An Interpretation of the 2013 EDUCAUSE Student Use of Technology Study Andrew C. Lawlor, PhD Faculty of the Future Conference Bucks County Community College May 30, 2014

Let’s use the technology!  Respond to the poll – test of Poll Anywhere

Today’s outcomes  Understand ECAR/EDUCAUSE study purpose and design  Identify results of study  Consider the impact on teaching and learning

Purpose  Profile of undergraduates’ ownership and use  What undergraduates say  Students’ perceptions  Trends of student behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions  Benchmark  Longitudinal technology trends  Actionable recommendations on meeting preferences and expectations

Scope

Methodology  Local Approval/IRB/Sampling Plan  Link sent to students via  Data collected in March 2013  Incentives?  Any institution – free

Analysis  Representative sample – matched profile  1% margin of error – whole population  Findings statistically significant (.001 level)  Conducted four focus groups – public MA institution

Summary of Participants and Response Rate

Own a Tablet or iPad – US Results  Of those surveyed, how many students own or plan to purchase a tablet or iPad? A.14% B.29% C.43% D.56%

Overview of US Results

Technology Value &Use

Learning Environments

Mobile Device Ownership and Use

Smartphone Use  Of students responding, how many use their smartphone for a combination of academic and other uses? A.16% B.21% C.54% D.61%

Connectivity & Engagement

How Bucks Compares

Technology Value & Use Bucks – 73.3% & AA – 75.1% Bucks – 73.3% & AA – 75.7% Bucks – 55.5% & AA – 58.7% Bucks – 66.1% & AA – 68.5% Bucks – 69.3% & AA – 67.9% Bucks – 61.6% & AA – 59.9% Bucks – 45.1% & AA – 40.5% Bucks – 20.6% & AA – 30.2% Bucks – 45.8% & AA – 50.8% Bucks – 25.9% & AA – 22.2% Bucks – 28.2% & AA – 26.9% Bucks – 67.9% & AA – 57.9%

Learning Environments Bucks – 56.3% & AA – 56.2% Bucks – 1.3% & AA – 1.0% Don’t know what a MOOC is: Bucks – 72.3% & AA – 73.9% Bucks – 32.9% & AA – 34.9% Bucks – 58.1% & AA – 52.5%

Instructors effectively using technology  Of those surveyed, how many students feel that most of their instructors effectively use technology?

Mobile Device Ownership and Use Bucks – 82.8% & AA – 84.3% Bucks – 80.2% & AA – 73.5% Bucks – 57.8% & AA – 55% Bucks – 32.3% & AA – 32.8% Bucks – 22.1% & AA – 17.6% Bucks – 67.9% & AA – 61.6% Bucks – 4.1% & AA – 3.1% Yes! Same!! Bucks – 23.3% & AA – 21.7% Bucks – 6.5% & AA – 9% Bucks – 18% & AA – 17.4% Bucks – 13.3% & AA – 20.6%

Connectivity & Engagement Bucks – 63.7% & AA – 62.1% Bucks – 65% & AA – 61% Bucks – 51.3% & AA – 46.3% Bucks – 60% & AA – 61.3% Bucks – 9.9% & AA – 11.4% Bucks – 86.5% & AA – 82.9% Bucks – 20.5% & AA – 21.5% Bucks – 74.5% & AA – 70.8%

What does the literature say?

Thompson, S. (2012).  Student use of library computers: Are desktop computers still relevant in today's libraries? Information Technology & Libraries, 31(4),  CSU-San Marcos study of computer use in the library; 2009 & 2010  Largely a commuter campus  Students prefer desktop computers in library, even those with laptops  Convenience and close proximity to library services  Was conducted before the iPad/tablet explosion

Elder, A. D. (2013).  College students' cell phone use, beliefs, and effects on their learning. College Student Journal, 47(4),  Found increased use and acceptance of cell phone use in class  Heavy reliance on college students’ lives  Use of cell phone during a lecture did not negatively affect comprehension, though students predicted poorer scores  No patterns were found among variables of ACT, gender, classification status, ratings of self-reported distraction, ratings of self-reported time using phone

Dresselhaus, A. & Shrode, F. (2012).  Mobile technologies & academics: Do students use mobile technologies in their academic lives and are librarians ready to meet this challenge?. Information Technology & Libraries, 31(2),  Case study at Utah State University  54% of undergraduates and 50% of graduate students use mobile technology for academic purposes  How often they used library electronic resources - majority a few times each semester  “If library resources were easily accessible on your mobile devices…” – 70% on a smartphone; 47% on an iPad; 46% on an e-book reader; 63% on other devices  Services desired – library catalog, mobile services, articles, reserve study rooms

Par, S., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2012).  University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 43(4),  Theoretical framework – Technology Acceptance Model  20 e-learning courses randomly selected; 567 students responded (94.5% return rate)  Of those, 288 used mobile devices; research limited to this sample  Demographic and data gathered based on TAM

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Results  Model was supported  Explains Behavioral Intention (BI) to use m-learning  Major Relevance (MR) plays a significant role in m-learning Attitude (AT) and Perceived Usefulness (PU)  AT a determinant affecting BI  Korean society encouraged to use IT in every field  Subjective Norm (SN) is directly related to BI  System Accessibility (SA) affected BI; Perceived Effectiveness (PE)

Recommendations  Boost AT toward m-learning  Make connection between m-learning and social needs  High quality wireless Internet environment  Provide on-line and off-line support to build up Self Efficacy (SE)

TAM  Which recommendation from the TAM study do you feel would have the most impact on adoption of mobile learning?

Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. E. (2013).  The use of digital technologies across the adult life span in distance education. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 44(2),  Compared access to digital technologies, attitudes to digital technologies and approaches to studying at UK Open University  Stratified random sample by age – 21 to 100  No evidence of discontinuity of tech use around age of 30  Broadly positive attitudes to tech regardless of age  Older age groups more likely to adopt deep, strategic approach to studying  Modal response for using technology for studying was “1-3 hours” in every age group; younger spent longer for study, however  Limitation – no academic achievement data; all distance ed students

Analysis

What is different at Bucks?  Tech helps less than expected  Less aware of open educational resources  Value (important for success) for e-books  More familiar with online courses but not as enamored with blended learning  Less laptop adoption, but higher smartphone and desktop  Smartphone use banned or discouraged in class but lower than others, but tablets or laptops encouraged much less  Tech makes students feel connected to faculty slightly higher

What is the impact on teaching and learning at Bucks?  Students do not fully recognize connection between their use of technology and their future  Academic outcomes  Future educational plans  Workplace  Might our blended learning courses need to become more dynamic/interactive?  How can we leverage the high smartphone adoption rate?  Keep moving towards more e-books  Keep/encourage interaction using tech – students feel connected

Conclusions  Data more valuable than anecdotes  Leverage what information is already available  Participate in the EDUCAUSE/ECAR study  Technology adoption requires sustained, intentional action

Contact Info