Outcomes
Research about the connection between instructor competence and student learning validates the intuitive idea that when instructors use effective educational practices, students have a better academic experience.25 It follows
that when instructors integrate IT into effective teaching practices, students would be more likely to perceive both that their instructors use IT well in courses and that the effect of IT on their courses is positive. The data support this premise (see Figure 5-14). Among respondents reporting that “most” or “almost all” of their instructors use IT effectively, 56.6% agree that IT in courses improves their learning; among respondents reporting that only “some”
or “almost none” of their instructors use IT effectively, only 34% agree that IT in courses improves their learning.
CMS experience is also a strong differentiator when it comes to the ECAR questions about IT’s impact on courses. Respondents having an overall positive CMS experience more often report that IT in courses improves learning, convenience, and student engagement. Also interesting, students who indicate that their institution’s IT services are always available for course work are much more likely to agree with these outcome statements. It makes sense that a robust IT services environment promotes conve- nience, which can positively impact learning.
Finally, two other factors are associated with positive outcomes of IT in courses, although not nearly as strongly as the factors already discussed. Respondents reporting stronger IT skills and respondents who say they like to learn by using the technologies asked about in the survey—such as programs they can control; contributing to websites, blogs, wikis, and the like; creating or listening to podcasts or webcasts; and text-based conversations over e-mail, IM, and text messaging—are more positive about the benefits of IT in courses.
3.76 3.78 3.91 4.27 3.01 3.37 3.30 3.69 2.24 2.83 2.58 2.95 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
I get more actively involved in courses that use IT. By the time I graduate, the IT I have used in my courses will have adequately prepared me for the workplace. The use of IT in my courses improves my learning. IT makes doing my course activities more convenient.
Mean* Prefer limited or no IT (N = 4,219)
Prefer moderate IT (N = 15,890) Prefer extensive or exclusive IT (N = 6,675)
Figure 5-13. Student Perceptions about IT in Courses, by Preference for IT in Courses
Endnotes
1. Gail Salaway and Judith Borreson Caruso, with Mark R. Nelson, The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2007 (Research Study, Vol. 6) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2007), available from http://www.educause .edu/ecar. See Chapter 2 by Chris Dede.
2. The distribution of responses in 2008 forms a bell- shaped curve, as did the distribution of responses in each of the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 studies. See Robert B. Kvavik, Judith B. Caruso, and Glenda Morgan, ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control (Research Study, Vol. 5) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2004); Robert B. Kvavik and Judith B. Caruso, ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control, and Learning (Research Study, Vol. 6) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2005); Gail Salaway, Richard N. Katz, and Judith B. Caruso,
The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2006 (Research Study, Vol. 7) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2006); and Salaway and Caruso, ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2007, all of which are available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
3. These findings are discussed in detail in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 ECAR studies of undergraduate students and information technology, whose bibliographical data were given in endnotes 1 and 2.
4. Veronica A. Lotkowski, Steven B. Robbins, and Richard J. Noeth, The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention (ACT, 2004), http://www.act.org /research /policymakers /pdf/ college_retention.pdf.
5. Salaway and Caruso, ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2007. 6. Linden L ab, ht tp : / / simteach.com / wiki / index
.php?title = Institutions_and_Organizations_in_ SL#UNIVERSITIES.2C_COLLEGES_.26_SCHOOLS. 7. AJ Kelton, “Second Life: Reaching into the Virtual
World for Real-World Learning” (Research Bulletin, Issue 17) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2007), available from http://www .educause.edu/ecar.
8. The distribution of the 98 participating institutions is as follows: 84 institutions had fewer than 5% of respondents taking entirely online courses, 10 institutions had between 5% and 10%, 2 institutions had between 12% and 15%, and 2 institutions had between 40% and 45%.
9. I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, “Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning,” The Sloan Consortium, October 2007, http://www .sloanconsortium.org /publications /survey /pdf/ online_nation.pdf.
10. These results are just an approximation because some of the students who are not taking an entirely online course the quarter/semester of the survey may have taken one in the past, and it is likely this would affect their opinion of whether or not the requirement of an online course would benefit students.
11. Richard Van Eck, “Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless,” EDUCAUSE Review 41, no. 2 (March/April 2006): 20, http:// connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/ DigitalGameBasedLearningI/40614.
12. Some students do not recognize the term course management systems, especially because institutions often give their CMS a local name. Therefore, this year the wording of the question was changed slightly to explain what is meant by a CMS. The question for
3.29 3.56 3.65 3.93 3.09 3.36 3.38 3.77 2.81 3.07 3.08 3.46 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
I get more actively involved in courses that use IT. The use of IT in my courses improves my learning. By the time I graduate, the IT I have used in my courses will have adequately prepared me for the workplace. IT makes doing my course activities more convenient.
Mean* Almost none or some instructors use IT effectively (N = 8,851) About half of instructors use IT effectively (N = 5,468) Most or almost all instructors use IT effectively (N = 11,431) Figure 5-14. Student Perceptions about IT in Courses, by Instructors’ Effective Use of IT in Courses
2005 through 2007 was of the format “Have you ever taken a course that used a course management system (e.g., ANGEL, WebCT, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle, Sakai, OnCourse, FirstClass)?” The question for 2008 was “Have you ever taken a course that used a course management system (CMS)? A CMS provides tools such as online syllabi, sample exams, and grade book (e.g., WebCT, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Sakai, or a campus-specific system).”
13. John Camp, Peter DeBlois, and others, “Current Issues Survey Report, 2007,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly
30, no. 2 (2007), http://educause.edu/apps/eq/ eqm07/ eqm0723.asp; EDUCAUSE Core Data Service, 2005 and 2006, http://www.educause .edu/coredata/ (finding was generated directly from the data available through the service); and Casey Green, Campus Computing 2006: The 17th National Survey of Computing and Information Technology in American Higher Education (Encino, CA: Campus Computing, 2006), 12.
14. Brian L. Hawkins and Julia A. Rudy, EDUCAUSE Core Data Service, Fiscal Year 2006 Summary Report (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, 2007), http://net .educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub8004.pdf. 15. Salaway and Caruso, ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, 2007, 70–1. 16. Ibid., 72–74.
17. Ibid., 85–88.
18. Peter Ewell and Jane Wellman, “Enhancing Student Success in Education: Summary Report of the NPEC Initiative and National Symposium on Postsecondary Stud ent Succes s,” ( N ational Pos t s e condar y Education Cooperative, 2007), http://www.cpec .ca.gov / CompleteReports / ExternalDocuments / NPEC_Ewell_Report.pdf.
19. ECAR explicitly acknowledges important limitations to our data and process, including real limits to the application of survey research and self-reported outcomes about learning and engagement; an unmeasured nonrespondent bias to the ECAR web-based survey coupled with a near certainty that web-based surveys are likely to result in somewhat inflated responses; and unresolved questions about the interplay between institutional action and student impact.
20. The National Sur vey of Student Engagement defines student engagement to mean student participation in course activities that are provided for their learning and personal development. See The National Survey of Student Engagement, “Engaged Learning: Fostering Success for All Students” ( NSSE, 2006), http: / /nsse.iub.edu / NSSE_2006_ Annual_Report /docs / NSSE_2006_ Annual_Report.pdf; and George D. Kuh, Jillian Kinzie, Jennifer A. Buckley, Brian K. Bridges, and John C. Hayek, What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature, Commissioned Report for the National Symposium of Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on St u d e n t S u c c e s s ( N a t i o n a l P o s t s e c o n d a r y Edu c at i o n Co m m is si o n, 20 0 6 ) , ht t p : / / n ce s .ed.gov / IPEDS/research /pdf/ Kuh_Team_Report .pdf. These themes are discussed and references provided throughout this paper.
21. Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek, What Matters to Student Success.
22. The 2005 through 2007 sur veys had several questions about different aspects of convenience, such asIT providing support for communication and collaboration, allowing prompt feedback from instructors, and helping students control course activities. These questions received similar responses, so in 2008 they were combined into one statement about convenience, “IT makes doing my course activities more convenient.”
23. In previous years’ studies, the GPA categories in the survey were numerical (for example, under 2.00 to 4.00, in increments of 0.25). Beginning in 2008, ECAR is using the more standard letters, A to C–, as shown in Table 3-2 of this study.
24. Project Tomorrow, “Speak Up 2007 for Students, Teachers, Parents & School Leaders: Selected National Findings—April 8, 2008,” http://www .tomorrow.org /docs / National%20Findings%20 Speak%20Up%202007.pdf.
25. Arthur Chickering, Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education, ed. Zelda Gamson (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991); and Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek, What Matters to Student Success.