1. ECAR/MSU STUDY OF FACULTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Explorations in Instructional Technology November 21, 2014

2. INTRODUCTION In February of 2014, IT Services Teaching and Learning partnered with the Educause Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) to distribute a survey to all instructors of record at Michigan State University, gauging their attitudes regarding the use of campus technology in their academic work. The optional survey was distributed via e- mail, and no reminder or follow-up messages were sent.

3. TIMELINE February 24, 2014 – Surveys distributed to all instructors of record March 16, 2014 – Survey closed May 1, 2014 – Data files received from ECAR August 18, 2014 – ECAR study published September, 2014 – MSU report published

4. SAMPLE - MSU Distributed to all instructors of record for FS12, SS13, US13 157 responses 5% response rate 8% margin of error National response rate – 15%

5. TECHNOLOGY INTERESTS - MSU 93.6% identified that they were interested in technology for teaching and learning 51.6% identified they were interested in technology for research and scholarship 49% work mostly with undergraduates 38.2% work mostly with graduate students 12.1% work mostly with professional students.6% do not typically work with students

6. RANK AND TENURE 95.5% identified as full-time faculty members, 4.5% as part-time  Peer institutions: 54.7% full-time, 16.9% part-time  Nationally: 68.9% full-time, 31.1% part-time 81% tenured, 7.4% not tenured but tenure track, 37.8% non-tenured  Peer institutions: 48.8% tenured, 18% not tenured but tenure track, 33.2% non-tenured  Nationally: 50.1% tenured, 18.7% not tenured but tenure track, 32.1% non-tenured

7. ONLINE TEACHING - MSU 74.1% did not teach a fully online course in the past academic year 13.8% said that less than half their load was online 12.1% taught at least half their teaching load online

8. USE AND SATISFACTION MSU faculty are connected: 80.7 out of 100 MSU faculty are relatively satisfied with their campus tech experiences: 67.7 out of 100 MSU faculty are not technophobic: 67.7 out of 100 MSU faculty are relatively conservative in their approach to technology: 54.9 out of 100

9. INSTITUTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS MSU, peer doctoral institutions, and the national picture

10. ANALYSIS #1 “Faculty recognize that online learning opportunities can promote access to higher education but are more reserved in their expectations for online courses to improve outcomes (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

11. ACCESS 73.7% of MSU faculty agree or strongly agree that online courses will expand the availability of higher education to more populations and increase student access  73.3% at peer research institutions  77.3% nationally

12. OUTCOMES 49% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that the institution was improving student outcomes through technology  52.6% at peer research institutions  60.1% nationally

13. ONLINE LEARNING POTENTIAL 25.5% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that online learning has the potential to help students learn more effectively  33.1% at peer research institutions  40.8% nationally

14. ANALYSIS #2 “Faculty interest in early-alert systems and intervention notifications is strong (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

15. INSTITUTIONAL ALERTS Table 1: Faculty responding that they are “very interested” or “extremely interested” to the question “How interested are you in your institution providing your students with the following early-alert or intervention notifications, even if it means additional input on your part?” MSUOther DR InstitutionsAll US Institutions Guidance about courses they may consider taking in the future, such as “you may also like” or “we recommend” suggestions 21.6%23.1%28.5% Alerts if it appears a student’s progress in a course is declining 39.5%43.4%51.7% Suggestions for how to improve performance in a course if a student’s progress is substandard 44.1%42.2%49.8% Suggestions about new or different academic resources for your students (e.g., tutoring, skills-building opportunities, etc.) 53.5%55.8%60.4% Automated tracking of your students’ course attendance via college ID card scanners or other automated means 26.3%36.2%40.1%

16. ANALYSIS #3 “The majority of faculty are using basic features and functions of LMSs but recognize that these systems have much more potential to enhance teaching and learning (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

17. LMS USE Table 2 Please indicate how you use the learning management system: MSUOther DR InstitutionsAll US Institutions I don’t use the LMS at all10.9%15.5%14.2% To push out information, such as posting a syllabus or other handouts 62.6%63.9%57.5% To promote interaction outside of the classroom by using discussion boards, assignments, assessments, etc. 42.9%40.8%40.9% To teach partially online courses (or competency-based programs) 20.4%17.3%19.1% To teach completely online courses (or competency-based programs) 22.4%19.9%28.4%

18. TECHNICAL AND TRAINING Table 3 Faculty reporting that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” in regard to technical and training aspects of the campus LMS: MSUOther DR InstitutionsAll US Institutions System availability77.1%74.4%75.2% System response time50%58.5%62.6% Ease of use45%48%57.2% Initial use training39.3%35.5%45.6% Ongoing training/professional development 37.5%29.1%37.5% Overall satisfaction40.8%51.1%60.5%

19. ANALYSIS #4 “Faculty think they could be more effective instructors if they were better skilled at integrating various kinds of technology into their courses (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

20. VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESS Table 4 Faculty who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they could be a more effective faculty member if they were better skilled at integrating technologies: MSUOther DR InstitutionsAll US Institutions Learning Management System63%55.4%53.6% Online Collaboration Tools51.3%53.8%55.1% ePortfolios27.4%32.7%35.4% eTexts41.7%48.4%48.7%

21. TEACHING AND LEARNING Student preparedness, equipment availability, and managing technology

22. VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESS Table 7 Faculty who agree or strongly agree regarding student preparedness for teaching and learning activities: MSUOther DR InstitutionsAll US Institutions I wish students were better prepared to use institution-specific technologies 37.9%46.5%53.3% I wish students were better prepared to use basic software programs and apps 36.2%40.5%46.8% Most of my students have adequate technology skills 70.1%66.6%65.7% Too many of my students look to me or my TAs for tech support 27.2%27.3%29.6%

23. FACULTY MOTIVATIONS FOR USING TECHNOLOGY 1.Clear indication/evidence that students would benefit 2.Release time to design/redesign my course 3.Direct assistance from an instructional design expert 4.A better understanding of the relevant types of technologies 5.Direct assistance from IT staff 6.A teaching assistant to assist with technology implementation 7.Working in a faculty cohort or community 8.More/better technology-oriented professional development opportunities 9.Tenure decisions and other professional advancement considerations 10.A monetary or other value-oriented incentive 11.Increased student expectations of technology integration 12.Support/encouragement from peers

24. QUESTIONS/CONTACT Jessica Knott IT Services Teaching and Learning (517)884-0674 jlknott@msu.edu Twitter - @jlknott