EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Student technology use and skill: convenience, communication, and control January 24, 2005 NLII New Orleans, LA Robert.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Student Laptop Program Victories and Defeats Dr. Timothy M. Chester, CIO Texas A&M University at Qatar
Advertisements

An Integrated Approach to Computer and Information Literacy Linda Ehley Alverno College Associate Professor CS EDUCAUSE 2003 Copyright – Linda Ehley 2003.
Copyright Joann Martyn, 2007.This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial,
The Academic Computing Assessment Data Repository: A New (Free) Tool for Program Assessment Heather Stewart, Director, Institute for Technology Development,
A Web-based Bibliography Management Initiative: Collaborating for Classroom and Library Technology Integration Brian Nielsen, Academic Technologies Denise.
Eliminating the Barriers to Pervasive Computing A Pilot Project Sandy Bennett Coordinator of Instructional Technology Development Copyright Sandra M. Bennett,
Copyright Sylvia Maxwell and Michael White, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
Seeing the Forest and the Acorns in the Decision Tree Sandy Burke Computing Center HelpDesk Manager Copyright Sandy Burke, This work is the intellectual.
Copyright 2006 Copyright Seán O’Donnell This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
The Milliennial Instructor The Milliennial Student... and now... The Milliennial Instructor? Carl Berger Copyright by the author, This work is the.
Student Use of IT from EDUCAUSE 2007 Survey Pat Burns, VPIT IAC Meeting Feb. 13, 2008.
Developing An Online Information Literacy Course Nancy O’Hanlon Ohio State University Libraries Wuhan University, China March 2007.
Beyond Basic Computer Skills: Implementing Technology Fluency Cynthia Edwards, Professor of Psychology Kristin Watkins, Computer Applications Specialist.
Chatham College Community and Computers Pervasive Computing at a Liberal Arts College Charlotte E. Lott, Ph. D. Lynda Barner West, Ed. D. Copyright Charlotte.
Interactive Learning: Teaching Geographic Information Systems (GIS) with WebCT By: Andrew Clark University of Arizona Department of Geography and Regional.
3/20/20071 IT Strategy and Leadership in Higher Education: Two Case Studies Case 1: Roberts Wesleyan College. Presented by Pradeep (Peter) Saxena, CIO.
Five Berkeley Campuses Three in NJ; Two in NY Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Degree Online Online Courses Hybrid Courses Web Enhanced Courses.
Promoting Faculty Adoption of Technology Beth Boyd Instructional Technology Consultant Religion, Women’s Studies, & Health & Exercise Science Steven Wicker.
Unraveling Web Development PRESENTERS: Bob Nakles and Paras Kaul, George Mason University.
Copyright Shanna Smith & Tom Bohman (2003). This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
Dan Gilbert Page Designing More than a Room Dan Gilbert Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning NLII.
Student Technological Mastery: It's Not Just the Hardware Wm. H. Huffman, Ph.D. Ann H. Huffman, Ph.D.
Mellon Fellowship for Undergraduate Research: Ideas, Innovations & Impacts Elizabeth Dupuis, University of California,
Faculty and Student Expectations for Students’ Information Technology and Information Literacy Knowledge & Skills: One Institution’s Assessment Linfield.
Center for Instructional Technology James Madison University Strategies for Transitioning to the Age of Digital Media Sarah E. Cheverton James Madison.
Copyright statement Copyright David Consiglio, Pattie Orr, Carol Peddie, Patricia Schoknecht, Douglas West, and Andrew White, This work is the intellectual.
Intellectual Property Protocol and Assessment for Distance Learning Liz Johnson Project Manager Advanced Learning Technologies Board of Regents of the.
Learning technology center Preparing Faculty and Students for Hybrid Courses Copyright Alan Aycock, Carla Garnham & Robert Kaleta, This work is the.
Copyright © 2003, Scott Higgins and Marianne Hollis Copyright Statement This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for.
UNC’s Digital Library Project: Current Initiatives, Future Plans Megan Winget Academic Technology Specialist Office of Arts & Sciences Information Services.
Lynette Olson, Assessment & Effectiveness Director & Gary Langer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of the Chancellor, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.
Herding CATS: the Community of Academic Technology Staff Lou Zweier, Director CSU Center for Distributed Learning The California State University NLII,
SALTING THE OATS ENGAGING FACULTY IN “IT” BY ENGAGING STUDENTS KENTON ADLER LYON COLLEGE BATESVILLE, AR Copyright Kenton Adler, This work is the.
Catalyst Portfolio Tool Copyright Tom Lewis, This work is the intellectual property.
Janet Easterling, Institutional Research
Please Note: Copyright –David L. Snellman This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
Julie Evans, Project Tomorrow CEO Speak Up 2012 Results Online and Blended Learning Views of Ohio’s K-12 Students, Parents, Teachers and Administrators.
Making Big Classes Small: Penn State’s Blended Learning Initiative Renata Engel John T. Harwood January 30, 2006 Copyright Penn State, This work.
HumaniTech®: Educause, Seattle October 24, 2007 Bridging Divides, Building Collaborations
February 22, Southwest Educause Conference 1 Copyright Rebecca Frost Davis, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission.
NERCOMP 2002, College for Lifelong Learning What Students, Faculty and the College are Learning about Teaching and Learning Online Managing the 24x7 Classroom.
Campus Technology 08 Shootout! Bracing for the Next-Gen Student Wave: Myth or Mandate? Next-Gen Students “Speak Up” – Are we listening? Julie Evans Project.
Julie Evans, Project Tomorrow CEO Speak Up 2012 National Findings June 26, 2013 Speak Up Findings & Trends: Informing the changing role of educators 9.
Building the Integrated Learning Center Having the right people at the table Chris Johnson, Senior Consultant for Learning Technologies University of Arizona.
Colorado State University Library Student Technology Fee Proposal.
The Millennial Instructor The Net-generation Student... OK, but the Net-Gen Instructor??? Carl Berger Copyright by the author, This work is the intellectual.
The University of Texas at Dallas 1 Palm Pilot 2003 at UT Dallas EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference February 26, 2004 Doug Jackson Daniel Calhoun Copyright.
Ubiquitous Computing at Rensselaer Sharon Roy Director, Academic & Research Computing March 7, 2005.
Copyright Copyright University of Washington This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be.
Learning and Engagement in Library Spaces Suzanne E. Thorin Ruth Lilly University Dean of University Libraries and Associate Vice President for Digital.
Rethinking Campus and Classroom Design William J. Mitchell NLII 2004 September 9, 2004 Copyright William Mitchell, This work is the intellectual.
An Assessment of the TA Web Certification Program: Four Years of Supporting the Use of Instructional Technology at the University of Minnesota Brad Cohen,
Copyright © 2003, The University of Texas at Austin. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be.
NLII05 Annual Meeting Professional Development of Faculty and Instructional Technology Staff through Communities of Practice University of Memphis: Technology.
Copyright [Dr. Michael Hoadley, Chat Chatterji, and John Henderson ] [2004]. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted.
Cdigix at Yale Chuck Powell Director, Academic Media & Technology, ITS Yale University September 15, 2004 Copyright Charles Powell.
DoIT 2010 Student Survey Highlights for ITC Brian Rust April 16, 2010.
Integration is Critical for Success Curriculum Course Delivery Ongoing Support Instructor & Learner.
Improving the Social Nature of OnLine Learning Tap into what students are already doing Tap into what students are already doing Educause SWRC07 Copyright.
EDUCAUSE 2003 Copyright Toshiyuki Urata 2003 This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
Legal Issues in the “E-Learning Business” Jonathan Alger University of Michigan October 29, 2001 Copyright Jonathan Alger This work is the intellectual.
Copyright Michael White and Sylvia Maxwell, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared.
© Scottsdale Community College Leveraging the Power of E-Learning Taking your course to a higher level Presented by Sidne Tate Director, Instructional.
Hospitality and Tourism Students Use of Technology Cary C. Countryman Michael Sciarini Matthew Roberts.
A Collaborative Blueprint for Classroom Design Barbara Brandt, ITD Carole Meyers, Emory College Emory University Copyright Barbara Brandt and Carole Meyers.
Judy Borreson Caruso Shannon D. Smith 11/6/2009
Answering the Value Question: Does Technology Impact Student Success
Redesigning College Teaching at Sacramento State University
Educause Learning Initiatives (ELI) January 20-22, 2009
Project for OnLine Instructional Support (POLIS)
Presentation transcript:

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Student technology use and skill: convenience, communication, and control January 24, 2005 NLII New Orleans, LA Robert B. Kvavik University of Minnesota ECAR Senior Fellow Copyright Robert B. Kvavik, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author. Student technology use and skill: convenience, communication, and control January 24, 2005 NLII New Orleans, LA Robert B. Kvavik University of Minnesota ECAR Senior Fellow Copyright Robert B. Kvavik, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Page 2 ECAR Publication Judy B. Caruso, University of Wisconsin-Madison and ECAR Fellow Robert B. Kvavik, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and ECAR Senior Fellow Glenda Morgan, California State University System ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control

Page 3 Hypotheses  Students are demanding greater use of technology in teaching and learning  It is increasingly necessary for faculty to use technology to appeal to students  Students already possess good skills with IT  Students gained these skills outside of the classroom  Little further IT training of students is necessary

Page 4 Methodology Literature review Review of other higher education IT surveys Review and comparison with ECAR Faculty Use of Course Management Systems study Quantitative survey of 9,350 freshmen/9,050 seniors - 13 institutions Qualitative interviews with 132 students and 23 administrators

Page 5 Sample size - Senior 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error

Page 6 Sample size - Freshman

Page 7 Characteristics of sample 38.8% are male; 61.2% female 95% are 25 years or younger 95% are full-time students; 5% are part-time 44.9 % live on campus; 55.1% do not 66% have a B or better GPA 81% are white, not of Hispanic origin 4.4% are from BA institutions; 52.3% from MA institutions; 43.3% from doctoral institutions

Page 8 Hardware Ownership – Male/Female Technology Owned All Male Female Personal Desktop62.8% 69.5% 58.8% Laptop46.8% 46.8% 46.6% PDA11.9% 17.8% 8.2% Smart Phone 1.1% 1.9%.6% Cell Phone82.0% 77.7% 84.7% 93.4% of all students own a computer 81.5% have access to broadband PDAs and smart phones haven’t penetrated the student market

Page 9 Hardware Ownership – Senior/Freshman Technology OwnedAll SeniorFreshman Personal Desktop62.8% 70.7%57.1% Laptop46.8% 38.5%52.7% PDA11.9% 15.1% 9.6% Smart Phone 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Cell Phone82.0% 81.7%82.3% Students are now buying more laptops Laptop purchases are higher for freshmen for on- campus mobility

Page 10 IT Applications Used (1) ApplicationTotalSeniors Freshmen Writing documents99.5%99.4%99.6% 99.5%99.6%99.5% Surfing Internet for pleasure97.2%97.2%97.1% Classroom activities/studying96.4%96.4%96.3% Using library resource83.6%86.9%81.7% Chatting with instant messenger83.0%71.2%91.3% Downloading/listening music/video80.9%72.3%87.1% Using course management system75.8%73.5%77.4% Students primarily use IT for communication and classroom activities

Page 11 IT Applications Used (cont.) ApplicationTotalSeniors Freshmen Online shopping70.0%77.4%64.8% Playing computer games69.6%62.3%74.8% Spreadsheets64.9%75.1%57.6% Creating presentations (PowerPoint)57.1%68.8%48.8% Using technology at employment47.5%62.3%36.9% Creating graphics (Photoshop,etc.)46.7%47.3%46.3% Creating web pages21.7%23.8%19.6% Creating video/audio21.2%18.1%22.6% Next, students use IT for personal uses; last for specialized applications

Page 12 IT Applications & hours/week used (1) Activities NMeanStd. Deviation Classroom activities/studying Writing documents Surfing Internet for pleasure Chatting with instant messenger Using technology at employment Downloading/listening to music/video Using course management system Mean: 5=6-10 hours/week; 4=3-5 hours/week; 3=1-2 hours/week; 2=<1 hour/week; 1=do not use Classroom & communication activities predominate when looking at hours

Page 13 IT Applications & hours/week used (cont.) ActivitiesNMeanStd. Deviation Using library resources Playing computer games Spreadsheets On-line shopping Creating presentations (PowerPoint) Creating graphics (Photoshop, etc.) Creating web pages Creating video/audio Mean: 5=6-10 hours/week; 4=3-5 hours/week; 3=1-2 hours/week; 2=<1 hour/week; 1=do not use Students spend very little time – less than 1 hour/week on specialized apps

Page 14 Explanation for application usage (1 ) Application/hours spentStrongest factor Factor two Classroom activities/studying Senior Major (engr) Writing documents Institution Gender (female) Surfing Internet for pleasure Gender (male) Institution Senior Gender (female) Instant Messenger Age (youngest) On-campus Using technology at employment Senior Full-time Downloading/listening to music Age (youngest) Gender (male) Course management system Major (business) Institution Communications – age, gender make a difference. For CMS, curriculum matters

Page 15 Explanation for application usage (cont.) Application/hours spentStrongest factor Factor two Using library resourceSenior Major (life/soc. sci.) Playing computer gamesGender (male) On-campus SpreadsheetsAge (oldest) Major (engr, bus) On-line shoppingNo factor No factor Creating presentations Age (oldest) Major (engr, bus) Creating graphicsMajor (fine arts) Gender (female) Creating web pagesGender (male) Major (soc. sci.) Creating video/audioGender (female) Major (fine arts) For specialized applications such as creating graphics and web pages, the curriculum matters.

Page 16 Level of skills attained (1) Application/skill levelMeanStd. Deviation Instant messenger Word processing Web surfing Presentation software (PowerPoint) = very skilled; 3= skilled; 2= unskilled; 1= very unskilled Students overestimate their skills but they were cognizant of their lack of skills in more specialized applications

Page 17 Level of skills attained (cont.) Application/skill levelMeanStd. Deviation Online library resources Spreadsheets Course management system Graphics (Photoshop, etc.) Creating web pages Creating/editing video/audio = very skilled; 3= skilled; 2= unskilled; 1= very unskilled Note that students give themselves a mean of 2.83 on CMS – somewhere between unskilled and skilled.

Page 18 Explanation for level of skills attained (1) Application/factorStrongest factorFactor 2 No factorNo factor Instant messengerAge (youngest) Institution Word processingSenior Major (Humanities) Web surfingGender (male) Age (youngest) Presentation softwareSenior Major (engr, bus) All students report similar skills with . The curriculum and class make a difference in spreadsheet and PowerPoint skills.

Page 19 Explanation for level of skills attained (cont.) Application/factorStrongest factorFactor 2 Online library resourcesSenior Major (social science) SpreadsheetsSenior Major (business) Course management systemInstitution Major (business) GraphicsGender (male) Major (fine arts) Creating web pagesGender (male) Major (life sciences) On more specialized applications – curriculum matters even more

Page 20 Student preferences for technology in the classroom Students preference for technology was not as high as we expected. Instead it’s closer to a normal bell curve. One explanation may be how well and consistently the technology is being used by the faculty.

Page 21 Preference for technology in the classroom by major DisciplineNo LimitedExtensive technologytechnologytechnology Engineering4.8%24.4%67.8% Business1.3%28.2%64.3% Life sciences4.8%35.3%56.3% Physical sciences5.7%40.9%51.8% Social sciences7.9%44.4%44.2% Education3.5%47.9%42.9% Humanities7.7%47.9%40.2% Fine Arts9.0%46.9%39.3% The more students use technology (like in the engineering and business major), the more they prefer it.

Page 22 Perceived benefits of IT in the classroom BenefitNumber Percent Convenience2, % Helped me manage class activities % Saved me time % Improved my learning % No benefits % Other % Total4, % Today’s benefits are about convenience and control.

Page 23 Student experience with Course Management Systems (CMS) 76.1% of students have positive experiences using CMS and 83% have taken a class using CMS

Page 24 CMS Features Used Note that the features most used are convenience and management features. This was also true of faculty.

Page 25 CMS features that students perceived improved learning and class management Features used Learning Rank Management Rank Sharing materials with students 52.8% % 6 Track grades 47.9% % 1 Faculty feedback on assignments 42.3% % 8 Sample exams online 42.0% % 4 Online readings 37.8% % 3 Turn in assignments 35.9% % 5 Syllabus 27.3% % 7 Online quizzes 26.8% % 2 Online discussions 22.5% % 9 Grading feature is highly valued by students and interactive features are perceived to improve learning. But interactive features are much less used by faculty.

Page 26 Trends Mining and analysis of student course activity data leading to programs and effective practices. Continued proliferation of networked scholarly information. Exploration and integration of new capabilities and practices from the video gaming, virtual reality, simulation, and modeling arenas.

Page 27 Trends Increasing student and faculty information literacy. Ongoing improvement in the quality and usability of course delivery systems. Greater emphasis by institutions on instructional planning.

Page 28 Summary (1) 93.4% of student respondents own a computer 81% of students have access to broadband Students primarily use their computers for education, followed by communication Academic usage is strongly related to student major and class standing (senior vs. freshman) Students rate themselves as highly skilled in communication, word processing, and Internet use

Page 29 Summary (cont.) Students prefer a moderate amount of technology in the classroom IT in the classroom is perceived as greatly impacting communication between students and the instructor The primary benefit of IT use in the classroom is for convenience. Only 12.7% of the students reported that the most valuable benefit was improved learning. Some barriers to IT use in the classroom were identified with the highest being “feels like extra work” (16.7%)

Page 30 Summary (cont.) 83% of the students have used a CMS 76.1% of the students had a positive or very positive experience with a CMS CMS features most used were syllabus (95%), online reading (94.7%) and tracking grades (89.4%) CMS features that students said most improved learning were the least used by faculty (“share materials with other students” and “faculty feedback on assignments”)

Page 31 Questions and comments