Final Reflection

For my ethnography project, I spent 12 hours observing the behaviors of students in general access computer labs on a college campus. I had spent a lot of time in these labs prior to this semester, so I had an idea of what to expect when I began my observations. Most of my findings were things that I was expecting – the use of Facebook and cell phones, the noise level, the groups of students working on projects. However, I was surprised by the effect that technology seems to have on traditional socializing. Instead of interacting with each other, many students interacted solely with their computer, cell phone, music-playing device, etc. This is an area that I think warrants more research. College students today have more access to technology than ever before, and it has changed the way that they relate to others.

Most of the research I found on college students and technology related to ethical issues such as plagiarism and illegal downloading, or to statistics about computer lab use (how many students use the lab at which time of the day/week, etc.). And a lot of this research came from countries outside of the United States. It is possible that studies regarding college students behaviors in computer labs are currently being done, but that they have not yet been published. Many of the things I observed, such as the use of Facebook and iPod’s, are relatively new phenomena, and therefore, research may be ongoing.

From this project, I learned that behavior is more complex than what can be seen on the surface. By observing students in computer labs, I got a better understanding of how students utilize technology on campus. However, it was harder to get to the “why.” Since my study was purely observational, I wasn’t able to really determine the reasons that students use certain Web sites or programs. Future research on the causes of these behaviors would likely be beneficial to this topic of interest.

Reflection Blog 3

After spending 12 hours observing student behavior in general access computer labs on a college campus, I recognized certain principles of behavior among the people I examined. Overall, it seemed that students interacted more with the technology they were using than with each other. Students used various electronic devices, such as cell phones and iPod’s, which kept them from interacting with the other students in the lab. Students also interacted with friends by using Facebook. This was a way for them to keep in touch with their buddies without having to speak with them in person. 

Despite the fact that a majority of the students I observed in the labs did not interact with those around them, there were cases where students entered the lab in groups and sat together. Most of the time, these groups were in the lab to work on a project for a class, but there were instances when two or three people entered the lab together without the intention of working on a collective assignment. These small groups sat with each other, but did not necessarily use the same programs. These findings suggest that students generally interact with other lab users only when they came into the lab with someone else. Students who entered the lab alone were more likely to interact solely with their computer, phone, or music-playing device.

Overall, I noticed that students seem to rely heavily on technology, whether it is for an academic or social purpose. I expected that since computer labs are places where many students gather, that there would be more socializing among the group. However, students seemed more intent on using social networking and cell phones as their main forms of communication.

Reflection Blog 2

Other categories of behavior that I noticed during my observations included the use of technology other than the computer. Students often used cell phones and music playing devices (iPod’s and mp3 players) while in the lab. They also wore headphones when listening to music or watching videos on the computers.

Despite the fact that the lab guidelines specifically state that cell phone use is prohibited, many students make or receive calls while in the computer lab. A small percentage of students will actually leave the lab when their cell phone rings and take the call in the hallway. It is unclear whether this behavior is done out of courtesy to the other lab users or because the student does not want others to overhear his or her conversation. When students do talk on the phones in the lab, they tend to keep their conversations fairly short (on average, three to five minutes). Often, after a brief dialogue, the students will say, “I have to go. I’m in the computer lab.” This suggests that while students are willing to break the rules and use their phones in the lab, they do not want to engage in lengthy or in-depth conversations. Maybe they are uncomfortable talking with so many other people around, or maybe they came to the lab to get school work done and do not want to be distracted. Even though cell phone use was common in all three labs in which I observed, no one was ever reprimanded for this misbehavior. On several occasions, it was clear that the lab consultant could hear the conversation, but no action was taken to stop the behavior. This lack of punishment could result from the fact that lab consultants are fellow students, who may be less likely to react negatively to other students’ actions.

A behavior I was not planning on examining, but that came up a lot during my observations was the use of headphones by students. The headphones were either attached to an iPod or mp3 device or the computer monitor. When they were attached to the computer, the student was generally watching videos on YouTube or Facebook. Professors occasionally ask students to watch clips on YouTube or news sites, so it was unclear when this behavior was school-related and when it was for personal reasons. Headphone use seemed to be popular in computer lab 1, where there were consistently fewer students. This behavior may result from the fact that there were not many other people in the lab with which students could interact, and therefore, they turned to a different form of interaction.

I found it interesting that when students came into the lab to use the university’s technology (computers, scanners, printers, etc.), they often brought along their own technological devices (cell phones, PDA’s, music players, etc.). It seems that students are very reliant upon technology, to the point where they have several types of gadgets with them at all times.

Reflection Blog 1

One of the things I looked for when doing my observations was the way that students interacted with each other. Now that I have completed my observations, I have made note of several categories related to student interaction.

During my observations, I noticed that a lot of groups of students utilize the computer labs to work on class projects. One of the lab guidelines is that students working on group projects should use the back of the lab so that they do not disturb the other lab users. However, when the labs are busy, which they often are, students have to take whichever computers are open, regardless of their location. Because of this, I rarely noticed groups using just the back of the lab. Often, each group member used a separate computer, unless there were not enough available. This allowed the group to have more than one document or Web site up at once, making it easier for them to complete different sections of the project. Another thing I noticed about these groups is that they tended to have conversations that were louder than students who were not working together on something. This observation likely has to do with the fact that group members need to interact to be able to move forward on the project, and this requires discussion and debate. Often, these group members received looks from other students, suggesting that their level of conversation was distracting. Also, it seemed that after an initial twenty to thirty minutes of work, the groups would begin to get off-track and start having conversations of a personal nature rather than discussing the project. This social atmosphere is something I noticed in all of the labs.

One observation I made was related to the number of people that were in the labs at one time. As I expected, the more students that were in the lab, the more conversation that took place. This pattern was especially true for computer lab 2, which seemed to be consistently busy. Computer 1, on the other hand, was usually the quietest lab, despite being the lab with the most available computers. This could be because this lab is located on a lower level of the building, which could be inconvenient for some students. Also, the building in which the lab is located does not house general classrooms; therefore, many students do not use it on a regular basis. In computer lab 1, when students entered the lab alone, they were most likely to pick an area of the lab that was not occupied by other students. So not only was there little conversation going on (expect when there were groups of students working on a project), but most students did not seem interested in interacting at all. In the other two labs, there were often only a few computers open; therefore, incoming students had little choice about who they sat next to.

Next week, I will continue to discuss general patterns that I noticed over the course of my observations. These reflections will be helpful for me as I write the findings and discussion sections of my ethnography.

Observations-Week 4

Last week, I finished my 12 hours of observation in general access computer labs on a college campus. Now that I have had time to examine my field notes for patterns and start coming up with conclusions, I have noticed several general categories that were of particular interest to me. I will discuss the most prominent of these patterns in this blog.

Social Networking:

Facebook was by far the most popular site visited by students in the labs. Also, it was often the first Web site that students went on when they logged into their computers. The most common activity that students pursued while on Facebook was to look at pictures that their friends had posted on the site. One female student in computer lab 1 spent 45 minutes looking at various “photo albums” and making comments on individual pictures. Twice, she laughed quietly at something amusing in the photographs. Another common task that students performed on Facebook was to write “wall posts” on their friends’ profiles. This activity is presumably a way for students to keep in touch with their companions in a way that is simple and convenient. Wall posts are typically short messages that are sent in seconds. They are an easy way for a student to communicate with a friend without having to speak to him or her in person or over the phone.

Often, students would check their Facebook account several times in the course of their stay in the computer lab. I noticed one female student in particular (who was in computer lab 2) who had Facebook and Microsoft Word up on her computer at the same time. She was typing a paper, and every few minutes, she would call up her Facebook profile to see if there was anything new. Facebook is constantly updated with new information, and it seems that students are eager to stay up-to-date with the latest headlines.

Now that I have collected my data and written a coded observation report detailing what I have noticed, I will begin to write the findings section of my paper. During my observations, I noticed general patterns regarding behavior and Internet use, and I will use these patterns to make conclusions about the use of general access computer labs by college students.

Observations-Week 3

This week, I completed my 12 hours of observation in three general access computer labs on a college campus. In particular, I looked for overall patterns of behavior and Internet use.

I continued to notice that a lot of students answer their cell phones or make a call while in the lab, even though there are signs saying that cell phone use is prohibited. From what I have seen, students do not attempt to hide the fact that they are having a conversation, which suggests that they either do not know the rule regarding cell phone use or that they do not believe this rule will be enforced. I have never seen a student being reprimanded for breaking this rule, even though there is always a lab consultant in the room.

Other students’ reactions to cell phone use in the lab seem to be negative. Often, when someone answers their phone and begins a conversation, the students at the computers near him or her appear to be distracted. Sometimes, they will look over at the cell-phone-using student several times, which suggests annoyance at the disruption the conversation is causing. However, none of the calls I have overheard have lasted more than a few minutes. On a few occasions, I have heard the student on the phone tell the person on the other end of the line that they will call him or her back later, because they are busy. This suggests that students are willing to have quick conversations in the lab, but not lengthy ones.

I also continued to notice the popularity of using Facebook in the computer labs. Most often, I see students looking at pictures that other Facebook users have posted. One student in particular spent about 45 minutes clicking through pictures on this site. On the other hand, I have seen just as many students, if not more, writing papers in Microsoft Word. Often, students will switch back-and-forth between Facebook and MS Word, suggesting that even though they are in the lab to get work done, they also want to be able to take a break and use non-academic Web sites.

Another thing I noticed this week was that several students (mostly males) spent time looking up football and baseball team rankings. This suggests that professional sports are important to at least some college students. Football happens to be a large part of the culture of the state I am conducting my observations in, which likely affects the number of students who research this sport online.

Now that I am done with my observations, I will examine my field notes to find connections between the behaviors and activities that I have noticed in an attempt to come to a conclusion about the use of general access computer labs by college students. Next week, I will write my final observation blog detailing my reflections about the things that I have seen and heard.

Observations-Week 2

There were several things that stood out to me while I was conducting my observations this week. The first thing I noticed was that the line for the printers in one of the computer labs consistently seemed to have a long line. This particular lab (lab C) has three printers. When I entered the lab earlier this week, I was surprised to find that there were at least 10 students waiting to print materials. However, I then noticed that one of the three usually functioning printers was not operational, causing an unusually large back-up. Roughly 45 minutes later, the printer was fixed, but ther line of students was still significant. This incident made me think back to observations I have conducted in two other campus labs. I realized that neither of the other labs ever had lines longer than two people. When I went back to lab C today, I was once again greeted by a throng of students waiting for an open printer. Perhaps my observations happened to fall during the busiest time of day for that lab (early afternoon). Or maybe it is because lab C happens to be in an academic building (where many students have class), while the other two labs are not. In either case, it appears that lab C is the most popular lab in which to print on the campus.

The second thing I noticed during my observations this week was the use of cell phones. From what I could tell, students handle phone calls in one of two ways: they either dash out of the lab to take the call or they stay in their seat and have a conversation. So far, I have seen just as many students stay as I have seen leave. In all three labs I am observing in, there is a poster near the entrance that lists the guidelines of the lab. One particular guideline is that cell phone use is prohibited. However, in the time I spent in the labs this week, I overheard three cell phone conversations. In none of these cases did the lab consultant intervene. It could be because they did not notice that someone was on a phone (which is definitely possible, considering how busy the labs generally are) or because the no-cell-phone-use rule is not strictly enforced. When someone is talking on his or her cell phone, they tend to get looks from other students, as if their behavior is distracting. For example, while I was in lab C today, a female student made a call on her cell phone while sitting at a computer. She class had been cancelled and she wanted to know if the person on the other end of the line wanted to go shopping. I could hear this conversation clearly from four computers away. The male student to the left of me kept shooting the female student looks while he was working on a paper in Microsoft Word. This suggests that he could not concentrate on what he was doing.

The third thing that I noticed this week was that there are a few Web sites that seem to be most popular among students. The two that I saw students use more than any others were Facebook and the university e-mail. These observations were what I was expecting when I first picked my topic. From what I’ve seen, the first thing students do when they log on to the computer is check their campus e-mail. Sometimes they respond to messages and other times they just do a quick check for new messages. Then, the student usually either proceeds to work on a paper or do research, or they move on to Web site that are for personal entertainment, including Facebook. The students I have observed spend a average of 15 to 20 minutes on the site before either leaving the lab or moving on to a different site. I am not surprised that e-mail and social networking sites appear to be the most popular among students. They both involve communication and allow students to keep up with daily happenings.

Scholarly Research: How students decide about computer lab use

In order to understand the decision-making process that students go through when deciding the best time to use a computer lab and which computer lab to use, I looked at several journal articles. I found two in particular that were relevant to my topic.

The first article, “Seasonal, weekly and diurnal patterns of computer lab usage by students attending a regional University in Australia,” was published in 2007. The article examines the busiest times of the semester, week, and day for computer labs at a large university in New South Wales. The researchers found that the peak computer lab usage occurred during the middle to late part of the semester. For example, computer lab use was highest during the sixth to seventh week of the term. These weeks tend to coincide with mid-term exams and increased workloads, so it makes sense that students would be spending more time on campus computers than usual, for reasons such as writing a paper or researching a topic.

 The study also found that Mondays through Thursdays are the busiest times of the week. These days correspond to typical class days for most students. Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays tend to be less busy. This could be because students leave campus on the weekends or because they are participating in activities outside of the computer labs. Also, some schools do not offer lab hours on weekends, which means that students are unable to use the computers at this time.

I have not been doing observations long enough to notice patterns of use over the course of the semester in general, but I have noticed that the computer labs I have been in tend to be busiest around noontime and midafternoon, and that there are few students in the labs on Friday afternoons and over the weekend. It is important to look at these patterns, so that college administrators can determine whether these facilities are being utilized to their full potential.

The second article I looked at was “When and why students choose to use computer facilities: a collaborative study at an Australian and United Kingdom University.” It was published in 2008. This article examined the factors students use to determine which campus lab to use (assuming they have an option).

 The researchers broke these criteria down into 12 sections and surveyed students to see which criteria were most important to them. Overall, students rated immediate availability of computers, opening hours of the lab, and availability of printing facilities as being the most important factors in their decision of which lab to go to. I have noticed that when a computer lab is particularly busy, students get impatient about having to wait for a computer to open up. It seems that students want to be able to use a computer at the moment they need it. This goes along with the importance of a labs operating hours, because students want to be able to access the labs whenever they need them.

During my observations, I haven’t noticed that there are often long mines for the few printers available in the lab. It seems that students rely on being able to print material on campus. This is especially true when students have a large number of pages they want to print or when they do not have access to a printer off-campus.

Both of these studies were done outside of the United States. In fact, I have had a hard time finding resources about the topic of computer labs and college students in this country, overall. This suggests that little research has been done on this particular topic. It is possible that because  access to this much technology in universities is relatively new, research is ongoing and has not been published at this point.

Scholarly Research: Internet Ethics

Another topic I have researched for my literature review has to do with college students’ perceptions of Internet ethics. I found two articles that relate to this topic. Both studies were conducted in countries other than the United States (one in Malaysia and one in the United Kingdom), but they seem to have found data that I expect would be similar if the studies had been done in the United States. It appears that little research has been done on this specific topic in this country, as I was unable to find resources from the U.S.

The first article, “Exploring the relationship between Internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality,” was published in the journal Computers & Education in 2009. The study was conducted at a public university in Malaysia, and it looked at the affects of personality traits on unethical behavior involving the Internet among students. The article claims that students are not educated about “Cyberethics” and are unaware of the possible consequences that come from using the Internet for questionable or illegal purposes. Also, the fact that many students feel that they are invisible or anonymous on the Web can lead them to do things that they would not do if they knew they were being monitored. The categories of unethical behavior used in the article included: fraudulence, plagiarism, falsification, delinquency, and unauthorized help. The most frequent unethical activity done by the students surveyed was using the Internet for  purposes not related to education during lectures or while in computer labs. Many students also admitted to copying and pasting information off the Internet and not citing it.

The other article I found that relates to this topic is called “Generation Y Attitudes Towards E-ethics and Internet-related Misbehaviours.” It was published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2004. The article defines Generation Y as people born between 1977 and 1993, which includes most current college students. The research explored how undergraduate students feel about various types of unethical Internet activity, such as downloading music/movies without paying, engaging in online gambling, and hacking into private databases. The study found that students’ ethical attitudes toward the Internet were based on their perception that their identity online is a secret and that their misdeeds will not be detected. Therefore, these students did not view activities like piracy as being unethical.

These articles relate to my topic, because they expose the types of unethical activities college students participate in when using the Internet. Often, these activities are done in computer labs, because students feel that since they are surrounded by others, they will not get caught. It is interesting that “Cyberethics” are considered to be in a different category than ethics in the physical world. Students especially seem to view the Internet as a place where they can do anything they want.

Scholarly Research: Social Networking

One of the topics I will be discussing in my paper is the use of social networking sites  by college students in campus computer labs. Since popular Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace are relatively new technologies, there has not been a lot of research completed on these social networking hot spots. However, I did find two articles that I thought were particularly related to my topic.

The first article is titled “Student Favorite: Facebook and Motives for its Use,” and was written by Pavica Shelton, a doctoral student at Louisiana State University. The article was published in the Southwestern Mass Communication Journal in 2008. The article discusses why college students choose to use Facebook and how their needs are met through using the web site for personal reasons. It was found that the students who were surveyed for the experiment used Facebook for several reasons. Some of the most prevalent motives included: keeping in touch with old friends, making new friends, and passing the time when bored. The research found that motives for Facebook use differed by gender, with females using the site more often to maintain established friendships and males using the site to develop  new friendships. These finding suggest that females are more involved in online relationships than men.

This article relates to my topic, because I am interested in finding out how often students use Facebook in university computer labs. Knowing the reasons why students choose to have a Facebook account in the first place will be helpful during my observations. I will also attempt to discover if there are gender differences in Facebook use (i.e., do males or females seem to access the site more often, what parts of Facebook do males use versus females, etc.). The research I am doing will add to the research conducted for this article, because I am not just observing the use of social networking sites by college students, I am looking at how Facebook is used in general access computer labs on campus in particular.

The second article that relates to social networking Web sites and college students is titled “Information Technology,” and was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education journal in 2006. The article discusses the consequences of providing too much personal information on social networking sites. One example used is how campus police officers have accessed Facebook to determine when and where college parties will be held and to crack down on underage drinking. The article suggests that college students are not educated about online privacy and that they reveal personal details and post incriminating photographs of themselves without thinking about who might see this information (for example, employers and family members).

This article relates to my research, because it explores the repercussions that can occur when students use sites like Facebook to reveal personal information about themselves. It is likely that the more a student uses social networking sites, the more they are exposing themselves to potential unwanted consequences. Students may feel that they are safe using Facebook, especially when they are in a campus computer lab, but they still need to safeguard their privacy.

Computer Spy