort, and practice, once they are able to gain full access to digital technologies (e.g., through work or college computers), low-end users and late adopters might be able to catch up with other, more privileged students regarding experience and educational uses of the technologies. Nonetheless, Haythornthwaite (2007) found that even if late adopters do catch up, the effort to do so causes unequal participation because these students continue to lag behind at the introduction of each new innovation. This difficulty is likely to be the case for working-class students and for less educated and rural people as well.

Working-Class Students

Working-class students, for the purposes of this chapter, are defined as those with lower than middle-level incomes, working primarily in service industries, receiving hourly wages, having potentially floating hours, and/or those who work more than one job to stay afloat. Other scenarios that keep these students from economic fluidity or that have not required consistent uses of writing in their work may apply. For these students, some experts have suggested that an OWC—particularly a fully online OWC—may not be their best choice for college writing courses.

Andrew Cavanaugh2 is Director of Writing for the University of Maryland University College (UMUC), the largest public university in the country, with over 92,000 students worldwide. UMUC also is one of the largest providers of online education in the world with students in 50 states and 22 countries; it has long had a relationship with military organizations. According to Cavenaugh, students who lack a solid background in Internet and computer use have a special need for feedback from the professor in order to be successful. The asynchronous online environment used in many OWI programs makes immediate or regular individualized response to students more difficult than in an onsite or hybrid setting. Often, there are no set office hours during which a distance-based student can meet with the professor through synchronous chat or over a voice medium. End-of-class discussions do not occur in such settings, although hybrid courses make meeting onsite with teachers possible in some configurations (see Chapter 3). In essence, students who may need the most help with technological and educational issues are taking a class in the modality and medium least conducive to receiving the needed help (A. Cavanaugh, personal communication, December 7, 2012). Mark Parker, also from UMUC, noted that working-class students largely are unfamiliar with student life in general, right down to simple details such as the definition of plagiarism (M. Parker, personal communication, December 7, 2012). They may never have been on a college campus, are not as involved with the campus activities, and often have families who need their attention when they are not working or taking college courses (Hewett, 2015a). Added to such pressures, the geographic separation from the professor caused by the online environment makes it more difficult for these students to even be aware of the things they do not know about negotiating college. To alleviate this kind of difficulty, Parker recommended that such students should take a “How to be a College Student” type of course (M. Parker, personal communication, December 7, 2012).

Additionally, among other challenges for working-class students, financial viability remains an issue as it connects closely to their success. Allison Butler, also of UMUC, noted that students often are surprised at how difficult college classes are after coming out of high school or working for years, and it takes a while to realize that they are in trouble. Often, they withdraw late from a course and, as a result, find that they owe money to the financial aid program (A. Butler, personal communication, December 7, 2012). As difficult as deciding to return to school may have been to make, events such as failure, fear of failure, or a need to repay a grant because of failure easily can kill a student’s desire to continue in school and obtain a college degree.

Older Adult Students

While having a more general meaning today, the term “nontraditional student” was first used as a reference to students over the age of 24 years. This section addresses access needs of students who fall into the above 24-years range and sometimes are much older. These adult learners now account for nearly 40% of the student body at US colleges and universities (American Council on Education, 2013). A factor that separates some members of this group from others is whether or not they are in the work force.

A Department of Commerce (2004) study found that employed adults had a much greater likelihood of having computer technology and Internet access than those who were unemployed. Table 10.1 presents statistics for persons not having access to Internet use:

Table 10.1. Percent lacking Internet access (by age cohort)

Source: (US Department of Commerce, 2004)

In 2011, there remained such a disparity: “People with low incomes, disabilities, seniors, minorities, the less-educated, non-family households, and the non-employed tend to lag behind other groups in home broadband use” (Fact Sheet, 2011).

A lack of Internet access generally translates to a lack of Internet skills. Even when contemporary students are using mobile devices to access the Internet, this access, as explained in Chapter 16, is often different. When access is not there, the basic skills of using the Internet are not developed. If at some later date the adult learner gains access, he begins at a lower skill level than his colleagues. As a result, like the working-class students discussed above, those without access prior to enrolling in college courses may lag behind their classmates long after they have gained full Internet access. As time goes on and new technologies are introduced, those students tend to remain behind (Haythornthwaite, 2007). Students who are trying to do well in an OWC will face serious difficulties if the bulk of study time is spent negotiating the technology.

While employment is a great divider in terms of Internet access and experience, there are difficulties beyond access that seem to be ubiquitous across the older student cohort. One of those, for students who are in middle age, is sensory decline. Aging students often face deteriorating visual and auditory sensitivity as well as the ability to make fine motor movements (Morgan & Morgan, 2007). Some cognitive shifts in memory and determining priorities also may occur. Such decline may result in slower typing and computing, as well as a possible need for reminders about how to access particular parts of the LMS, for example. Building redundancy into the course (per Chapter 4 & 8’s recommendations) becomes especially important with these kinds of concerns.

Another issue regarding an older student cohort—outside of technology—is that OWI teachers may need to address the affect connected with the lives students have led prior to coming to our classes. While writing instructors tend to assume that copious life experience is a positive thing for a student in a writing course, it is not always the case that such life experiences have been positive for the students. It is true that traditionally aged students are younger with limited life experience beyond the family to bring to the writing course and that adult learners have been out in the world, in work, in society, and bring with them a richness of experience. Yet, some of that experience can be rather unpleasant, even detrimental to their lives, leading them to see themselves negatively in ways that affect their self-image as student writers. Kristen Welch of Southern Christian University, a small university in central Oklahoma, talked about a few of her older students:

Some are just out of prison, others have small kids at home, others work full time, some are elderly or disabled. One was a recovering alcoholic. One main challenge is to conquer the negative self-talk that a life of very real failures has brought. One woman wrote her essay about her kids being taken by CPS, for example. (K. Welch, personal communication, November 15, 2012)

While not particular to OWI but an issue that certainly affects students who take hybrid and fully online courses, another effect of being a student over the age of 24 is a time gap between formal writing course experiences. As a result of being years away from their most recent formal English class, many older students find themselves playing catch-up, not only in the areas of critical thinking and idea development, but even in the areas of grammar and syntax. Welch also reported:

Our biggest challenge has been providing a mix of developmental writing (review of capitalization, using suffixes for words, subject-verb agreement, etc.) and regular English 101 writing assignments. Many of our students come in and don’t know the rules for writing a sentence with appropriate punctuation. (K. Welch, personal communication. November 15, 2012)

As a result, she and her colleagues are required to spend a good deal of course time reviewing basic writing skills before beginning the business of a first-year writing (FYW) class (K. Welch, personal communication. November 15, 2012).

Pertinent to OWI and learning through online settings, older adult students may face challenges in terms of their time available for class work. Even though traditional, residential students may work only part-time if at all, many commuter students—which includes some younger ones as well as most older students—are far more likely to work full-time and have other external issues such as family and social activities that make significant claims on their time. These external influences often cause delays in completing assignments, both major (i.e., essay drafts and final papers) and minor (i.e., participation in online discussions). Indeed, online discussions—while asynchronous and often completed over the course of a week or more—require that students log into the system frequently to monitor the discussion and add their comments. Tardiness in posting assignments starts a chain of late activities that often lead to disaster in terms of the student’s writing progress and eventual grades. In a writing course, where a series of planning exercises often occur before a draft is attempted, delays in turning in assignments build cumulatively to hinder the students’ chances for success and, thus, they deplete the learners’ motivation (Blair & Hoy, 2006). Such loss of motivation can lead to the dropping of classes, failure, and/or leaving school altogether.

However, countering all of these negative external factors is the fact that older students tend to adapt more readily to online courses than their younger classmates even though they may do less well than traditional students in face-to-face classes (Community College Research Center, 2013). They also are more likely to be highly motivated, in part because they understand the importance of what they are learning and are making deliberate choices to be in higher education classes. Anecdotal experience suggests that older adult students are ready to learn to write well because they see that life circumstances require that skill. They are especially motivated when the subject matter they are attempting to master will help them solve life problems. Adult learners tend to prefer a problem-solving approach to learning and learn best when materials are presented in a real-life context (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998) although they also may demonstrate some more adolescent-like needs. These needs would include seeking full independence in choosing research areas while expressing dependence on teachers for showing them step-by-step how to initiate such research, or claiming that the teacher’s (sometimes negative) opinion of their writing is not meaningful while also desiring high grades that validate their efforts (Hewett, 2015a). In addition, older adult students tend to prefer learner-centered instruction (McDonald & Gibson, 1998). When the instructor tries teamwork or collaborative learning, these students may demonstrate discomfort. Nonetheless, OWI instructors often are emotionally committed to group work and experience difficulty taking into account these individual learning preferences (Western, 1999).

Remotely Rural Students

If there is any student cohort that seems perfectly suited to online learning, it is the remotely rural. For students living far away from a college campus, the vast physical distance required for a commute is an obstacle in the best of weather. Add ice, snow, whiteout conditions, or heavy rain, and the trip can become impossible. In some parts of the United States, it can be well over 100 miles to the nearest college or university. Online learning appears to be the logical remedy for this situation; yet, in reality, remotely rural students may be just the group that is most disadvantaged when it comes to OWC access.

The study by A Nation Online (2004) considered the entire nation and found that, while dial-up still accounted for the majority of Internet connections, in urban areas the higher speed connections were beginning to take over. Not so in rural areas. Table 10.2 presents the contrast in Internet connections between rural and urban areas.

Table 10.2. Percent of households with Internet connection types

Source: A Nation Online (2004)

It is important to understand that the category is “rural,” not “remotely rural” in this study. If the well-served rural areas were removed from this sample, we would see an even more uneven distribution of Internet access, which does not begin to account for types or age of computers or digital technology through which online students would access their OWCs.

In the same study, 22.1% of rural households that only had dial-up connections reported the lack of high-speed availability from their Internet providers as their reason for having the slower connectivity. Only 4.7% of urban households gave the same response (A Nation Online, 2004). Clearly, students living in these remote areas may find their connection options severely constrained. While being limited to dial-up alone is in itself a disadvantage for the user because of low download speeds, even dial-up connections are extremely limited in terms of availability in some rural areas. According to Thomas Davis and Mark Trebian (2001), in 2000, only 8.9% of Native American families on reservations had Internet access. The same year, the national average was 26.2%. Of 185 Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, only 76 had Internet connections. On the Navajo reservation co-located in Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, 80% of the homes—in 2001—still lacked even the most basic phone service (Davis & Trebian, 2001). In 2013, only 53% on the Navajo reservation had wireless broadband service available while the 2013 national average was 98% (Landry, 2013).

These patterns are not limited to Native American reservations but appear to be fairly universal across the rural parts of the United States. In south Texas, for example, colleges like Southwest Texas Junior College in Uvalde have serious limitations when designing online writing programs. With a 16,000 square mile service area, a large portion of the college’s district is in areas where home Internet service simply is not available, yet students cannot get to the campus for onsite or hybrid classes given such a broad geographic service area. In many of these places, students are forced to go to local schools or public libraries to gain Internet access. In fact, in some places, even the schools and libraries do not have reliable service (J. Coe, personal communication, November 16, 2012).

While geographic remoteness certainly is one cause of this lack of Internet connectivity, Davis and Trebian (2001) identified additional factors that lead to a lack of access in rural areas, including the following:

• Weak economic base
• Lack of private investment
• Poor targeting of government policies for improving technology infrastructure
• Distrust of new technologies

The situation is so ubiquitous in remotely rural areas that, according to Haythornthwaite (2007), across the country, usable telecommunications infrastructure privileges urban over all rural users. And most rural users are far better served than the remotely rural.

In addition to issues of accessibility, once remotely rural students enroll into an OWC, they also may face issues of “urban bias.” This bias suggests that students from rural schools were not properly taught in high school; in other words, their teachers failed to “teach them right.” Indeed, both students and their college teachers may believe that the students come to the college writing class already behind their classmates from urban and suburban areas (Donehower, Hogg, & Schell, 2007). Government policies, educational practices, and even the attitudes of professors and course designers reflect this bias. Kim Donehower, Charlotte Hogg, and Eileen Schell (2007) noted the “rural illiteracy stereotype” as something perpetrated not just by the popular media but also especially by academics. Much like the working class student, rural students may feel marginalized and experience being the “other” in the class. Since a large portion of these students also comes from the working classes, the sense of being an outsider is even more acutely felt. These students often have internalized this stereotype.

Urban Students

As with OWI and multilingual students (see Chapter 9), research is sparse regarding OWI and urban populations, which includes Hispanic students and especially African-Americans. The same can be said regarding general studies about distance education and urban populations although urban households, according to Table 10.2, generally had greater access to most Internet connections types. Yet, even though the urban household tends to fare better than rural households, the numbers demonstrated a dearth of online technologies among the inhabitants of these regions. In addition to this limited access to the capability to participate in online education from one’s urban household, serious exigencies that can affect these populations’ lives can challenge urban students’ access to online education.

As with other populations discussed in this chapter, urban students who want to participate in online education likely are affected by the digital divide; indeed, many may not have computer and Internet access in their household or even in a nearby location that will enable them to participate in online courses. An early focus group conducted by Kelly Ervin and Geoff Gilmore (1999) found that African-American college students had as much access to computer technologies as non-African Americans. However, these results contradicted the US Department of Commerce’s (1999) study Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Culture, which reported that the 23.2% of households with computers among African-Americans trailed all racial and ethnic populations in the United States (p. 18). The number of African-American households using the Internet that year was similarly meager (i.e., 11.2%, p. 26). The rosier picture presented by the US Department of Commerce (2004) in A Nation Online showed that Internet access had significantly increased for African-Americans to 45.6%, and broadband use was at 14.2%. Both of these data points were higher than Hispanic populations, an ethnic group that also populates many urban areas. Despite the significantly greater Internet access experienced by African-Americans, they still trailed Caucasian and Asian-Americans by approximately 20% for Internet usage and approximately 10 to 20% for Broadband access. The significant gaps reported in these government reports about computer, Internet, and broadband use among the different racial and ethnic populations raises doubts about Ervin and Gilmore’s (1999) findings.

But some researchers have questioned whether simply having access to a computer or various types of Internet access is really the primary access issue for various urban populations, especially African-Americans. Instead, they raised questions about what one might call cultural access, or a feeling that computer technologies were designed to accommodate the needs of primarily hegemonic populations. Blackmon (2003) described how African-American students in her class did not see themselves on the Internet; instead, they were “being asked to see themselves as either rappers and sports stars or as part of the raceless, white majority represented on the Web without ever having the ability to become one of the majority” (p. 93). Similarly, Barbara Monroe (2004) explained that those African-Americans who do not have Internet access are not all “have-nots”; some of these individuals are “don’t-wants” who bristle at the marketing strategies technology companies use to target African-Americans. A study conducted by Okwumabua, Walker, Hu, and Watson (2011) regarding online learning and math showed that this cultural access understandably influences how African-American students perceive online education. Almost 65% of their student participants who were between the ages of 7 and 16 “indicated that they did not enjoy using computers to complete school work” (p. 246). While most of the students did not respond that the computer technology made them feel anxious, 67% reported that they did not feel comfortable with the technology (p. 246). Thus, more than a majority of the students had negative impressions about their ability to learn from online tutorials. Overall only 38% of the student respondents believed that online learning and tutoring had any value (p. 246).

Military Learners

With the increased number of military personnel due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the availability of new GI bill funds, the numbers of active-duty military and veterans who also are college students have swelled. In the 2007-2008 academic year, 660,000 then-current and former members of the military accounted for 3% of all undergraduate college students in the United States. These students were divided evenly between two- and four-year colleges. Of those students, 215,000 were active-duty military personnel. In that time, 329,000, or 38% of these students, used veteran education benefits.

Incarcerated Students

If there ever seemed to be a match made in heaven, it is online learning and students in prisons. Somewhat more than two million people currently are incarcerated in prisons and local jails and detention centers (Maeroff, 2003; Wing, 2013). The United States tops all other countries for incarcerated citizens (Wing, 2013). For decades, colleges have sent faculty to prisons around the country to conduct classes within the prison walls. Lee College began sending faculty to teach individual courses at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Huntsville Center in 1966. Technical course faculty began to be assigned to the prison the next year, but it was not until 1978 that full-time academic faculty members were located onsite. Throughout those years, academic faculty members made the 190-mile round trip to the center twice a week to teach classes face-to-face. In 1984, the program became a regular branch campus with a full college faculty and administration onsite, complete with labs, greenhouses, and other educational facilities (Lee College).

Prison programs like these are extremely costly, and the students’ choice of subjects to study is limited by the number of faculty assigned to the site. Currently, the state of Texas spends about $128 million each year on education programs for inmates. State Senator Florence Shapiro, chair of the Senate Education Committee, has argued that online programs could save the state a substantial amount of money. However, Michelle Lyons with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice indicated that such online courses are not a viable option because most inmates are not allowed to go online for various reasons. In Texas, no inmate has open Internet access although some are allowed to logon in classrooms and certain vocational programs (“Plano Senator,” 2011).

Research has revealed that nothing reduces recidivism more than education. Even a simple GED program reduces recidivism by 29% (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 2001). Most prison units have such programs. But a study done in New York showed that inmates who complete a college degree while incarcerated are four times less likely to reoffend (Postsecondary, 2003). Inmates who completed two years of college in the Lee College program at the Huntsville prisons have a 10% recidivism rate compared to 60% for those receiving no additional education. But college offerings are costly and far less common in America’s prisons than GED programs. What better way to address this population than through online classes? Students would have a virtually unlimited choice of universities, programs, and classes to choose from. Colleges would be saved the cost of sending faculty or building branch campuses at prison facilities. And what about the thousands of prisoners housed in units that do not currently have college programs to offer? They, too, would have the option of improving their education and earning a degree.

Yet, online programs have been resisted by state prison systems across the country because authorities fear inmates will have Internet contact with persons and groups on the outside that could lead to negative effects on the prisoner’s rehabilitation or to criminal activity. Nonetheless, 46 state prison systems (all except Hawaii, Nebraska, Iowa, and Nevada) allow Internet use in supervised educational settings (“Computer Use,” 2009). Typical of the policies in most states is this one from Ohio:

No prisoner in a private correctional facility, county correctional facility, municipal correctional facility, or correctional institution under the control of the department of rehabilitation and correction shall access the Internet through the use of a computer, computer network, computer system, computer services, or information service, unless the prisoner is under direct supervision and is participating in an approved educational program that requires the use of the Internet for training or research purposes, and in accordance with this rule. (“Internet Access for Prisoners,” 2005)

Nonetheless, while the exception for “approved educational programs” sounds promising, the problem here is the phrase “under direct supervision.” This need for supervision means that, in order for a prisoner to be able to access the Internet, there must be someone in the room watching at all times. While the motivation behind such a rule is understandable, it also defeats the purpose of online education as students can only work when there is a teacher or a guard overseeing their actions. Colleges again are faced with having to place faculty or staff onsite. Granted, the college employee does not have to be a qualified professor, but there still will be requirements for personnel and restrictions on times of availability that local prison officials prefer not to deal with. At Lee College’s Huntsville prison campus, for instance, the warden chooses to follow the policy by not allowing Internet use at all. This is a commonly applied solution to the problem, and it denies access to an educational institution’s Internet-based LMS as well as to online research options. While there are other options, some of which will be discussed shortly, prison officials who are skeptical of security issues in any new plans will have to be persuaded of the invulnerability of any option under consideration.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This discussion began with the overarching OWI Principle 1 regarding the need for OWI to be inclusive and accessible. It is clear that, at least in the nontraditional student cohorts discussed in this chapter, higher education institutions have not reached that goal. Yet, the CCCC OWI Committee acknowledged inclusivity and access as “the key concern” for faculty as colleges move ahead with OWI (p. 7). There is no question that many of the obstacles faced by nontraditional students negotiating OWCs are formidable. Some, like Internet access for the poor or remotely rural, probably are beyond the scope of colleges and universities given the technology available. Those are issues that will have to be resolved by such others as government, individual communities, businesses, and the individual students themselves. But many of the other obstacles can be addressed and most in a relatively simple way. For example:

• Faculty should become aware of the difficulties nontraditional students face when enrolling in OWCs. Internet-access difficulties may be the most prevalent problem, but underserved students may also be using outdated computer technology and may be less familiar with educational and social uses of digital technology.
• As the population ages, WPAs and OWI teachers need to understand how diminishing sensory or cognitive faculties may be reflected in students’ abilities to access OWCs or to respond to writing assignments online.
• WPAs should consider how to provide content through the LMS, textbooks, and ebooks such that remote OWI students have access to the same degree as onsite or geographically local students.
• Policies should be developed that take into consideration the special time-related needs of individuals in particular types of careers, such as the military or other work places where travel and temporary duty is common.
• In the case of prisons, WPAs and OWI teachers should develop intranet-based materials and approaches to OWCs that can reach incarcerated students while still meeting security requirements.

Let me be clear here. I am not suggesting that these underserved nontraditional student populations will have an equal playing field compared to traditional students with years of high tech experience and a relatively uncluttered (or, differently cluttered) private life—students for whom college is their number one or even only career. Nonetheless, online courses and OWI specifically can be made more accessible to the nontraditional students discussed in this chapter, giving them a chance to be successful and to accomplish their learning goals.

Notes

1. Some research has suggested that when it comes to computer use, working-class students’ elementary and secondary school experiences are different from that of the managerial/professional classes (e.g., Anyon, 1980; Bernstein, 1971; Gos, 1995, 1996). One of those differences is in the application of computers in learning. Olsen (1997) and Bowles and Gintis (1976) pointed out long ago that students from different social classes are rewarded for behaviors appropriate for the occupations they are expected to one day fill. Others have argued that working-class students are denied exposure to knowledge and skills—including computer skills—that would allow them to make a successful border crossing (e.g., Anyon, 1980; Apple, 1979; Bernstein, 1971; Kynard 2007; MacGillis, 2004). Indeed, research suggests that the use of computers varies significantly according to class. Schools with higher budgets or that serve primarily middle and upper class populations tend to use computers for collaborative projects and communications as preparation for the professional and managerial roles their students are expected to play as adults. These communication activities require Internet access and extensive writing. Intercity and predominantly working class schools, on the other hand, use computers for drilling lessons, which might have been considered a reasonable preparation for taking orders in the lowest rungs of the service industry (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993; Cuban, 2001; Monroe, 2004; Moran & Selfe, 1999). As a result, the students in lower budget schools may emerge as only low-end users of computers with little or no experience in writing in the digital environment.

2. Several personal communications are cited in this chapter. A group telephone interview was done with Andrew Cavanaugh, Mark Parker, and Allison Butler from the University of Maryland University College. All conversations with Kristen Welch occurred via emails. The interview with Jill Coe was in-person.

References

American Council on Education. (2013). Adult learners. Retrieved from www.acenet.edu/higher-education/topics/Pages/Adult-Learners.aspx

Anyon, Jean. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162, 67-92.

Army Mom Strong. (2014). Internet access for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Retrieved from http://armymomstrong.com/internet-access-for-soldiers-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/

Aronowitz, Stanley & Giroux, Henry (1993). Education still under siege. Westport, CT. Bergin and Garvey

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. (2013). Report of the APSCU blue ribbon task force for military and veteran education. Retrieved from www.apscu.org/policy-and-issues/federal-issues/military-veterans-ed/blue-ribbon-panel.cfm

Blackmon, Samantha (2003). “But I’m just white” or how “other” pedagogies can benefit all students. In Pamela Takayoshi & Brian Huot (Eds.), Teaching writing with computers: An introduction (pp. 92-102). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Blair, Kristine & Hoy, Cheryl. (2006). Paying attention to adult learners online: The pedagogy and politics of community. Computers and Composition, 23, 32-48.

Bernstein, Basil (1971). Class, codes and control (Vols. 1-3). London: Routledge/K. Paul.

Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the conditions of economic life. New York: Basic.

CCCC OWI Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2013). A position statement of principles and effective practices for online writ­ing instruction (OWI). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/p.../owiprinciples

CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (2005). E-inclusion revisited: The local dimensions of the information society. Retrieved from europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2005/feb/eincllocal_en.pdf

Community College Research Center. (2013, February). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. (CCRC Working Paper No. 54). New York: Xu, Di & Jaggars, Shanna Smith.

Computer Use for/by Inmates. (2009) The free library by Farlex. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Computer+use+for%2Fby+inmates.-a0208273651

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davis, Thomas & Trebian, Mark. (2001). The digital divide: The nation’s tribal colleges and universities. EDUCAUSE Review, 38-46.

Donehower, Kim, Charlotte Hogg, & Eileen E. Schell (2007). Constructing rural literacies: Moving beyond the rhetoric’s of lack, lag and the rosy past. In Donehower, Kim, Charlotte Hogg & Eileen E. Schell (Eds.), Rural literacies (pp. 1-36). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Elliot, Norbert, Haggerty, Blake, Foster, Mary, & Spak, Gale. (2008). Asynchronous training in pharmaceutical manufacturing: A model for university and industrial collaboration. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 67-85.

Ervin, Kelly S. & Gilmore, Geoff. (1999). Traveling the superinformation highway: African Americans’ perceptions and use of cyberspace technology. Journal of Black Studies, 29, 398-407.

Fain, Paul. (2012). Scrambling to understand veterans. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/04/colleges-fail-track-performance-student-veterans-survey-finds

Gos, Michael (1995). Overcoming social class markers: Preparing working class students for college [Special issue: Panoramas and vistas: New direction in writing instruction]. The Clearing House, 69(1), 30-34.

Gos, Michael (1996). But it’s only a pot of iron: Working class students and the core curriculum. In Selected papers from the Texas seminar on the core curriculum, 1993, 1994, 1995 (pp. 153-158). Houston, TX: University of Houston/National Endowment for the Humanities.

Harris, Muriel & Pemberton, Michael (1995). Online writing labs (OWLs): A taxonomy of options and issues. Computers and Composition, 12, 145-159.

Hart, D. Alexis & Thompson, Roger (2013). An ethical obligation: Promising practices for veterans in college writing classrooms. Retrieved from www.NCTE.org/library/NCTE files/Groups/CCCC/AnEthicalObligation.pdf

Haythornthwaite, Caroline. (2007). Digital divide and e-learning. In Richard Andrews & Carolyn Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 97-118). London: Sage.

Hewett, Beth L. (2015a). Reading to learn and writing to teach: Literacy strategies for online writing instruction. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Jones, Steven M., Mally, Wanda, Blevins, Larry A., & Munroe, James E. (2003). The US Marine Corps distance learning program. In Michael G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 641-654). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Knowles, Malcom S., Holton III, Elwood, & Swanson, Richard. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kynard, Carmen (2007). Wanted: Some black long distance [writers]’: Blackboard flava-flavin and other afrodigital experiences in the classroom. Computers and Composition 24, 329-345.

Lamb, Paul. (2005, November 1). Perspective: Technology and the new class divide. CNET News. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/technology-and-the-new-class-divide/2010-1028_3-5924758.html

Landry, Alysa (2013, April 4). Indian country left on far side of digital dive. Navajo Times. Retrieved from http://www.navajotimes.com/news/2013/0413/040413dig.php

Lee College (n.d.). About LCHC. Retrieved from http://www.lee.edu/lchc/about-lchc/

MacGillis, A. (September 21, 2004). Law, software fuel new “digital divide.” Baltimore Sun, 1A.

Maeroff, Gene I. (2003). A classroom of one: How online learning is changing our schools and colleges. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

McAdoo, Maisie. (1994). Equity: Has technology bridged the gap? Electronic Learning, 13, 24–39.

McDonald, Jeanette & Gibson, Chere Campbell. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 12 (1), 6-24.

McNair, Phillip. (2013). Sloan-C Consortium course, Effective online classrooms: Military students. Sloan-C Consortium course, live discussion. Retrieved from https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/launch/nativeplayback.jnlp?sid=251&psid=2013-03-04.1327.M.DCB17C75F54ADA5E1429F267BF7A9B.vcr

Military.com, Education. (2014). Montgomery GI bill. Retrieved from http://www.military.com/education/gi-bill/montgomery-gi-bill.html

Monroe, Barbara (2004). Crossing the digital divide: Race, writing and technology in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press

Moran, Charlie & Selfe, Cynthia L. (1999). Teaching English across the technology/wealth gap. English Journal, 88(6), 48-54.

Morgan, Konrad & Morgan, Madeline. (2007). The challenge of gender, age and personality in e-learning. In Richard Andrews & Carolyn Haythornthwaite, (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 328-346). London: Sage.

Narcisse, Denise. (2010). Disconnected, disenfranchised, and poor: Addressing digital inequality in America. Working Class Perspectives. Retrieved from http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/tag/computer-literacy/

Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. (2005). Internet access for prisoners. Retrieved from www.drc.ohio.gov/web/administrative_rules/documents/9-51.pdf

Okwumabua, Theresa M., Walker, Kristin M., Hu, Xiangen, & Watson, Andrea. (2011). An exploration of African American students’ attitudes toward online learning (2011). Urban Education, 46, 241-250.

Olsen, Laurie. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York: The New Press.

Plano senator: Online prison classes could save $$. (2011, March 18) CBS DFW. Retrieved from http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/03/18/plano-senator-online-prison-classes-could-save/

Postsecondary prison education. (2003, July 25). Issues & Controversies on File. Retrieved from www.2facts.com.icof/search/i0801650.asp?DBType=ICOF

Radford, Walton, Wun, Jolene, & Weko, Thomas. (2009). Issue tables: A profile of military service members and veterans enrolled in postsecondary education in 2007-08 (Report #182). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009182.pdf

Reddick, Andrew, Boucher, Christian, & Grosseilliers, Manon. (2000). The dual digital divide: The information highway in Canada. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Retrieved from olt-bta.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/resources/oltdualdivide_e.pdf

Robinson, Laura. (2009). A taste for the necessary: A Bourdieuian approach to digital inequality [Special issue: Diversity: The second annual special issue of the communication and information technologies section of the American Sociological Association]. Information, Communication & Society, 12(4), 488-507.

Sadera, William. A., Robertson, James, Song, Liyan, & Midon, M. Nichelle. (2009). The role of community in online learning success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 277-284

Sheingold, Karen, Martin, Laura M. W., & Endreweit, Mari E. (1987). Preparing urban teachers for the technological future. In Roy Pea & Karen Scheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of the mind: Patterns of experience in educational computing (pp. 67–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

The Sloan Consortium. (n.d.). Lessons learned from lessons learned: The fit between online education best practices and small school reality. Retrieved from bundlr.com/clips/5107f19f83362c00020016a2

Starr-Glasse, David. (2011). Experience in the design and management of online learning environments. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1).

Steurer, Steven J., Smith, Linda & Tracy, Alice A. (2001). The three state recidivism study. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Retrieved from www.dpscs.state.md.us/doc/pdfs/three‐state‐recidivism‐study‐summary.pdf

US Department of Commerce. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the “have-nots” in rural and urban America. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

US Department of Commerce. (1998). Falling through the net II: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2

US Department of Commerce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1999/falling-through-net-defining-digital-divide

US Department of Commerce. (2004). A nation online: Entering the broadband age. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2004/nation-online-entering-broadband-age

US Department of Commerce. (2011). Fact sheet: Digital literacy. Retrieved from www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sh...gital-literacy

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010040

Vance, Mary Lee, & Miller, Wayne K. II (2009). Serving wounded warriors: Current practices in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1), 18-28.

Valentino, Marilyn J. (1996). Responding when a life depends on it: What to write in the margins when students self-disclose. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23(4), 274-283.

Valentino, Marilyn J. (2010). 2010 CCCC chair’s address: Rethinking the fourth C: Call to action. College Composition and Communication, 62(2), 364-378.

Warnock, Scott. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Western, Wim. (1999). Paradoxes in open-networked learning environments: Toward a paradigm shift. Educational Technology, 39(1), 17-23.

Wing, Nick. (2013). Here are all of the nations that incarcerate more of their population than the US The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html