Since 2003, Educause Center for Research and Analysis (ECAR) has been collecting data from undergraduate students about their information technology (IT) preferences and experiences. ECAR has also collected data from faculty for the last three years. The 2017 undergraduate and faculty surveys collected similar data, and "the reports can be read side by side, in tandem, or as a 'call and response' between students and their instructors" (Brooks & Pomerantz, 2017).
Here are the basic demographics for each survey: For the student survey, there were 43,559 participants from 124 institutions in 10 countries and 40 US states; 13,451 faculty from 157 institutions in 7 countries and 37 states took part in the faculty survey. For the purposes of reporting, 35,760 student responses from 100 US institutions and 11,141 faculty responses were included in the analyses. All types of faculty were surveyed: part time/full time, tenure/nontenure, teaching/research, undergraduate/graduate, and across all ranks, including adjuncts. Following are findings for faculty and students.
DEVICE OWNERSHIP
All students (99 percent) own one or more devices, with smartphones (97 percent) and laptops (95 percent) as the top two devices. At least one third equally own two, three, or four devices. Tablet ownership has decreased since last year, and only 3 in 10 students own desktop computers; 7 out of 10 do not plan to buy a desktop.
Institutional and personal ownership was examined for faculty. Desktop computers (85 percent) and laptops (97 percent) were the primary tools when institutional and personal ownership were combined, with institutions providing 61 percent of faculty desktops and 51 percent of laptops. Most faculty owned smartphones; a small number (5 percent) owned a desktop and smartphone; 12 percent owned two devices (smartphone/laptop); 22 percent owned three; and 26 percent owned four. Three percent of faculty owned no devices at all. Although faculty and students were similar in their ownership of laptops and smartphones, students, in general, owned more devices than faculty.
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT AND SECURITY
Overall experience with campus IT was rated similarly by faculty (71 percent) and students (78 percent). Faculty at associate and bachelor's institutions rated their IT experiences higher than faculty at master's and doctoral institutions. Faculty experiences with IT varied in terms of where they seek technology support.
Students' experiences with wireless access to campus networks influenced their IT ratings. They were more satisfied if their wireless access was good in the library, classrooms, public places, and the dormitories. Brooks and Pomerantz (2017) explain the student wireless experience in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs; wireless is essentially equated with basic human needs.
Where people sought technical support differed dramatically for students and faculty. Each group was asked to identify their top three resources. Faculty used the institutional IT helpdesk more often than students. They "prioritize sources of perceived expertise, particularly when that source of expertise is themselves or their colleagues"; students, on the other hand, take a more problem-solving, do-it-yourself, or ask-a-friend approach (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
Information security training, listed by many institutions as an Educause 2017 top 10 IT priority (Grajek & 2016-2017 EDUCAUSE IT Issues Panel, 2017), was an interesting area. Both students (60 percent) and faculty (48 percent) were unaware of information security training provided by their institution. Despite their lack of training, Brooks and Pomerantz (2017) considered students savvy in terms of their use of complex passwords and pin numbers. They did not share passwords or pin numbers, and only 10 percent had their devices hacked within the last year.
Faculty were mostly (66 to 75 percent) confident in the institution's information security practices. This was surprising given their lack of awareness and involvement in information security training. Given their personal ownership of multiple devices and wireless connections, it is important for institutions to reach out to both students and faculty in making security training accessible and mandatory.
STUDENT SUCCESS TOOLS
For the last few years, institutions have been implementing student success tools to help manage the academic experience in areas such as planning and advisement. Students and faculty differ in their satisfaction with these tools. For students, the most useful tools in 2017 were degree-audit tools, degree-planning or mapping tools, and online self-service tools for conducting student-related business (Brooks & Promerantz, 2017). In many instances, faculty were either unaware of available tools or chose not to use them. With increasing data-driven decision-making and student success initiatives in higher education, it will become more important for faculty to learn how to effectively use these tools and encourage use by students.
IT USE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
Under this category, students were asked about faculty use of IT tools, learning management systems (LMS), and online learning. Faculty were asked similar questions in terms of students' level of technology literacy. Students (65 percent) agreed that most faculty used technology for instruction and, to a lesser extent, to make connections to learning materials, provide additional materials (55 percent), and encourage the use of collaboration (50 percent). Students felt faculty did not encourage the use of technology, especially in the classroom, to deepen their learning or engage them in their learning. They wanted faculty to use more classroom technology, such as lecture capture, early-alert systems, and LMS and search tools. Students were not fond of having assignments that asked them to use their own private social media tools and polling tools.
Faculty (67 percent) reported students were literate in the use of commercially available software (e.g., Google, MS Office). They saw students as less literate (50 percent) in the use of institutionally available systems (e.g., registration, LMS).
The majority of students were satisfied with LMS for basic purposes, such as submitting assignments (77 percent), accessing course content (66 percent), checking course progress (66 percent), managing their assignments (62 percent), and receiving feedback on assignments (56 percent). In terms of more complicated features of the LMS, their level of satisfaction decreased, most likely related to the lack of use in engaging with instructors and other students, collaborating on projects, accessing institutional information, and participating in study groups.
Faculty were overall satisfied with the LMS (67 percent) and primarily used the system for the following reasons: creating or posting content (i.e., syllabus), receiving and managing assignments, entering students' progress, and importing courses from a previous course offering. Again, the focus was on basic course management techniques with a lack of student-faculty engagement for learning. Pomerantz and Brooks (2017, p. 22) pointed to the need to use LMS to engage students in the learning process: "Higher education needs to move away from a management system to a learning environment that encompasses a host of interactive components that are student centered." According to Brown (2017, p. 12), the development of Next Generation Digital Learning Environments will "enable learning of all kinds to flourish."
The findings related to online learning are interesting. First, faculty "have a love-hate relationship with online teaching and learning: They don't want to do it but think they would be better instructors if they did" (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017, p. 7). Although faculty thought online instruction made learning accessible, they did not believe it helped students to learn effectively. Only 9 percent preferred teaching totally online, and less than 50 percent preferred blended learning with some online component. According to Pomerantz and Brooks (2017), faculty self-select the teaching modality they believe is best for student learning.
Despite the growing body of evidence that negates the belief that students do not effectively learn online, faculty continue to maintain this belief and avoid online teaching. The irony is that faculty do believe the integration of technology tools would enable them to be more effective teachers. Of the tools listed, the top five were multimedia production, free web-based content, LMS, online collaborative tools, and simulation or educational games.
From the students' perspective (79 percent), blended learning, with some to mostly online components and some classroom instruction, was preferred. There were small percentages at the tail ends (totally online/totally classroom). According to Brooks and Pomerantz (2017), student preferences for the learning environment were associated with their beliefs about the modality in which they learn best. Those who preferred the classroom environment exclusively also believed they could learn best with a blended learning modality.
Another interesting dynamic was the tendency of faculty to ban (or discourage) the use of technology in the classroom, especially smartphones. Some faculty who allowed laptops discouraged or banned tablets and smartphones. Students acknowledged that, although they sometimes use their smartphones for nonclass activities, they also use them for activities such as taking notes and researching sources of information and instructor-directed activities. Faculty who believed they would be better teachers if they integrated technology into the classroom tended to encourage the use of devices in the classroom. Pomerantz and Brooks (2017) noted that as faculty become more skilled in classroom management and their own technology skills, they are more likely to encourage device use in the classroom.
MY TAKEAWAYS FOR FACULTY
My first takeaway for faculty is to read the student report. Here are some others.
1. Assess your own students to see where they are in their beliefs, usage, and desires to integrate technology into the learning experiences. It is important to interpret these studies within the culture and context of your own institution. You can check if your institution was a participant in the study.
2. Find out about your institution's security policies. I recommend online mandatory training for students and faculty to keep current with the ever-changing technology environment. This is particularly important when your own devices are used within the campus network.
3. Set a goal each semester (or at least the academic year) to learn about a new tool to facilitate student learning. Make use of instructional designers, faculty development series, or websites with instruction and examples for instructional design. Incorporate these tools into your teaching toolkit.
4. Walk the talk. If you teach your students that evidence-based practice is necessary, examine the evidence that is available about online and blended learning.
5. If you use or experiment with technologies, do some pilot studies or collaborate with other faculty on research to add to the evidence base.
6. As you serve on school, campus, or university committees, promote faculty development in teaching with technology, formulate technology policies, and encourage the system to reward and incentivize innovation in teaching.
7. Remember, "technologies postsecondary students encounter (and bring with them) on their educational journeys are ever changing and growing in their sophistication and ubiquity" (McCormack, 2017, p. 3).
As always, let me know your takeaways at mailto:[email protected]
REFERENCES