Advance HE's tech access findings sharpen pre-arrival student feedback

Updated Sep 07, 2026

In a 29 July 2026 article for Advance HE, Debbie Holley and Michelle Morgan report technology findings from the national Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire pilot. They distinguish owning a phone from having suitable equipment, connectivity and skills for study.

The first phase involved 15 institutions in an OfS-funded project led by Advance HE, Jisc and the University of East London. This review checks the published article and tables, not the underlying pilot dataset or full project report.

What the article reports

The authors say 11% of undergraduate respondents expected their smartphone to be their main route to information and learning materials. Their operating-system table reports 0% without a phone in each displayed group. A rounded percentage should not be treated as proof that every respondent owned one.

The reported unlimited-data percentages are:

Respondents	UK domiciled	Non-UK domiciled
Undergraduate	29.5%	18.6%
Postgraduate taught	31.1%	16.9%

The article does not give the denominator for each table group or an uncertainty estimate. These figures describe the reported pilot responses, not the prevalence of digital exclusion among all incoming UK or international students. A limited data package also does not by itself establish inadequate access; Wi-Fi, other devices and actual learning tasks matter.

The prose says most phones were at least two years old, but the displayed age bands do not establish that conclusion consistently across the groups. This article therefore does not repeat it as a verified finding. Nor do the tables show that a particular device's age caused a student's difficulty.

What the authors recommend

Holley and Morgan propose device loans, suitable study spaces, reliable Wi-Fi and targeted support, alongside opportunities to build digital capabilities. Their suggestions include navigating learning platforms, managing resources, collaborating online, protecting privacy and using digital and AI tools critically.

Those are recommendations, not evaluated intervention effects from this article. The evidence does not show which support package will work best at another institution.

Design a local response before collecting more data

Ask what students need to do, and whether the available device, software and connection can support those tasks. Separate confidence from access: an experienced phone user may still lack appropriate equipment for a required application, while someone with a laptop may need help using the learning platform.

Agree who reviews an identified concern and what support can be offered. If later feedback is used to assess the response, preserve the question wording, timing and population. A change in comments alone does not demonstrate that an intervention caused an improvement.

Do not assume pre-arrival records can be joined to support or survey records. Establish the purpose, permissions and disclosure safeguards first. Where only aggregate comparisons are appropriate, report them as such rather than implying that the same individuals were tracked.

Reading subsequent comments

Comments may describe difficulty with file formats, software, Wi-Fi or finding help. Use those accounts to frame further investigation, without inferring a student's domicile, disability or resources from their wording. Similar themes across different surveys do not necessarily concern the same people or comparable samples.

Our governance checklist can help document review responsibilities and limitations. Student Voice Analytics can support a structured comment review; it does not supply missing table denominators or establish the causal effect of support.

FAQ

Did the article report 11% relying mainly on a smartphone?

Yes, among its undergraduate pilot respondents. It does not provide the subgroup denominator needed to assess the precision of that percentage here.

Does 0% without a phone mean every respondent had one?

That cannot be concluded from a rounded table alone, and ownership would not establish suitability for every learning task.

Are these national prevalence estimates?

The article reports pilot responses from participating institutions. Its tables do not establish representative national prevalence or comparable precision across groups.

Correction, 7 September 2026: Named the authors, added limits on denominators and generalisation, qualified the rounded phone-ownership figure and removed the unsupported majority-age claim. Clarified that record linkage and support effectiveness require separate evidence.

References

Debbie Holley and Michelle Morgan: Time to talk tech — results from the National Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire pilot, Advance HE, 29 July 2026.