60 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

Darla J. Twale is a professor and Molly A. Schaller is an assistant professor, both in the Higher Education
Administration/College Student Personnel program at the University of Dayton.

ARTICLE

Mandatory Computer Purchases and Student
Preparedness:  Implications for New Student Orientation 
Darla J. Twale and Molly A. Schaller

Although a computer in the classroom is not a new phenomenon, the mandatory 
purchasing of personal computers and common software by entering first year classes 
is a relatively recent expectation. Kenneth Green of the Campus Computing Project
notes at present that approximately 50 colleges and universities require such purchases
(Olsen, 2002).  Mandatory computer programs specify that entering students must 
arrive on campus prepared to use a predetermined computer and its software 
applications. Universities are wiring their physical infrastructures and/or using wireless
communication systems to increase student access to both on and off campus computer
networks (Segawa, 1999). They have taken the stance that computer usage is not an
option but an expectation (Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1997).  The university also
assumes that all students have technological savvy (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;
Gumport & Chun, 1999; Mina, 2001; Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001; Segawa,
1999).  At most institutions computer usage and Internet access continues to become an
integral facet of student coursework, assignment preparation, term paper research, and
ultimate success (Furst-Bowe, Bolger, Franklin, McIntyre, Polansky, & Schlough, 1995;
Griffith, 1999; Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001). Due to a paucity of research on
mandatory computer programs, little is known about student technical competence to use
computers for academic tasks.  The purpose of this investigation was to assess first and
second year student perceptions of their preparedness and technical competence at entry
to use the computer and its software applications. 

Review of Literature 

According to Chickering (1969) and Chickering and Reisser (1993), first-year 
students begin their psychosocial development with relatively little confidence in their
ability and a lower level of competence than more seasoned college students.  Embodied
within the first of their seven vectors of student development is Developing Competence,
that is, a student’s need to assess entering skills and capabilities that assist in thinking
critically, reasoning logically, and solving problems accurately.  To develop competence
with computers at an institution that mandates their purchase implies that competence is
integral to a student’s academic development, grades, self-confidence, and is perhaps
significant at matriculation to subsequent persistence (Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1997;
Tinto, 1987). Initially first-year students need to feel they possess adequate computer
skills when they matriculate which is contingent upon the depth and breadth of use in



61Spring 2003  •  Volume 10, Number 2

high school and home (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). However, all institutions do
not mandate minimum levels of computer technical competence for incoming students.
Therefore, mandatory purchase of a computer could raise concerns regarding persistence
for less prepared students (Hawkins & Paris, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto,
1987), because students who lack strong computer skills would matriculate onto an
uneven campus playing field (Furst-Bowe, et al., 1995; Karsten & Roth, 1998; Levine &
Donitsa-Schmidt, 1997).

Traditionally new student orientation programs have sought to provide a variety of
activities to help ease entering students into campus academic and social environments
(Twale, 1989) and meet academic and career needs (Daddona & Cooper, 2002). The
onslaught of mandatory computer purchase programs for first-year students raises the
issue as to whether orientation programs should contain specific content to address 
technical competence (Miller & Viajar, 2001). For instance, research indicates that all
students may not begin college with the same level of competence due in some cases 
to socio-economic level rather than intellectual ability (Sax, Ceja, & Teranishi, 2001). 

McAulay (1993) reported that only 17.6% of the students at University of
Massachusetts-Amherst had a great deal of familiarity with computers, while 51%
reported having little or no exposure to computers. In a subsequent study, Furst-Bowe,
et.al. (1995) found that students acquired familiarity with computers mainly at home
(23%) or in high school (47%).  In this Wisconsin-Stout (UW-S) study, faculty regarded
student computer skills to be at least somewhat important to student academic success.
Since then, UW-S has required laptop purchases and offers a 4 hour comprehensive
training session for incoming students. Stout encourages integrated classroom use of 
laptops, collaboration, university services access, and on-lines courses. 

Olsen (2000) reported that first-year students were not as familiar with basic 
computer software commonly used in entry-level courses.  Schumacher and Morahan-
Martin (2001) established a positive correlation between experience and competence.
They found first-year student Internet competency greatly lacking as compared to basic
computer application. As a result some students may experience higher anxiety and
lower confidence levels in their ability than students whose computer skills are relatively
strong (Ayersman, 1996; Zhang & Espinoza, 1998). 

Studies have also shown that uneven distribution of computer resources, 
expectations, and interest levels have been coupled with race and gender differences
(Hawkins & Paris, 1997; McAulay, 1993; Shashaani, 1997).  More recent data show that
computer usage among incoming students was high at 78.5%, with male usage slightly
higher and female usage slightly lower.  As a result, women’s level of confidence in
computer usage was lower than men’s.  In other studies, men were more likely than
women to have computer and Internet experience, spend more time in front of the 
computer locating information, were encouraged by parents to use their computers, and
developed higher levels of self-confidence (Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001;
Shashaani, 1997).  

Differences in computer usage and technical competence also vary by major course
of study. Mina (2001) found that minority business students at a large research institution
expressed “frustration and unfamiliarity with technology” (p. 2).  In addition, arts and



62 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

humanities majors were less likely than technical and pre-professional majors to use
computers (Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2000).  

Even though with each new academic year, university administration might presume
that more students will be exposed to computers through home purchase and high school
usage, concomitant levels of perceived preparedness, comfort with computers, and 
ability to use computers to achieve academic success cannot always be presumed to 
be equal. A survey of orientation professionals agreed that programs should consider 
student technical competence, include on-line demonstrations, and consider introducing
students to campus technical support services, but they were slightly less agreeable on
the matter requiring a technical component during orientation (Miller & Viajar, 2001). 

The study was designed to answer the following questions: what is the perceived
level of preparedness and technical competence for students participating in a mandatory
personal computer purchase program?  And, what are the differences in their perceptions
based on sex, race, and year in school, and school? 

Method

Procedures and Instrumentation

For the past four academic years, all freshmen at a private, religious, Midwestern
university have been required to purchase a personal computer; the university stipulated
the model and software. In the spring of 2000, a five-person focus group of first-year 
students judged by their hall directors to have a high degree of technical competence 
was assembled.  They were asked about their experience with their new computer, the
software, and the mandatory policy.  

With their input and the existing literature on technical competence (Furst-Bowe, et.
al., 1997; Hawkins & Paris, 1997; Jones & Pearson, 1996; Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt,
1997; Smith & Necessary, 1996), a two-part, survey instrument was developed that
addressed student perceptions of technical competence, especially with regard to usage
and application. The paper discusses only the items related to initial usage and academic
application. Using a combination of 11 scaled items (5-point ordinal and interval scales)
including one multi-item 6-point scale (daily to not at all) and one multi-item 5-point
scale (very often to never), two nominal questions, and four demographic items, students
were asked about their level of computer access, perceptions of technical competence,
computer savvy, attitudes toward the mandatory purchase, familiarity with select 
computer applications at entry and currently, frequency of usage of specific software for
academic purposes, faculty incorporation of the computer into coursework, and benefits
derived, and problems encountered.  Alpha reliability levels for the scales ranged from
.82 to .86.

Participants

In the fall of 2000, resident students housed in three first-year halls and three 
sophomore halls were approached as they entered their hall or dining facility and asked



63Spring 2003  •  Volume 10, Number 2

to complete the questionnaire. Each participant received a computer diskette and entered
a prize drawing to win one of several $25 campus bookstore gift certificates. From a 
possible combined population of approximately 3300 first and second-year students, 338
students responded (167 first year and 169 second year) to the on-site request. Students
were evenly distributed across both classes with regard to sex, race, and school and
despite a slightly higher number of women in the sample, were representative of 
university demographics.

Campus Setting

The university does not have an orientation session on technology for all entering
students. The university does offer students the Help Desk Hotline, a voice messaging
system, and a residence hall floor technician, which according to a university computer
satisfaction survey were not widely used by students. Currently, the university offers a
Training Channel on cable television where students can view video sessions on Word,
Excel, Windows, Lotus Notes, and FrontPage. The School of Business also offers a one
hour, one semester computer course for students. Students in the other three academic
schools were encouraged to visit the Training Channel, ask for help from roommates and
classmates, or call the Help Desk.

Data Analysis

Means, standard deviations, frequencies, chi-square, and paired and independent 
t-tests were used to answer the first research question.  Analysis of variance 
distinguished the differences in demographic data between groups with regard to 
technical competence to answer the second question.  Significance levels were 
established at p < .05. 

Results

The sample consisted of 65% women and 35% men.  Ninety percent of the students
indicated they were Caucasian and 10% were African-American, Asian American,
Hispanic or other students. Representation among the four schools on campus included
14% from education, 21% from business, 50% in the arts and sciences, and 15% from
engineering. As shown in Table 1, overall student access to computers either at home or
high school or both was 98%. There was a significant difference as entering freshmen
reported greater access than the previous class (__=11.48, df=4, p=.02). 

At entry, first-year students reported a slightly higher level of perceived technical
competence than the sophomores (43% and 35% respectively).  More freshmen (57%)
than sophomores (46%) reported setting up their own system, and this was true 
particularly of engineering versus other students (__=31.63, df= 12, p=.002). First-year
students needed significantly less time getting set up (__=28.89, df=4, p<.000) than
sophomores, and relied significantly less on others for additional help (F=30.84,
df=1,331, p<.000).



64 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

Students rated their perceived familiarity with such computer applications as email,
Excel, web pages, word processing software, Power Point, Claris works, Napster,
Netscape/internet, and Lotus Notes (campus email).  On all applications, t-tests showed a
significant increase in familiarity over time.  For instance, students who entered knowing
little of the university email system, Lotus Notes (M=1.97) made notable strides in 
proficiency over time (M=4.42).  While the first-year students consistently recorded
higher mean scores at entry than did sophomores with regard to these computer 
applications, current proficiency levels for each class showed increased mean scores and
no significant differences with the exception of excel usage. Mean scores for auxiliary
academic applications such as bulletin boards (M=2.25), threaded discussions (M=2.0),
and learning space (M=2.35) indicated infrequent student usage.  Also infrequently used
was library services such as on-line searches (M=2.34), e-reserve (M=2.78), or book
renewal (M=1.86).

Due to the imbalance with regard to race, no calculations were performed.
Significant differences, however, were found for gender.  Females were significantly
more pleased than males with the mandatory purchase (F=10.09, df=1,329, p=.002), but
more women than men asked for help getting the computer set up (__=48.80, df=4,
p<.000).  Specifically, men needed less than a week to become familiar with the 
computer and applications and women typically needed more time ( __=21.59, df=4,
p<.000).  Women were more likely than men to ask for additional assistance as the
semester progressed (__=18.57, df=4, p=.001). Males were more likely than females to
report a significantly higher rate of preparedness and technical competence at entry
(F=35.73, df=1,331, p<.000), and indicted an overall higher degree of proficiency than
female classmates during the semester (F=14.61, df=1,327, p<.000).  Comparisons
between mean scores indicted that male perceptions of preparedness and technical 
competence increased from M=3.72 at entry to M=4.13 currently, while female 
perceptions increased from an entry level of M=3.13 to a current level of M=3.84.

Significant school differences showed business and engineering students were more
likely than education and arts/sciences majors to use certain types of software at entry
such as Excel (F=5.28, df=3,321, p=.001) and Microsoft Word (F=2.93, df=3,321,
p=.034).  However, while business and engineering majors remained highly adept, all
groups showed mean score increases in usage of all software applications over time.
Students were asked to rate advice they might give to incoming students as to how they
could become more technically competent.  Women were significantly more likely than
men to suggest asking for help from classmates (F=4.13, df=1,326, p=.043) or from 
university technical support services (F=24.44, df=1,327, p<.000).  Being patient and
learning how to use the software was also suggested by more women than men (F=8.91,
df=1,324, p=.003). First-year (M=4.04) and second-year students (M=3.95) believed that
taking a computer applications course in high school or at a community college would 
be helpful. Gleaned from the vast majority of written comments, students valued their
computer either as a mode of convenience, a medium for communication, or a tool for
ready access to people, places, and information.



65Spring 2003  •  Volume 10, Number 2

Discussion

This study explored the new computer mandate at one university in light of students’
perceived technical competence to use personal computers and software. This study
offered data to university officials for future planning regarding mandatory computer
purchases for entering classes of students, to new student orientation directors who have
been asked to consider incorporating computer sessions in their orientation programs,
and to faculty who wish to incorporate technology into their curriculums and classes.
Findings did not clearly determine, however, if in this study, this year’s entering class is
just savvier than last year’s class, or if the university is simply more prepared each fall to
deal with problems and concerns.  Results also have implications for university support
services, especially in the first several weeks of the term when, for some, technical 
competence is lower and for most, stress and anxiety run disproportionately higher than
usual (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reiser, 1993). The results also have implications
for ensuring that all students begin on a level playing field, especially women and 
non-business and science majors.

In response to the first research question, students indicate overall that regardless of
their perceived level of technical competence at entry, they make gains over time in
hardware and software usage.  With the passage of time and increased exposure to the
computer, the playing field appears to become more even, but students still indicated
preparation prior to entry is a good idea.  The fact that all students have the same 
computer, software, and access level increases the possibility that deficits at entry will
diminish during the course of the first year.  Increased usage implies easier acclimation
to their computer which may contribute to increased competence, but in the meantime
students risk falling behind other classmates who are more savvy and competent.

With regard to the second research question, gender differences appeared to parallel
the Shashaani (1997) and Schumacher and Morahan-Martin (2001) studies where men
indicated greater usage of software applications, the Internet and web, while women
indicated more willingness to ask for help, such as tapping into more university help 
services. Daddona and Cooper (2002) found that women in general desire more 
information at entry than men.  In addition, the first-year class appeared more prepared
than last year’s freshmen, which may stem from greater preparation on the part of 
the administration having worked through the inaugural year.  This higher degree of
preparation may also be due to incoming students’ greater awareness of the mandate 
over the previous year’s students and some having had an opportunity to increase their
level of competence prior to matriculation.  With increased knowledge of totally
wired/wireless campuses, the computer mandates, and informative University websites,
students are made aware of the expectations and could self-assess competence levels
before applying as well as participate in computer instruction to reach a comfortable,
acceptable level of competence. However, depending upon a chosen major, students 
may not know at entry what they will need to know to succeed in some courses. Even
though this is a residential campus, first and second-year students reside in different 
residence halls or in one case, separate wings of the same hall, first-year students may
not necessarily benefit from the sophomore’s expertise and ability to mentor in close



66 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

proximity.
Because students new to college find the integration of computers into their class

work may vary, especially across schools and majors, it may take more time to see the
software as integral to their specific studies (Altschuler & McClure, 2002; Cuban,
Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Furst-Bowe, Bolger, & Franklin, 1995; Griffith, 1999).
Inability of students to reach adequate competence levels negatively impacts the 
mandate and perhaps curtails student learning.  Perceptions of competence may be 
more compelling depending not only upon students’ exposure to computers, but also the
frequency and type of usage, including integration of computers by faculty in class. At
present, integration level among faculty probably varies across the four schools helping
explain the moderate level of perceived competence (see Olsen, 2002).  How faculty
members integrate computer usage into their courses is an area of future research that
will again test student competence levels. Lynch (2002) reported from the Campus
Computing Project that despite the technology available, only 20% of faculty members
incorporate computer applications into their classes.  More incorporation, while causing
initial anxiety for some of the less prepared students, would mean more opportunities for
students to gain or hone the skills they need to succeed in academically. This might also
be an opportunity for faculty and computer professionals to work with new student 
orientation directors.

Specific populations such as students with learning disabilities, first-generation
college students, transfer students, or those from lower socio-economic backgrounds
(Lehnig, 2000A, 2000B), however, may also experience different levels of perceived
competence which may pose additional challenges to universities instituting mandatory
computer policies.  Integrating computer usage into academic areas and support services
and its impact on special populations remains an area for further study into student 
technical competence.  Because of the small number of students of color represented in
the survey, further study with a larger, more diverse population is recommended. 
Given that female students lag behind males in computer savvy and they report asking
classmates for help more often, specific services targeted to women may be useful. Only
one school on campus pays specific attention to their student’s computer competence.
Other schools might evaluate their students’ computer needs and consider if remedies
should be sought in-house or in collaboration with new student orientation directors and 
computer personnel. Additionally, virtual orientation programs can be conducted through
campus websites prior to students arriving on campus. 

With wired/wireless campuses, on-line applications, and computer mandates as 
marketing tools used by admissions offices, inquiries from less technically competent
students are likely to diminish.  By the same token, students who wish to matriculate to
this type of environment should be encouraged to demonstrate a reasonable level of 
technical competence at entry to compete with other more competent students, especially
in majors that rely more on computer applications.  As faculty members learn more about
and experiment with computers in the classroom, there may be a need to adjust the time
allotted and the content needed to help all entering students in achieving computer 
competence. Limited funding, time, and human resources may preclude structured 
offerings but individual campus assessments need to be made to determine the degree,



67Spring 2003  •  Volume 10, Number 2

student groups, and type of computer information required such that time, money, and
personnel can be allocated when, where, and how needed. Perhaps the university feels
that with the on-line only application process, high home/school access, and current
offerings, campus wide computer orientation is not a priority. However, the need for
structured orientation sessions will likely change as students’ needs change and as 
technology becomes a more integral part of the campus and the curriculum (Miller &
Dyer, 2002). Needs may move beyond technical competence to spatial and ethical issues
associated with usage, downloading from the Internet, and bandwidth capacities. All
areas warrant further investigation.

References

Altschuler, G., & McClure, P.  (2002, January 18).  And colleges must create
technology plans. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(19), B16-17.

Ayersman, D.  (1996). Effects of computer instruction, learning style, gender, and
experience on computer anxiety.  Computers in Schools, 12(4), 15-30.

Chickering, A. (1969).  Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L.  (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San

Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C.  (2001).  High access and low use of

technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.  American 
Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834.

Daddona, M., & Cooper, D. (2002).  Comparison of freshmen perceived needs prior to 
and after participation in an orientation program.  NASPA Journal, 39, 300-318.

Flowers, L., Pascarella, E., & Pierson, C.  (2000). Information technology use and
cognitive outcomes in the first year of college.  Journal of Higher Education, 71,
637-667.

Furst-Bowe, J., Bolger, C.,  Franklin, T., McIntyre, B., Polansky, J., & Schlough, S.  
(1995). An analysis of required computer competencies for university students.   
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 175-89.

Griffith, R.  (1999, April).  Connecting students and faculty through technology,
collaboration, and globalization at Wake Forest.  Case Studies. Retrieved September
23, 2002 (http://www.horizon.unc.edu/TS/Cases/1999-04.asp)

Gumport, P., & Chun, M.  (1999). Technology and higher education: Opposition and 
challenge for the new era.  In Altbach, P., R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), 
American higher education in the twenty-first century, (pp. 370-395). Baltimore, 
MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Hawkins, R., & Paris, A.  (1997). Computer literacy and computer use among college 
students: Differences in black and white. Journal of Negro Education, 66, 17-158.

Jones, M., & Pearson, R.  (1996). Developing an instrument to measure computer 
literacy.   Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29,17-28.



68 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

Karsten, R., & Roth, R. (1998).  The relationship of computer experience and computer 
self-efficacy to performance in introductory computer literacy courses.  Journal of 
Research on Computing in Education, 31, 14-24.

Lehnig, E. (2000a). First generation college students: A courageous group in transition. 
Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 7(2), 21-26.

Lehnig, E. (2000b). The influence of student development services in articulation
agreements. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 7(2), 33-40.

Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S.  (1997). Commitment to learning: Effects of computer
experience, confidence, and attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Records, 
16, 83-105.

Lynch, D (2002, January 18). Professors should embrace technology in courses. The 
Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(19), B15-16.

McAulay, K.  (1993). Computer use among college undergrads. Journal of College 
Student Development, 34, 230-1.

Miller, M., & Dyer, B. (2002). New student satisfaction with an orientation program: 
Creating effective learning transitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
Eastern Educational Research Association, Sarasota, FL.

Miller, M., & Viajar, P. (2001). The integration of technology in new student
orientation programs. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 9(1), 33-40.

Mina, L. (2001, November).  Technology in the classroom: The experiences of minority 
business students. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Association 
for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA.

Olsen, F. (2000, November 3). Campus newcomers arrive with more skill, better gear. 
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(10), A39, 43.

Olsen, F.  (2002, January 11).  Duke U. decides against requiring freshmen to own 
laptops.  The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(18), A44.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini. P. (1991). What matters in college? San Francisco:  Jossey-
Bass.

Sax, L., & Ceja, M., & Teranishi, R.  (2001). Technological preparedness among
entering freshmen: The role of race, class, and gender.  Journal of Educational 
Computing Research, 24, 363-384.

Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J.  (2001). Gender, internet and computer attitudes 
and experiences.  Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-100.

Segawa, M. (1999).  Are we missing technology opportunity?  Journal of College and 
University Student Housing, 28, 3-6.

Shashaani, L.  (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among College 
students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 37-51.

Smith, B., & Necessary, J. (1996).  Assessing the computer literacy of undergraduate 
college students.  Education, 117, 188-193+.

Tinto, V., (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Twale, D. (1989). Social and academic development freshman orientation: A 

time\ frame. NASPA Journal, 27, 160-167.



69Spring 2003  •  Volume 10, Number 2

Twale, D., & Schaller, M. (2001, November). Perceptions of technical competence 
among first and second year students participating in a mandatory computer
purchase program.  Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA.

Zhang, Y., & Espinoza, S.  (1998). Relationships among computer self-efficacy, attitudes
toward computers, and desirability of learning computing skills.   Journal of 
Research on Computing in Education, 30, 420-436.

TABLE 1

Demographic Information of Respondents I

First Year Second Year

N % N %
Sex

Male 56 (33) 59 (36)
Female 111 (66) 107 (64)

Race
Caucasian 150 (90) 152 (90)
African-American 8 (5) 7 (7)
Asian American 5 (3) 0 (0)
Hispanic 1 (1) 4 (2)
Other 2 (1) 2 (2)

School
Education 22 (13) 25 (14)
Business 32 (20) 37 (22)
Arts and Sciences 84 (51) 81 (48)
Engineering 26 (16) 23 (14)

Computer access
Home & school 165 (99) 168 (99)
No access 2 (1) 1 (1)

Computer set up
Self 93 (57) 73 (46)
Others 69 (43) 86 (54)

Perceived competence
More prepared than others 72 (43) 59 (35)
Less prepared than others 27 (16) 25 (15)