Effects of the Internet on College Students - Literature review Example

? Literature Review on the Effects of the Internet on College Details: al Affiliation: Date of Submission Literature Review on the Effects of the Internet on College Students Introduction The Internet has, by and large, become an integral component of almost every aspect of modern human life. With only a click of a button, the 21st century generation can secure, analyze and share heart-retching information not with one or two, but the world at large; an undertaking hitherto a cumbersome process that would probably take a century to accomplish. Indeed, the internet has provided an interactive medium where individuals can explore the world with the opportunistic comfort of mobility, accuracy and speed. Never in history has the scope of information-search, learning and communication been so expansive with limitless opportunities that capture almost every imaginable topic, from casual romantic experiences to more serious, catalytic issues of business and livelihood sustenance (Ceyhan, 2011; Davis 2007; White, 2007). Hannay (2004) hit the nail on the head by using an analogy of a son who visits the library only to consume the serene environment meant for purposeful learning, but not the facilities therein; for the internet is fast eliminating/converting yesterday’s conventional research methodology into virtual libraries that no longer permit the old documents and big hardbound books. As of June 2012, approximately 2.4 billion people [a third of the world’s population] were considered internet savvy (Internet World Stats, 2012). Occupying an age bracket that connects childhood and adulthood, college students are a unique lot that have no doubt driven much of the modern social changes since World War II. This group, consisting of teenagers and young adults in their early twenties, was the pioneer large scale users of the internet to communicate, shale files and more so as a hobby in mobile locations. To be sure, the internet technology and its subsequent usage became widespread in the 1990s in many ways as a direct consequence of research by academics. Thus, while many are merely consumers, college students [as a group] are better labeled pioneer innovators; for quite a huge chunk of the internet tools such as Yahoo! and You-tube were actually invented by this generational revolutionaries. Pressurized by behavioral changing environments, college life, even with the ubiquitous technology, can be a challenging adventure, particularly for fresh students who may get lured into undue, self-destructive experimentations. It is clear, from the literature adduced herein, that the impact of the internet usage among the college students has been an emotive, controversial topic generating varied opinions from a wide array of scholarly articles globally. Indeed, while regarded as a fantastic opportunity with valuable assets, anecdotal evidence has never been so persistent with reports of ever increasing frequency of harassment, stalking as well as child pornography reaching right into the very remote comfort zones of the students (Durkin, 1997). In fact, the consistency of the mainstream media’s repeated inferences of the internet as a harmful technology that impairs social interaction, increasing chronic depression and other clinical disorders more than illuminates the topic at hand (CBS News, 2007; Geldof, 2007). With reports indicative that 89 percent of young individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 increasingly getting hooked into daily internet usage, the effects seems to be shrouded in mix fortunes that borders the extremes (Jones & Fox, 2009, p. 2). Insights from the Current Literature That the growth in technology has permitted Internet usage for practically everything is but a foregone conclusion. Internet use in modern colleges is not only prevalent, but a necessity. Hendel and Harrold’s research (2004) reports that the amount of time spent online by college students had significantly increased between the years 1996 and 2001, and that the prospects of future adoption of the internet by college students were set to hit even higher levels. Indeed, the duo’s prediction has come to pass with modern college students virtually adopting the technology not only for their daily undertakings but also with the added aim of contributing to the existing knowledge base and cut a niche among the existing internet innovators. Approximately 72 percent and 87 percent of college students use and have unlimited access to the internet respectively (Gemmill & Peterson, 2006); the two interrelated factors that hugely contribute to certain extents of overuse/over dependence and subsequent developmental issues (Kandell, 1998). A study by Williamson (2008) reveals that 95 percent of 18 million college students in the US then were regular online ‘shoppers’ of current events and other useful information of interest. Chou, Condron and Bellard (2005) notes that while the use may be appropriate, some are not, and sometimes goes overboard. With the zeal running high, students find themselves more susceptible to the problems associated with the internet usage than any other known group. Internet addiction has acquired a legion of analysts investigating the time disruptive effects of internet usage on the day-today tasks and responsibilities; investigative research reports indicating internet overuse cases stretching up to 38 hours per week, yet for nonacademic purposes (Young & Rodgers, 1998). Intuitively, students also reap a lot of benefits from the engagements online. The study Morgan and Cotton (2003) shows that while online shopping, playing games and certain research endeavors are linked to various dysphoric symptoms, increased emailing, chat discussions and instant messaging services online are reportedly helpful in reducing depressive symptoms. LaRose, Eastin, and Gregg (2001) confirm the above findings in their research, and affirmatively conclude that the social support online through instant communication among college students helps in decreasing depression. Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004) argues that college students of the 21st generation [Millennials] are generally technologically savvy having been exposed to such at tender ages. To be clear, twenty percent of the students begun effective computer interaction at approximately the age of 5, and that at 18, most are often efficient/perfect users of the internet (Pew Internet & American Life Project research, 2002). Accordingly, nearly all college students have access to either a cell phone and/or the Internet; technological innovations that play a fundamental role in keeping college students in touch with either family or college friends for supportive buffer engagements in case of “excessive” stress (Harris Interactive, 2004). Relationships have a bearing on health and the entire well-being of college students (Weber, 2003). Given the technical isolation of college students from the usual familial/close friends relations, the social support through the internet greatly helps in moderating the negative effects of stressful encounters in college (Clark, Frith, & Demi, 2004; LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001). Intrinsic technological innovations [including the internet] are integrated into almost every mode of education, communication and socialization of modern college students, which inevitably becomes negative only with excessive usage. Keeping in touch with long distance friends [perfectly known or otherwise], the internet helps in broadening and strengthening relationships (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Oblinger (2003) argues that online proficiencies injects positive effects on college experiences that include relationships; be it student-family, student-students’ or student-professors’ relationships. Pew Internet and American Life Project research (2002) revealed that roughly three-quarters of college students devote approximately 3 hours [maximum] per week exclusively for the online social communication. The rest takes even longer hours online, emailing and messaging their beloved friends via their preferred mediums of communication. It is indeed a fact that colleges flourish in environments where students meet for life developmental attachments. Nonetheless, the less socially inclined normally find it difficult to establish clear-cut boundaries that helps in warding off negative temptations that go alongside the sheer sense of security afforded by the online presence. Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2000) study on pathological internet use reports a high level of disruptive college life experiences resulting from poor risk assessment and lack of restraint [dis-inhibition] manifested in the actualization of online socialization among other behavior-altering activities into real life events. Niemz, Griffiths and Banyard, (2005) concurs with Morahan-Martin and Schumacher’s position noting that the anonymity or personal poetic license that the internet so avails almost perfectly has been a source of increased risks factors that exposes the younger generation to the would be dangers over the internet. The perceived dis-inhibition known to open up a “gateway” behaviors, may on the contrary, provide exploratory opportunities of discovering true self-identity/self-awareness (Pritchard & Wilson, 2006). Noteworthy, the experiences of late adolescence; a transitional period characterized by authoritative assumption of autonomy, stretches the college challenges even further. Young adults moving into college environments often find themselves in colleague-parity adjustments through experimentations. Research studies by Weinert, Cudney, and Winters (2005) and that by Reeves (2000) reported that students in self-adjustment corridors find the internet very valuable in powering information that may be lacking for faster and effective coping mechanisms. Indeed as an avenue of dealing with stressful episodes, nearly half of the college internet users have sought refuge in online resources while making certain difficult decisions at some point in time while in college (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006). In a study of 722 internet users, some of which were drawn from different colleges, Chak and Leung’s (2004) discovered that excessive internet use is much associated with individuals’ search of external locus of control, shyness and a great deal of conviction in the effect of chance. As such, the internet is but a unique compensatory approach to a unique group of individuals often characterized by low levels of involvements in extracurricular activities that affords face-to-face interactions, thus the daring, risk-taking behaviors evident in a sample population of college students (Stamoulis & Farley, 2010). Students’ academic success and psychosocial development is partly a function of academic and co-curricular engagements (Kuh et al., 2008). Indeed, college instructors have long considered the introduction of modern technologies into their modes of teaching as a noble idea with tremendous learning benefits (Eldakak, 2010). In many colleges, the internet, and indeed the modern advanced technology, is not only interest stimulating for students, but an effective approach of delivering instructors’ course instructions (Carswell, et al., 2000). Kuh (2009) explicitly stated that though there are obvious disadvantages, historical antecedents on student engagement online supported by more than a decade of scholarly research has demonstrated positive effects with regards to a range of desired outcomes for college students (p. 698). A comparative analysis of learning outcomes of lecture- and online-learning by Kekkonen-Moneta andMoneta (2002) reported that carefully designed online learning modules possesses higher possibilities of effectively achieving higher order learning outcomes than the conventional conceptual learning lectures. More recently, Lloyd, Dean, and Cooper (2007) immersed themselves into the internet-student controversy with the aim of unraveling the nature of the relationship between college students’ technology [internet, online gaming, blog sites, cell phones] use and the consequential effects of online socialization on educational growth. In a more generalized sense, the trio determined that the varied technologies mentioned played a significant role [either negatively or positively] in students’ academic performance and social growth. Englander, Terregrossa and Wang (2010) more than agrees with Lloyd, Dean, and Cooper (2007) findings that the extent of technology use, inappropriate internet use to be precise [overuse, for instance] and online video gaming in particular, has, with a bigger margin, positive correlations with a student’s academic and personal growth momentum downwards. College students involved in a one-way communication technology, such as online video gaming, the trio revealed, lead a less healthy lifestyle and to certain extents portray less academic involvements resulting into poor grades. Indeed, Bugeja (2007) rightly confirms Lloyd, Dean and Cooper findings noting that the internet is increasing becoming “as much a distraction to students than any of the preceding learning tools” (p. C1). In fact more than a decade earlier, Young (1996) correctly concluded in his findings that “excessive” use of the internet was [and still is] associated with missed classes by college students and the subsequent declining study habits and grades. More and more students risk losing sleep; substitute, delay or miss altogether doing assignments to spend time online; perceive life without the internet as a boring lifestyle; feel upset/irritated and lonelier without the internet services at predetermined times (Nalwa & Anand, 2003). Anderson (2001) augments the above findings with a study that discovers at least 10 percent of college internet users’ social lives, grades and health showcasing interference. Gemmill and Peterson (2006) study on the same interruptive effects of the internet got even a higher percentage with 25 percent of the survey participants admitting disengagement from serious life issues and an added burden of perceived stress. Adding to the numerous disadvantages is the temptation to cheat via the myriad ways offered online in order to beat class work deadlines, thus compromising the legitimacy of attained grades, student ethics and integrity (Hall, 2011; Klausman, 1999; Young, 2013). In the study by Lloyd, Dean, and Cooper (2007) already mentioned above, the trio went further in their analysis on the impact of the social media such as Facebook on college students’ social development offline. Their findings on this front were in agreement with a number of recent studies associating online interactions with stunted peer developmental relationships. No wonder, therefore, that students substituting direct contact engagements with internet commutation often report less success in creating working relationships as they would otherwise had with the traditional conventional method. Conclusion Indeed as indicative by the evidence presented in this paper, high-use of the Internet among college students is commonly associated with friends’ communication (Lloyd, Dean, and Cooper, 2007; Pritchard & Wilson, 2006). Although such communication may well serve the very purpose of coping to escape from the would be college problems or stressors (Rotunda, Kass, Sutton, & Leon, 2003), scholarly research elsewhere also suggests that regardless of the support and the general quality of interaction that the internet may afford, the technology occasionally negates the perceived benefits by being the source of stressful circumstances. As the adoption of the internet and other related technologies continue to growth, particularly the use of the social media by colleges, their [the students] and indeed the world at large, it is important to take stock of both supportive and the harmful effects with the aim of maximizing the benefits. References Anderson, K. J. (2001). Internet use among college students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 50 (1), 21–26. Bugeja, M.J. (2007) Facing the Facebook: Unless we reassess our high-tech priorities, issues of student insensitivity, indiscretion, and fabrication will consume us [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, (52) 21, C1. Carswell, L., Thomas, P., Petre, M., Price, B. & Richards, M. (2000). Distance education via the Internet: the student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 29–46. CBS News (2007, July 15). Parents played video games as kids starved. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/15/national/main3058816.shtml. Ceyhan, A. (2011). University students' problematic internet use and communication skills according to the internet use purposes. Educational Sciences: Theory And Practice, 11(1), 69-77. Chak, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and locus of control as predictors of Internet addiction and Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(5), 559-570. Chou, C., Condron, L., & Bellard, J.C. (2005) A review of the research in Internet addiction. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 363-388. Clark, D. J., Frith, K. H., & Demi, A. S. (2004). The physical, behavioral, and psychosocial consequences of Internet use in college students. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 22 (3), 153–161. Davis, D.C. (2007). MySpace Isn’t Your Space. ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1943. Retrieved from http://law.bepress.co m/expresso/eps/1943 Durkin, K. (1997). Misuse of the internet by pedophiles: Implications for law enforcement and probation practice. Federal Probation, 1997; 61, 14-18. Eldakak, S. (2010). Does applying ethics in education have an effective impact in the classroom? Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ Englander, F., Terregrossa, R. A., & Wang, Z. (2010). Internet use among college students: tool or toy?. Educational Review, 62(1), 85-96. Gemmill, E. & Peterson, M. (2006).Technology use among college students: Implications for student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43 (2), 1-21. Geldof, P. (2007, March 30). It may start as innocent flirtation, but be warned, you too could become a lonely MySpace Addict. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Hall, S. E. (2011). Is it happening? How to avoid the deleterious effects of plagiarism and cheating in your courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 179- 182. Hannay, W. M. (2004). Plagiary, googling, and the mouse: Is the internet killing our ability to do research?. Against The Grain, 16(6), 34-39. Hendel, D., & Harrold, R. (2004). Undergraduate student leisure interests over three decades. College Student Journal, 38(4), 557-568. “Internet World Stats” (2012. Internet World Stats. Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The Millennial effect: Implications for academic development. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc.,Sarawak, Malaysia. Jones, S. & Fox, S. (2009), Pew Internet & American Life Project: Generations online in 2009. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org Kandell, J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: the vulnerability of college students. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1(1): 11-17. Kekkonen-Moneta, S. & Moneta, G. B. (2002). E-learning in Hong Kong: comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 423–433. Klausman, J. (1999). Teaching about plagiarism in the age of the internet. Teaching English In The Two Year College, 27(2), 209-212. Kuh G.D. (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50, 683–706. Kuh G.D., Cruce T.M., Shoup R., Kinzie J. & Gonyea R.M. (2008) Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education 79, 540–563. LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations of Internet use and depression. Retrieved April 2, 2005, from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html Lloyd, J.M., Dean, L.A., & Cooper, D.L. (2007). Students’ technology use and its effects on peer relationships, academic involvement, and healthy lifestyles [Electronic version]. NASPA Journal, (44)3, 481-495. Nalwa, K., & Anand, A. P. (2003). Internet addiction in students: A cause of concern. CyperPsychology & Behavior, 6 (6), 653–656. Niemz, K., Griffiths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological Internet use among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 562-570. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers, & Millennials: Understanding new students. EDUCAUSE Review July/August 2003, 37-47. The Pew Charitable Trusts: Society and the Internet. (2006). When facing a tough decision, 60 million Americans now seek the Internet’s help. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from www.pewtrusts.org/ideas. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002). The Internet goes to college. Washington, DC: Author. Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2006). Do coping styles change during the first semester of college? The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 125-127. Stamoulis, K., & Farley, F. (2010) Conceptual approaches to adolescent risk-taking. Cyber psychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2010050501 Reeves, P. M.(2000). Coping in cyberspace: The impact of Internet use on the ability of HIV- positive individuals to deal with their illness. Journal of Health Communication, 5(Suppl.), 47-59. Rotunda, R. J., Kass, S. J., Sutton, M. A., & Leon, D. T. (2003). Internet use and misuse. Behavior Modification, 27 (4), 484–504. Weber, L. (2003). Relationships among spirituality, social support, and childhood maltreatment in university students. Counseling and Values, 47 (2), 82–96. Weinert, C., Cudney, S., & Winters, C. (2005). Social support in cyberspace: The next generation. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 23(1), 7-15. Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999) Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone. In M.A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp.167-194). New York: Routledge White, E. (2007). Text Appeal: In the age of computers and cell phones, relationships progress from email to text to the real commitment: A phone call. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/ Williamson, D. A. (2008). College students online: Driving change in internet and mobile usage, eMarketer. Retrieved from www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?emarketer_2000524. Young, K. S. (1996). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1 (3), 237–244. Young, K. S., & Rodgers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(1), 25-28. Read More