2011
Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology
Final Report
Sponsor: Michael Taves, Executive Director, Information Technology Services,
Report Author: Marilyn Dispensa, Instructional Technology Coordinator, ITS
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...2
Executive Summary...3
I.
Introduction ...4
A. Background...4
B. Purpose ...4
C. Methodology...4
D. 2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology ...5
II. About the respondents ...6
A. Respondent Demographics ...6
B. Personal Technology Use [Q1]...7
C. Perceptions and Perspectives [Q2] [Q3] ...7
D. Technology Adoption [Q2,Q3] ...10
E.
Teaching Goals [Q5] ...13
F.
Motivations and Barriers [Q15, Q17] ...15
III.
Specific Technology Use and Priorities ...17
A. Usage of Technology in Courses [Q11] ...17
B. Technologies Respondents are Interested in Learning [Q19] ...18
C. Usage of Web-based Tools [Q10] ...19
D. Classroom Technologies [Q12] ...21
E.
Online Teaching [Q14] ...23
F.
Most Important Issues to Address [Q7] ...23
IV.
Technology Services and Support ...25
A. Awareness and use of ITS services [Q19] ...25
V. General Comments ...25
VI.
Conclusions and Future Directions...26
VII.
Bibliography ...27
VIII. Appendix ...28
Additional Data ...28
3
Executive Summary
The 2011 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology was sent out to 660 faculty members at Ithaca College in
March 2011 to assess the current use and perceptions of instructional technologies, their current and future
technology needs, and the barriers and motivators to using these technologies. There were a total of 223
responses indicating a response rate of 34% of all tenured, non-tenured and part time instructors. The survey was
designed to gather data to inform Information Technology Services and others on campus on how to best align
services and support in ways that will meet instructors’ teaching needs and technology preferences. A similar
survey was conducted in 2009. Respondents were classified into one of two groups based on their usage and
attitudes towards technology, the early adopter/early majority group and the late majority/reluctant group as
described in Section II-D. Some responses by the two groups were significantly different, indicating different use
patterns, attitudes, and support needs. Below are highlights from the survey results with more detail and analysis
in the body of this report.
Top 5 teaching goals ranked by importance (regardless of technology)
1. Making lectures more interactive and engaging 2. Demonstrating complex concepts
3. Giving prompt feedback
4. Addressing students diverse learning styles 5. Communicating with students outside of class
Top 5 motivators to using instructional technologies (ranked by degree of importance)
1. Enhance my ability to teach my material 2. Facilitate students’ access to course materials. 3. Address different learning styles and needs 4. Facilitate communication amongst students and
instructors 5. Save time
Top 5 barriers to using instructional technologies
1. Lack of time
2. Difficulty keeping up with changes with technology 3. Lack of personal technical skills
4. Lack of knowledge of how to effectively integrate technology into my teaching
5. Lack of financial support
Top 5 most frequently used technologies in courses (% who use it regularly & rarely)
1. Presentation technologies (72%) 2. Online access to student grades (55%)
3. Online assignment or homework collection (39%) 4. Online library resources (39%)
5. Audio or video production (23.6%)
Respondents who use web tools to provide access to course materials or activities
Yes (78.5%) No (15.2%)
Top 5 technologies respondents were most interested in learning about
1. Video and audio production (53.6%) 2. Online teaching (51.0%)
3. Narrated presentations or lectures (46.4 %) 4. Podcasting (42.3 %)
5. Electronic books (41.3%)
Top 5 web-based tools used (of those who answered YES to previous)
1. Blackboard 85.7%
2. IC Library web resources (33.1%) 3. Web site on Ithaca College server (27.4%)
4. Media-sharing site (YouTube, Flickr, iTunes etc) (25.1 %) 5. Web site on external web server (24.0 %)
Top 5 classroom technologies ranked by importance
1. Podium computer with projection 2. Traditional blackboard or whiteboard 3. Internet access during class
4. Single projection screen
5. Ability to request immediate technical assistance
Top 5 things for IC to address ranked by importance
1. Support for course management systems 2. Faculty development opportunities for effectively
integrating technology into courses
3. Technology project development and production assistance for faculty
4. Providing technology and support for producing and delivering audio and video content
5. Providing support for eClassrooms
Online Teaching
80.5% never taught an online class.
21.4 % Never taught but plan to teach online in the next year 19.5% Experience teaching one or more online classes
4
I.
Introduction
A.
Background
The range of ways the computer and other technologies are used in higher education varies widely and includes
such activities as managing classroom logistics and grades, presentation and office productivity, playing,
producing, and distributing media, communication, collaboration, imaging, animation, research and data analysis,
self-paced tutorials, drills, games, virtual worlds, and personal response systems. For the purposes of this survey,
the intentionally broad terms of instructional technology or instructional technologies, refer to any hardware or
software used by instructors and students in the service of teaching and learning. Arguably, these technologies
may enhance learning but can also help with logistics and communications, conveniences that should not be
discounted. The sponsor of this survey recognizes that more technology does not ensure efficient and effective
educational experiences for students as much as the learning environment created by excellent teachers, who may
choose to wisely integrate or not integrate technology. In order to better support instructors in their use of
instructional technologies this survey attempts to gather data on the use, needs, challenges, motivations and
aspirations of instructors at Ithaca College. A similar survey was given in 2009 and comparisons will be made as
appropriate.
B.
Purpose
The purpose of this survey is to provide ITS and others at Ithaca College information to make better decisions for
current and future technology support specifically as it applies to teaching and learning. The data collected may
be compared to prior and future surveys. Specific objectives are:
1. Assess faculty perceptions of instructional technology.
2. Identify barriers and motivators to incorporating instructional technologies in teaching and learning.
3. Assess current use of instructional technologies.
4. Assess faculty current needs and future aspirations related to instructional technologies.
5. Measure awareness and use of services, facilities, and support.
C.
Methodology
Survey Sample:
A list of 660 active, paid leave, and partial active employees whose primary role at IC is as a
faculty member as of 2/09/2011 were obtained from a query against the human resources (HR) information
system. Faculty with no email address recorded in Parnassus were dropped (n=15). Both the Ithaca and
Rochester campuses were included as were rehired retirees and emeriti. Gender, age, full time/part time status,
school, department, rank, and years of continuous service were imported from the HR information system into the
survey results. In the 2009, this information was reported by the respondents.
Survey Tool and Design:
Surveygizmo.com was used to develop and deliver the survey and collect the results.
Each member of the survey sample was sent a direct email with a link to the survey. Each link was unique to
prevent double submissions. Individuals had approximately two weeks to complete the survey. Two reminder
emails were sent to participants who had not yet completed their survey. Data from partially completed surveys
were eliminated. The survey had 20 questions. A copy of the survey instrument is located at
5
Survey response:
A total of 223 surveys were completed for a total response rate of 34%. A summary of this
information, is in Table I-a Survey sample and response by school. While the response rate varied between
schools the sample adequately represents the 5 schools.
Table I-a Survey sample and response by school. Primary School/Division # Total
Faculty Sampled % Total Sampled # Completed Surveys % of Total Completed Response Rate School of Business 38 5.8 10 4.5 26% School of Communications 63 9.5 20 9 32% School of HSHP 122 18.5 41 18.4 34% School of H&S 336 50.9 124 55.6 37% School of Music 101 15.3 28 12.6 28% Total 660 100% 223 100% 34%
Survey Analysis
: The Office of Institutional Research did the statistical analysis of the raw survey data using
SPSS.
D.
2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology
In the spring of 2009, the first Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology was sent to 285 faculty members (1/2)
of the entire faculty. This survey had a response rate of 52% (n=147). The 2011 Survey was intentionally similar
to allow for longitudinal analysis. Some questions and options were added and several flawed questions were
modified. The 2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology report and questions are located at the
following URL
http://www.ithaca.edu/its/services/iss/docs/facsurvey/
.
Actions taken by ITS as a result of the survey.
Below are some actions taken by ITS as a result of feedback from the 2009 Survey. In many cases the feedback
validated efforts already underway. This list does not include efforts from other units like the Center for Faculty
Excellence and the Library.
• Adoption of Sakai as an improvement over Blackboard as the campus course management system (CMS).
• One-on-one support for all users of student response system (clickers).
• Updates to the campus wired and wireless network.
• Continued attention to assistance with production and distribution of digital audio and video: e.g, the
Digital Media Series, and TLC workshops.
• Participation in the GOLD Faculty online teaching workshop.
• Continued support of iTunes U.
• Assistance with production of faculty media projects.
• Evaluation and selection of streaming video solution.
• Drop and run Classroom Tech Support
• TLC offering after hours workshops for students and drop-in hours for students.
• Creating of the CET recording room and the loaner podcasting kits.
6
II.
About the respondents
A.
Respondent Demographics
Primary school affiliation, age, school, and years of continuous service were reported from the HR database.
Results are reported in Figure II-a. Compared to the 2009 survey, these demographics did not change
significantly.
Figure II-a. Respondents by school, rank, age and years of service (n=223) Professor 19% Associate 30% A
ssistan
t 34% Instructor 3% Lecturer 14%Respondents by Rank
Business 4% Park 9% H&S 56% HSHP 18% Music 13%Respondents by School
20-29 3% 30-39 20% 40-49 29% 50-59 29% 60-69 19%Respondants by age
(years)
0 to 3 31% 4 to 9 22% 10 to 15 17% 16 to 20 5% 21 + yrs 25%Respondents by years
of continuous service at
IC
7
B.
Personal Technology Use [Q1]
To determine which technologies respondents use in their personal as well as professional lives, they were asked
to indicate how often (daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never) they used common technologies [Survey Question 1].
For easier visualization, the data was aggregated into two groups: “more than monthly” or “rarely or never.”
These results are shown in Figure II-b. A more detailed table of this data is in the Appendix, Table VIII-a.
Figure II-b. [Q1] Frequency of technology use. Users were asked to specify if they used these tools daily, weekly, monthly, rarely or never. Responses of daily, weekly and monthly were aggregated into the group, “more than monthly.”
* indicates the largest increase in usage since 2009.
Analysis
: Smart phone or PDA usage was at 44% of respondents who indicated they used it daily or weekly, up
from 15% in 2009. The use of Skype and other web conferencing tools nearly doubled since 2009. As usage and
comfort with technologies, especially emerging technologies, trickles into instructors’ daily lives, the potential for
integration into teaching and learning will increase.
C.
Perceptions and Perspectives [Q2] [Q3]
Perceptions about technologies [Q2]
Respondents were asked to choose whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements demonstrating
their perceptions of technology [Survey Question 2]. The results are shown in Table II-a.
5% 13% 19% 28% 30% 44% 50% 50% 54% 61% 79% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Gaming or virtual worlds (e.g., WoW, SecondLife)
Remote Access (e.g. TeamViewer, GoToMyPC, … RSS Aggregator/Reader (e.g., Bloglines, Google … Instant Messaging (e.g., AIM, Google Chat) Multimedia editing software (e.g., iMovie, Final …
Smart phone or PDA (e.g. Blackberry, iPhone, … Voice over IP / Web Conferencing (e.g. Skype, … Communication and collaboration tools (e.g., … Social networking mp3 player (e.g. iPod, Zune) Media sharing sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr) Email
Percentage (n=216-223)
Q1. Frequency of technology use by
respondents (professional or personal)
More than monthly Rarely or never
2009 96 % 71 57 46 47 27* 15* 31 24 20 n/a 4
8
Table II-a. [Q2] Perceptions of technologies (n=217-221). % respondents agree/disagree with following statements. The questions in shaded rows lean towards comfort with technology, while those in unshaded rows lean towards discomfort with technology.Perceptions about Technologies
Statements
5 Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagreeAVG
It is important to integrate technologies with traditional
teaching methods. 51 34 12 2 1 4.3
I select and use appropriate technologies that are particularly
suited to my course learning outcomes. 46 45 7 1 0 4.3
The use of technologies in my courses increases student
achievement and retention. 28 34 32 5 2 3.8
I would like to use technology more effectively in my teaching. 31 46 21 1 1 4.1
I use little or no technology in my course, but wish to in the
future. 2 14 21 31 31 2.2
Technology isn't particularly valuable in teaching my
discipline. 1 6 10 40 44 1.8
I generally do NOT need assistance or support when using
new technologies. 9 27 20 35 11 2.9
I am generally uncomfortable with new technologies. 5 17 18 32 28 2.4
Analysis:
Generally the results show that 86% of respondents have a positive view of technology as having some
useful role in teaching. Sixteen percent of respondents report using little or no technology in their courses and
only 6 % agree that technology isn’t valuable in their discipline. About 22% report being uncomfortable with
new technologies and 46% indicated they still need some assistance when using new technologies. Since most
people have a positive view of technology but still a significant minority identifies themselves not being
comfortable, instructional technology support efforts should make sure that these needs are addressed. The
responses were similar to those in the 2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology.
Perceptions about students [Q3]
Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with several statements about their students and technology [Survey
Question 3]. The results are shown in Table II-b and Table II-c.
Table II-b. [Q3] Perceptions of students. Percent of respondents who agree/disagree with the listed statements
Statement 5 Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree Don't know
My students have the technology skills
needed to succeed in my courses. 21.6 47.7 18.5 7.7 2.3 2.3 My students have adequate access to
hardware and software. 16.4 49.5 16.4 9.1 0.0 8.6 My students have adequate network access. 17.7 47.7 13.2 7.7 5.0 8.6 I spend too much class time teaching
technology to my students. 1.4 5.5 17.7 46.8 26.4 2.3
Analysis
: 10 % of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “My students have the
technology skills needed to succeed in my courses”, up from 5% in 2009. 12.7% disagreed that students had
adequate network resources. These results suggest that the majority of faculty do not seem to find students having
deficient technology skills or access to technology. Most answers to these questions weren’t substantially
9
Table II-c. [Q3] Perceptions of students by adopter grouping. Respondents were designated as in an early adopter/majority group or a late majority/reluctant group. This table reports the percent of each group who disagrees or strongly disagrees with the statement.Statements About Students Skills and Needs % disagree + strongly disagree Early adopter
group
Late adopter group My students have the technology skills needed to succeed in my courses. 12 7 My students have adequate access to hardware and software. 10 8
My students have adequate network access. 18 6
I spend too much class time teaching technology to my students. 66 82
Analysis
: When these data were broken out by technology adoption grouping there was a difference between
early adopters/early majority and late majority/reluctant. The early adopter group was three times more likely to
disagree with the statement that students have adequate network access than the late adopter group. The data in
Table II-c indicate that those respondents in the early adopter/majority group believe their students are less
skilled and have less access to technology than their counterparts in the late majority/reluctant group. See Section
II.D for a discussion of technology adoption.
Selected open text responses
[Q]. See the Appendix for all responses.
Comments on students’ needs, skills or access to technology.
My students regularly complain that there aren't enough computer labs available regularly, since classes take place in so many of them. While some have laptops, others have to rely on campus-owned computers… As coordinator of the Ithaca Seminar I know that students have a lot of trouble with reliable and speedywireless in the dorms. If I were them I would think was unacceptable. They need Library home page and its various databases.
They are very technologically savvy in TV-R
Students have too much access to network access. Texting and using their smartphones in class is a huge problem. It would be nice if classrooms didn't have access to wireless networks.
I need a classroom where students have access as a group to digital communication periodically. It would also be very helpful to have classrooms that were set up for video conferences. I have to spend too much time trying to set up situations to meet my pedagogical needs.
Considering they are the computer generation, their innate software abilities are not that high except for their social networking. There are many exceptions, but overall they need more assistance than I expect, especially with clunky software like Blackboard. Our slow server is a great hindrance to classroom technology and learning outcomes. We need a faster server NOW.
I think students are pretty savvy about technology, but not necessary schooled in appropriate use, implications and responsibility of using tech.
I find that students are selectively knowledgeable about technology, but then, so am I, so we often teach each other. What I'm really interested in is going beyond looking at web sites and YouTube videos. I've tried having students set up wikis twice, but to my disappointment, most students did a half-hearted job, or worse. I also discovered that there are still some students who are technologically quite illiterate--not only can't they use the software, they don’t understand how computers "think." My experience also has been that students are not all that keen to use technology all the time in their courses.
10
D.
Technology Adoption [Q2,Q3]
Rogers (1983) addressed faculty willingness to adopt new techniques in teaching and learning. He identified five
categories of adopters distributed along a bell curve: Innovators (3), Early Adopters (14), Early Majority (34),
Late Majority (34), and Reluctant (Laggards) (16).
Geoghegan (1994) expanded Rogers’ framework to the
adoption of technology, distinguishing innovators as those
eager to use technology in teaching, early adopters as those
interested enough to try using technology, the majority
requiring more incentive and support to venture into use of
technology, and reluctant who refuse to use technology.
Figure II-c Adapted from Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of InnovationsIn order to assign respondents to these categories, two questions were used from the survey to measure
respondents’ use and attitudes about technology: In Survey Question 1 users were asked to indicate the frequency
they used certain technologies either personally or professionally (daily, weekly, monthly, rarely or never). For
each response as a score was given of 5,4,3,2, and 1, respectively. In Survey Question 2 users were asked to
indicate if they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements designed to measure attitudes about technology.
See Table II-a (above) for these results. Similar point scores were given to each of these questions. These two
scores were added together compute to a possible score of between 21-95 with the higher scores being more
frequent users and more comfortable with these technologies and the lower scores being less frequent users and
less comfortable. The author makes no judgment that one group is superior at teaching over the other.
Results
: The scores assigned to individual respondents ranged from 32-87 with a mean total score of 58. The
distribution of scores is shown in Figure II-d.
11
Figure II-d. Technology adoption profile for IC faculty (n=223).Analysis: As in the 2009 survey, the respondents of this survey showed a close to a normal distribution of number
of faculty and their “technology adoption” score, similar to Roger’s adoption curve. The scoring system was
identical between 2009 and 2011 so that trends could be observed. In order to simplify the analysis the faculty
were grouped into two groups, instead of Roger’s five. Those with an adopter score of 57 or above, were
categorized in the early adopter/early majority group,
while those with a score of less than 57 were categorized
in the late majority/reluctant group. Throughout the rest
of this report, results may be analyzed by the Early
Adopter and Late Adopter groups. From 2009-2011, the
median shifted from 54.5 to 58, which could be explained
by users have more time to adopt the technologies and
perhaps a shift in faculty demographics.
Figure II-e shows the adoption groupings from the 2009
and 2011 surveys. There is a significant increase in those
who fall into the early adopter category. The two groups
have quite different skills and attitudes towards
technologies and it is likely that the support needs and
aspirations would vary accordingly.
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N um be r o f F ac ul ty
Distribution of total score for all items in questions 1 and 2 (possible scores 21 -95)
2011 Technology Adoption Score for IC faculty
2011 median
score = 58
2009 median
score = 54.5
increasing use, comfort and positive perception of technology
Early
Adopter
44.2%
Early
Adopter
55.6%
Late
Adopter
55.8%
Late
adopter
44.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%2009
2011
Early adopter-early majority (score = 57+) Late adopter-late majority (score <57)
Technology Adoption Groupings
2009 (n=147) vs 2011 (n=223)
Figure II-e. Technology adoption groupings 2009 & 2011 Faculty Instructional Technology Surveys
12
Technology adoption and relationship to other factors
As in the 2009 survey, there were some significant differences in many of the questions in this survey based on
the respondents’ technology adoption profile. Significant differences were defined by having a level of > 0.05 on
Levene’s (1960) Test for the Equality of Variances. Table II-d shows for each age range the percent adoption
category. Figure II-f shows that for each adopter grouping, the percentage belonging to each age range.
Table II-d. Percent of each age range that falls into the two technology adoption groupings.Age Groupings Adopter grouping 20-29 n=6 30-39 n=45 40-49 n=65 50-59 n=64 60-69 n=43
Early adopter/early majority 100% 71% 55% 45% 49%
Late majority/reluctant 0% 29% 45% 55% 51%
Figure II-f. Percent of each technology adoption grouping by age ranges.
Analysis:
In general, the younger faculty members are more likely to be in the “early adopter” group as defined in
this report. However, in the age 60-69 group the split between early adopter and late adopter groupings is nearly
50/50 as seen in Table II-d. There will likely be “new” technologies to adopt so the measure is likely to change
over time. This report highlights some but not all of the significant differences in the results of the survey based
on technology adoption.
Technology adoption by school was compared as shown in Figure II-g. Business and Park Communications had
a larger proportion of early adopters/early majority than the other schools although the difference is not
significant.
20-29 4.8 % 30-39 25.8 % 30-39 13.1 % 40-49 29.0 % 40-49 29.3 % 50-59 23.4 % 50-59 35.4 % 60-69 16.9 % 60-69 22.2 % 0% 100% % o f t ot al p er a do pt io n g ro up in g% Age Range in Each Adopter Grouping
Early adopter/
Late majority/
reluctant
13
Figure II-g. Percent in each technology adoption group per school.E.
Teaching Goals [Q5]
Recognizing that the effective use of technology is related to how it can help instructors achieve their teaching
goals, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a list of such goals regardless of technology [Survey
Question 5]. This list of teaching goals was the same as in the 2009 survey and drawn loosely from Chickering
and Gamson (1987)
as well as from instructional technology surveys from other institutions. See Table II-e for a
summary of the results. Respondents were also given the opportunity to leave open text responses [Question 6]
about how technology helped them achieve their teaching goals. Significant differences based on adopter
category were seen in several cases.
70%
70%
56%
44%
54%
30%
30%
44%
56%
46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Business Communications H&S HSHP Music% of total respondondents per school in each adopter category
Technology adoption by school
early adopter/majority
late adopter majority
14
Table II-e. [Q5] Mean importance of teaching goals with breakdown by adopter grouping. *Significant differences are bolded. 0 = Not important, 1=Slightly important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Very important. List is sorted by mean importance.Goal statement mean importance (0-3) Early adopter/early majority Late majority/ reluctant
Making lectures more interactive and engaging 2.59 2.65 2.52 Demonstrating complex concepts 2.38 2.47 2.27
Giving prompt feedback 2.36 2.52* 2.15*
Addressing students' diverse learning styles 2.35 2.42 2.25 Communicating with students outside of class 2.34 2.47* 2.18*
Managing class logistics (e.g., attendence,grades) 2.26 2.45* 2.02*
Focusing students on real world problems or tasks 2.25 2.32 2.16 Ensuring 24/7 access course materials for students 2.17 2.37* 1.93*
Providing students with practice or reinforcement of learning outcomes
2.14 2.28* 1.97*
Facilitating student collaboration outside of class 1.84 1.95 1.69 Using alternatives to traditional assessment 1.76 1.98* 1.46*
Providing connections with outside experts or community 1.61 1.72 1.47 Providing an engaging online component to face-to-face courses 1.44 1.72* 1.09*
Creating a virtual or simulated experience 1.23 1.35 1.09
Analysis:
Nine out of thirteen of the listed goals had mean importance scores over 2.0, indicating that most users
considered these goals to be somewhat to very important. There is no clear explanation for why the respondents
in the early adopter category rated all the goals higher than those in the later adopter group. Providing faculty
development opportunities to address these goals, with or without technology, would likely be beneficial.
Selected open text responses [Q6]. See the
Appendix
for all open text responses.
Provide examples of how technology has helped you achieve your teaching goals
Ability to supply multiple representations of quantitative data. Ability for students to explore mathematical relationships to make conjectures or experience real-time effects of parameters.
At this point, I only use technology to facilitate my communication with students. I would be interested in learning more possibilities. Videotaping of Student Performances for their self-critiques
My teaching goals are simple and don't require tech: teach IC students that IC is not a production house, an employment agency, or a place for "hands on." These students devalue reading and studying...in fact, they don't even know what it takes to study for an exam....
I have used Blackboard to give daily low stakes assignments, which has helped students in introductory classes be more successful.
… I use Discussion Boards as a space for students to record the results of in-class activities, both to share with each other and to allow me to evaluate participation….
15
F.
Motivations and Barriers [Q15, Q17]
From a list of common motivations and barriers reported from several other schools’ surveys on instructional
technologies, respondents were asked to rate the degree each was a barrier or motivator on the scale: 0=not a
motivator (or barrier), 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree [Survey Questions 15 & 17]. The
mean scores for motivators are reported in Table II-f and for barriers, in Table II-g. Results were broken out by
technology adoption grouping. There was also an opportunity to add open text comments [Questions 16, 18].
Table II-f. [Q15] Motivators to using instructional technologies. Mean Score (0=not a motivator 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree). Mean Early and Mean Late refer to means broken out by adopter grouping. Significant differences between early and late groups are indicated in bold and with and *.Motivators to using instructional technologies n Mean All Mean Early
Mean Late
enhance my ability to teach my material 213 2.61 *2.71 *2.47
facilitate students’ access to course materials 216 2.57 *2.69 *2.41
address different learning styles and needs 210 2.22 2.30 2.10
facilitate communication amongst students and instructors 213 2.22 *2.40 *1.98
save time 207 2.16 *2.33 *1.93
enhance the quality work from students 209 2.13 *2.31 *1.89
manage courses with large enrollments 162 1.88 1.88 1.89
expose students to the technology needed for future employment
198 1.66 *1.85 *1.38
respond to expectation of students for technology in their courses
203 1.61 *1.79 *1.36
personal enjoyment 202 1.58 *1.87 *1.17
reduce cost of education for students 177 1.28 1.33 1.20
reach students who can’t come to campus 183 1.07 *1.31 *0.72
grants or awards 171 0.57 0.63 0.49
recognition from my peers 183 0.54 0.57 .049
Highlights from open ended comments on motivators [Q16]. See Appendix for all responses.
•
Class sizes are growing and I've been exploring new ways to keep the class engaged.• I have taught hybrid online courses at another institution. It was great. • I use what makes sense for my material
• It's the 21st Century. Those (and more advanced) technologies await students when they graduate • … makes life easier...should facilitate my working from home or anywhere…
Analysis:
The statements with a mean value over 2.0 indicate that most users are motivated to use instructional
technologies to a moderate or high degree by this factor. Not surprisingly, the mean score for many of the
motivators was higher for respondents in the early adopter group as compared with the late adopter group. These
results suggest that technologies and that address these motivators may be more readily adopted by instructors.
Compared to the survey results from the 2009 survey, the ranking of motivators changed only slightly. There
were some significant differences between the early adopter and late adopter groups.
16
Table II-g. [Q17] Barriers/challenges to using instructional technologies. Mean score (0=not a barrier 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree). Mean Early and Mean Late refer to means broken out by adopter grouping. Significant differences between early and late groupings are indicated with an *.Challenge/barriers n Mean score (0-3)
Mean All Early Adopter Late Adopter lack of time 210 2.12 2.03 2.26
difficulty keeping up with changes with technology 209 1.79 *1.63 *2.01
lack of personal technical skills 211 1.40 *1.11 *1.80
lack of knowledge of how to effectively integrate technology into my teaching
208 1.40 *1.14 *1.75
lack of financial support 203 1.38 1.46 1.26
unreliability of technology 201 1.28 1.30 1.25
lack of models or examples of effective uses of technology 203 1.18 *1.04 *1.39
lack of technical support 205 1.16 1.24 1.05
lack of access to technology enhanced labs or classrooms 202 1.13 1.14 1.12
lack of the students’ technical skills 201 0.88 0.94 0.79
copyright or intellectual property issues 197 0.79 0.79 0.78
lack of rewards or incentives for tenure 160 0.78 0.80 0.76
inadequate student access to technology 197 0.74 0.83 .063
Highlights from open ended comments on barriers [Q18] (See Appendix for all responses):
Accessibility and reimbursement for training for part-time lecturers. Computer labs in park comm. have very limited hours…
I am a technophobe--I have to devote a lot of energy to overcoming my aversion to learning new technologies before I will actually sit down and start to learn.
I don't know how I would apply some of these technologies to the teaching of chemistry. I would love to use the clickers - but can't justify $50.00 cost to students. … There needs to be
accommodation for those of us who want a more simplified (and cheaper) version for our students. Internet on campus is just too slow, blocks certain high end websites....if we had SMALLER class sizes and
LESS preps, I'd investigate learning more technologies… we teach over 120 students a term....so there is no incentive to experiment....you can barely keep up with grading much less innovating.
Just takes too much time. Keep having to change things from platforms, such as from WebCT to blackboard. Just don't have time for that.
Would be nice to see more of what other instructors are doing so we're not all out there reinventing the wheel on this. For example, have organized sharing sessions on resources, tips, etc.
… The second barrier professionally is the technology failing. That makes me feel so unprofessional when I cannot get access to the web to show a video, or when the projector doesn't work (can't get the video to show on the screen). The third barrier is the students themselves, the ones who text during class or surf the web and watch youtube videos while I am speaking.Analysis.
Lack of time was the most significant barrier to using instructional technologies. Small or moderate
barriers include difficulty keeping up with changes with technology, lack of personal skills, lack of technical or
financial support and lack of model examples of how to effectively integrate technologies in teaching. ITS,
17
Center for Faculty Excellence (CFE), the Library can all play a role in lowering these barriers. There are
significant differences between early adopters/early majority and late adopters/reluctant groups for what motivates
and challenges them. We must be cognizant of these differences when planning support and services.
III. Specific Technology Use and Priorities
A.
Usage of Technology in Courses [Q11]
Survey Question 11 asked respondents to indicate the frequency they use specific technologies in courses
(regularly, rarely, never). These technologies were chosen because they are widely used in higher education and
were used as examples in surveys from other institutions. In the 2009 survey, this question used a different scale
so a direct comparison was not possible however the relative rank is similar to the 2011 data. These results are
indicated in Figure III-a. See the Appendix Figure VIII-a and Figure VIII-b for detailed results broken down
by adopter grouping. In nearly all cases, frequency of use of these technologies was higher in the early
adopter/early majority group than in the late majority/reluctant group. Accordingly, the frequency of those who
indicated they never used each of the listed technologies was always higher in the late majority/reluctant group.
Figure III-a. [Q11] Frequency of technology use in the classroom. Respondents were asked to indicate usage as “regularly, rarely, or never” which is reported as a percentage of total responses for that technology.
Analysis
: Presentation technologies and online assignment collection and access to student grades were the most
frequently used technologies. These technologies have become common place and seem accessible to most
2% 5% 5% 6% 6% 8% 8% 12% 15% 17% 19% 23% 39% 48% 55% 72% 18% 12% 16% 6% 12% 13% 19% 14% 21% 15% 24% 25% 31% 29% 16% 15% 80% 83% 79% 88% 82% 79% 73% 74% 65% 68% 57% 52% 30% 24% 30% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Synchronous online chatrooms or instant messaging
Podcasting Video conferencing with remote expert/participants Clickers (i.e. audience response system) Simulations or games Digital image collections (e.g. Artstor): Blogs or online journaling Wikis (e.g. Google Sites, Wikispaces, WebPaint) Online quizzes Posting online lectures (e.g narrated slide show) Asynchronous class discussion (e.g., discussion …
Audio or video production Online library resources (including e-reserves) or Online assignment or homework collection Online access to student grades Presentation technologies (e.g., Powerpoint, Keynote)
% Respondents who reported using Regularly, Rarely, Never
Q11.Frequency of Technology usage in Courses
18
respondents. However, attention should be paid to the other technologies that reported less frequent or no usage.
Some of these technologies may be effectively used but instructors may not have the awareness or skills to use
them. Learning opportunities that raise awareness, provide examples, and skill training should be considered.
Since there is a marked difference in the use of these technologies between the different adopter groups varied
approaches should be considered.
B.
Technologies Respondents are Interested in Learning [Q19]
Respondents were asked which technologies they were interested in learning more about [Survey Question 19].
They could check one or more of the options. Most of the choices were the same as the 2009 survey with added
topics that include clickers, electronic books, augmented reality, online teaching and data visualization. The
question was worded differently in 2009 so a direct comparison cannot be made. Results were reported for all
respondents and by technology adoption grouping. Results are shown in Table III-a.
Table III-a. [Q19] Interest in learning new technologies. Respondents were asked to indicate which technologies they were interested in learning about [n=223]. The results are ranked by % of all respondents and ranked by adopter grouping..
Instructional technology
% respondents indicating interest in learning
All Early adopter group
Late adopter
group
video and audio production 53.6 55.0 51.8
online teaching 51.0 57.7 42.4
narrated presentations or lectures 46.4 44.1 49.4
podcasting 42.3 47.7 35.3
electronic books 41.3 47.7 32.9
online collaboration 38.8 45.9 29.4
synchronous audio or video conferencing 38.3 44.1 30.6 online collaboration tools 32.7 42.3 20.0 blogs or online journaling 32.1 32.4 31.8 lecture capture/delivery software 30.1 30.6 29.4 in-class voting or Personal Response System clickers 27.6 24.3 31.8
games or simulations 18.9 19.8 17.6
data visualization 18.9 20.7 16.5
mobile learning 15.3 21.6 7.1
social networking 11.7 15.3 7.1
augmented reality 10.2 11.7 8.2
multi-user virtual environments 9.7 10.8 8.2
19
Open text answers identifying what technologies respondents are interested in learning about:
new Powerpoint type system embedding video in Powerpoint Powerpoint
mapping software
stereography, 3d production, robotics for entertainment
telegraph, space travel, nanostudents [lol]
Smartboard
creation of websites for curricular resources and development Asynchronous video response capabilities
access to itunes library in the classroom music editing,
podcasting
Adobe illustrator, Photoshop -the whole adobe suite of tools for graphic design on line survey creation
use of sound effects
Analysis:
These results suggest that the college should support efforts to raise awareness of these technologies,
conduct trainings, and share best practices and examples by other faculty members. Many of the technologies
respondents are interested in learning more about were on the 2009 survey as well. There have been number of
workshops and discussions addressing mobile learning, online learning, creating narrated Powerpoint
presentations in response to those results.
C.
Usage of Web-based Tools [Q10]
Respondents were asked if they currently provided access to course materials or activities via web-based tools
[Survey Question10]. The same question was asked in the 2009 survey. See Figure III-b for the results for all
respondents and broken out by early or late adopter grouping. The percentage of respondents who use web tools
in their courses was 78.5%, up from 70 % in 2009. When broken down by adopter grouping, 86.2% of the early
adopter group uses web tools (up from 83.1 % in 2009) and 68.7 % of the late majority/reluctant group uses web
tools (up from 58.5 % in 2009).
In order to determine which web tools were used, a follow up question was directed to those with a “yes”
response [Survey Question 10]. Users were allowed to check one or more options and enter open text. Results are
shown in Figure III-c. Technologies listed were the same as in the 2009 survey except that Twitter
(microblogging) was added as an option. Sakai was not available at the time the survey was given so was not
included. The breakdown by technology adoption grouping was collected but the data is not shown in this report.
In most cases technologies showed higher percentage of use by the early adopter/majority adopter group vs. the
late majority/reluctant adopter groups.
20
Figure III-b. [Q10] Percent of respondents who use web-based tools in courses. Yes/no results shown for all respondents and for the early adopter/majority group and late adopter/reluctant group.Figure III-c. [Q10] Web-based tool usage. Respondents could check one or more web-based tools (percent of total users who reported using any web-based tool).
Yes
86.3%
78.5%
Yes
Yes
68.7%
8.9%
No15.2%
No
23.2%
4.8% 6.3% 8.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%early adopter/majority All respondents Late adopter/reluctant Adopter classification
[Q10] % Respondents who use web tools for
course materials or activities
NA No Yes 2.9% 10.3% 10.3% 12.6% 13.7% 17.1% 24.0% 25.1% 27.4% 33.1% 85.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Microblogging (e.g. Twitter)
Social networking site (i.e. Facebook) Wiki (e.g. Google Sites, Wikispaces) Blog or wiki Web Profile Manager Online document sharing tools (Microsoft Office …
Web site on external web server. Youtube, Flickr, iTunes, or other media-sharing site. Web site on Ithaca College web server. IC Library Web resources Blackboard
% of respondents who report using listed tools
21
Open text responses:
Other web technologies used were:
CVS (concurrent versioning system) File server space
Dedicated database server Email, Google forms Taking it Global platform iDisk
iTunes U Dropbox.com
Self-made course management system Publisher electronic workbook University of Washington Catalyst Powerpoint
Sites related to language learning Voicethread.
Analysis: 78.5 of respondents reported using a web-based tool to deliver course materials or activities and of
those, 85.7% used Blackboard. These results indicate that a majority of instructors use the web, and if they fall in
the early adopter/majority group, that number goes up significantly. However, since 2009, there was only a 3 %
increase in usage of web tools among those in the early adopter group but a 10% increase in the late adopter
group. This behavior is expected if one subscribes to Roger’s (1983) diffusion of innovation. Many users use web
tools besides Blackboard and it is likely this number will increase in the future as the number of free, easy-to-use
“cloud” computing resources increases. This suggests that there should still be robust support for a centralized
CMS and awareness of other web-based tools.
D.
Classroom Technologies [Q12]
Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various classroom technologies in their face-to-face
teaching using a scale of 0 (not important) to 3 (very important) in Survey Question 12. The choices were the
same as in the 2009 survey. Mean scores for all respondents are reported in Figure III-d.
22
Figure III-d. [q12] Importance of various classroom technologies. Respondents were asked to report the importance on the following scale: 0=not important, 1= slightly important, 2=somewhat important, 3 = very important. E and L indicate the mean scores of the early adopter/majority and late majority/reluctant groups and are only indicated if differences are significant.Open text responses [Q13]. Summary of selected comments regarding
• A flexible setup where each student has computer access but can also collaborate with others in a group • Having a faster network and having machines that do not take one or two minutes to wake up from sleep. • Audio/video recording system to record student presentations/performances
• Better multiscreen, multiprojector arrangements
• Working and ready to use doc cameras are great but rarely available
• Wireless in the class is double-edged. Students can use computer to take notes and even look up things, but it's a Distraction to their neighbors especially when they are checking sports scores or chatting with FB friends. • It would be great to have the option of turning off the wi-fi in a large lecture hall (textor, park etc). • WHITEBOARDS AND CHALKBOARDS... YES, the old fashioned stuff works the best.
• Virtual conferencing equipment
• Programs like flash and itunes are regularly out of date and when needed take time out of class to run updates. 2.70 2.68 2.65 2.58 2.39 2.36 2.24 1.89 1.76 1.54 1.38 1.30 1.28 1.25 0.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
podium computer with projection
traditional blackboard or whiteboard
internet access during class
single projection screen
ability to request immediate technical …
presentation software
DVD player
wireless internet access
analog projection
labs (each student has a computer)
VHS player
sympodium monitor
multiple projection screens
electronic whiteboard or smart board
Personal Response System (clickers)
Mean scores ranked from most to least Important for all respondents
0=not important, 1= slightly important, 2=somewhat important, 3 = very important
[Q12] Importance of classroom technologies for F2F
teaching
E= 2.09 L=1.63
E=1.78. L=1.19 E=1.19, L=1.60
E=1.50, L=1.00
E=mean of early adopter group, L = Mean importance of late adopter group
E=1.54, L=0.9723
• The PCs in networked classrooms are extremely slow when it comes to startup. I waste a lot of class time waiting forstudents to be able to log in and get started on whatever online activity I'd like them to complete, which is frustrating.
Analysis.
From the data and comments, it is clear that respondents want a robust, fast classroom technology
environment. Departments and ITS should continue to have a high emphasis on network connectivity, good
projection, and quality sound. It also appears more people want ability to show something on a screen as well
as be able to write on a whiteboard or blackboard.
E.
Online Teaching [Q14]
Online teaching is on the rise as an instructional delivery method. A new question on online learning was included
in the 2011. Results are shown in Table III-b.
Table III-b. [Q14] Online teaching experience. Choices are indicated and only one could be selected.
% respondents What experience do you have teaching
completely online courses at IC or elsewhere?
All Early Late
I've never taught online and don't plan to 59.1 50.8 69.5 I've never taught online and probably will in the next year 21.4 22.5 20.0
I've taught 1 or 2 online courses 10.7 15.0 5.3 I've taught 3 or more online courses 8.8 11.7 5.3
Analysis. Eighty percent of respondents have never taught on line but 21% of those plan to in the next year.
About 20 % have taught online before, nearly 9% of those had taught 3 or more courses. Ithaca College is
primarily a residential, undergraduate school so it is expected that a large majority of the faculty do not have
online teaching experience. The IC 20/20 vision suggests that online teaching will increase. If faculty are
expected to or want to teach online, there should be increased efforts to support this in the faculty development
arena and in instructional support services in ITS.
F.
Most Important Issues to Address [Q7]
In Survey Question 7 respondents were asked to indicate which topics were important for IC to address using a
scale of 0 - not important, 1 - slightly important, 2 - somewhat important, 3 - very important. Questions were the
same as in the 2009 survey with the addition of: “Options for sharing large files” and “Support for online
teaching”. Mean scores are shown in Figure III-e. Results were broken out by technology adoption grouping
when significant differences were observed.
24
Figure III-e Importance of issues for IC to address. Mean scores on a scale of 0 – 3. E = mean importance from early adopter/early majority group and L= mean importance from late majority/reluctant group. Don’t know responses were dropped from score calculations.Analysis:
Attention to issues with an importance score over 2.0 (somewhat to very important) should be
prioritized. These results validate expanded support efforts and investigation in the areas of course management
systems, video and audio, eClassrooms and online teaching.
Open Text Response Highlights [Q8]
For all responses see Appendix:
Video conferencing facilities are at the top of my list.
Being able to upload videos of students' performances to something like Blackboard so that students can access them.
Being sure eclassroom are capable of handling the variety of multimedia materials typically used (e.g. video on powerpoint, etc.) for both mac and pc. Media often does not work
I need classrooms where students can collaborate, have group access to technology, and also have individual access to technology... and I need it for every class period!
Technology classrooms is now essential and some rooms have inadequate technology, e.g., Textor rooms have dim bulbs. Photos are projected too dark.
Working mac and pc platform in each classroom. Takes 5 minutes load windows. 1.46 1.85 1.88 2.03* 2.07* 2.19 2.30 2.33* 2.35 2.45* 2.57 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Lecture capture technology (i.e. Help recording your
class)
Installing and maintaining online communication and collaboration tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, chat) Video/web conferencing support and technologies
Support for online teaching Incentives to promote the use of instructional technology in teaching (e.g., release time, … Options for sharing large files (e.g. datasets, video,
audio)
Support for eClassrooms Technology and support for producing and delivering
audio and video
Development and production assistance for faculty technology projects
Faculty development opportunities for effectively integrating technology into courses Support for course management systems (e.g.
Blackboard, Sakai)
Mean scores ranked from most to least important (n=217 to 221) 0=Not important, 1= slightly important 2=somewhat important 3= very important
Means with significant differences are indicated with an*
2011 Q 7 Importance for IC to address
E =2.54, L=2.34
E=2.43
,
L=2.19
E =2.24, L=1.85
E=2.16, L=1.86
25
IV. Technology Services and Support
A.
Awareness and use of ITS services [Q19]
Respondents were asked to indicate which ITS services they were aware of and/or used. The same questions were
asked in 2009 however, it is difficult to compare results because of differences in question format. The results
were not reported by technology adoption grouping. Results are reported in Table IV-a.
Table IV-a [Q20] Awareness and use of ITS services n=223. 6-10% of questions had no response and were not included
% Aware of % Used
ITS SERVICE AREA yes no yes no
ITS Helpdesk 93.3 0.4 92.8 3.1
ITS web site 87.4 6.3 80.7 13.9
Instructional Support Services (including Blackboard support)
86.5 6.3 65.9 27.4
Web Profile Manager (incl. Faculty Profiles and ePortfolios for students
82.5 10.8 62.3 30.0
Classroom Technology Support (eClassroom support)
82.1 13.0 61.0 29.6
Technology Learning Center Workshops (training in Friends 101)
82.1 10.8 55.6 38.6
Center for Educational Technology (faculty technology support lab in job102)
78.5 15.2 49.3 45.7
Quick Guides (user documentation) 72.6 21.1 65.9 25.1
iTunes U (podcasting & audio/video hosting) 69.5 25.1 13.5 76.2
Digital Media Services 64.6 29.1 38.1 52.9
Analysis
: Over 92 % of users were aware of and used the ITS Helpdesk. Over 72% of users were aware of most
other services listed except for Digital Media Services (DMS)and iTunes U. Awareness of iTunes U increased by
28 % since 2009 but DMS awareness increased by less than 5%. While both services have a specialized focus
more promotion of services would likely increase awareness.
V.
General Comments
Selected open text responses general comments [Q21]. See the Appendix for all text responses.
Although I have never taught an online course and have no plans to do so in the next year, I would like to learn how to do that. Thank you for this very thorough survey. I would really like to take greater advantage of technology support and information to be a more effective teacher in the 21st century. The most important help would be technological support for new and emerging technologies that have not been deployed on campus yet.
Honestly, I don't even know what some of the technology mentioned even refers to. For me there just doesn't seem to be enough time to investigate these technologies, let alone work with them enough to become proficient. More help of a rudimentary nature would be very much appreciated. I know that I am not alone in this.
I think I assume students are much more technologically savvy on average than they actually are. Some of them feel that it is "extra" work. I am a heavy user of social media and other forms of technology so enjoy incorporating them in my class. I still battle the war between using technology for enhancing learning and having students be distracted
26
by it. I would love to collaborate, discuss, share with other staff and faculty to know how to harness technology for "good." I believe ITS offers excellent support--my challenge has been in being able to be on campus to make use of the support. Opportunities for distance learning, whether individual coaching or small group seminars, would be particularly helpful, since I have a long commute!
The ITS Website is very hard to navigate. Web profile manager needs updating to better manage documents. The current system makes it unusable for instructional support.
Efforts to make Endnote available to all faculty have not been successful. This is frustrating given that faculty must do research and publish, and this is a critical time-saving software to help with this.
Workshops can be good, but everyone I've been to has been so basic that it has not been helpful. I'd like more advanced workshops/meetings/conversations that help me and my colleagues.
VI. Conclusions and Future Directions
This report discussed the key results of the survey with some implications of those results. More discussions and
planning are needed to address the issues raised by this survey. The changing demographics of instructors has
significant implications for evolving support efforts in the future. Open text comments and suggestions will be
given particular consideration. Here is a summary of the conclusions:
Results indicate Suggested actions
Technology sometimes distracts from learning and traditional reading, writing, and critical analysis is preferable to overuse of technology.
Opportunities should be constructed to increase awareness of the technology “tools in the tool chest” and see examples of them effectively used. These opportunities should focus on the teaching goals they address and not always on the technology itself. Faculty are eager to see examples of how they can
use technology to improve their teaching.
Reach out to faculty who are willing to share with others via panel discussions etc.
Training was mentioned as being too basic with desire for more advanced topics.
Consider offering some advanced topics.
Needs, motivators, and barriers vary significantly based the user’s experience and attitudes toward technology.
Support, training, and technology choices should not take a ‘one size fits all approach’ and should address needs along the technology adoption spectrum. Be prepared for shifts in faculty demographics and changing needs. Pay particular attention to addressing the top barriers and appealing to the motivators.
Students are clearly not all technology experts even if they are very good at games and social media. Many students lack basic skills in productivity software, data analysis, critical analysis of information.
ITS should continue to offer workshops and support for students. Perhaps online training could be developed to offer students the opportunity to enhance their skills, and provide a resource for faculty to direct their students to rather than consuming class time with such efforts.
Some faculty mentioned that their students don’t have adequate network access in their dorms.
Access in dorms should be measured and actions taken to increase performance. Students need to be encouraged to report issues. Many faculty, especially in the open comments had
issues with slowness of booting up and network speed in classroom or unclear sound or projection. Video doesn’t play smoothly. Computers are out of date.
Pay particular attention to the classroom technologies including quality of sound and visuals. Provide a better way for users to provide feedback on issues in specific classrooms.
Requests to have capability to record student presentations or performances.
Continue to provide solutions and training for this.
There are requests for more web and video conferencing.
Create several fixed rooms on campus for small, medium, and large video conferencing. Provide an easy to use web conferencing tool for faculty.
Classroom configurations are not adequate in some cases. Users are requesting collaborative space,
Since major changes to classrooms are expensive and take long range planning, the College should make some efforts into planning these
27
multiple screens, more lab/classrooms or the ability to see white boards and screens at the same time. Some need a lab with more than 35 computers.
spaces so they can be incorporated into future renovations and creation of innovative spaces.
Better ability for large file storage and sharing Sakai offers some options but this need should be looked into further. Increasing interest in eBooks, Voicethread, Skype Keep aware of these trends and address these issues
VII. Bibliography
Chickering, A.W, and Gamson, Z.F. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education"
AAHE Bulletin, 1987, 39(7), 3-7. http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm
Chickering, A. and S.C. Ehrmann. 1996. Implementing the seven principles: Technology as the Lever. AAHE Bulletin (October): 3-6. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.
Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. (3rd Ed.) New York, NY: Free Press
Geoghegan, W.E. (1994) “Whatever Happened to Instructional Technology?”, paper presented at the 22nd annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association. Baltimore, MD. [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10144/] Levene, Howard (1960). "Robust tests for equality of variances". in Ingram Olkin, Harold Hotelling et al. Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford University Press. pp. 278-292.
UW-Madison: 2008 Academic Technology FacultySurvey
Digital media Center 2007 University of Minnesota Faculty Educational Technology Survey. http://dmc.umn.edu/surveys/faculty/fas07.pdf
28
VIII. Appendix
Additional Data
Table VIII-a. Q1 Frequency of technology use. Expanded data. Users were asked to indicate the frequency they used the listed technologies.
Technology
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Rarely
Never
Total
Email 96.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 220
Smart phone or PDA 41.2 1.8 1.4 4.5 51.1 221
mp3 player 31.8 21.1 8.5 14.8 23.8 223
Social networking 29.0 19.4 5.5 22.6 23.5 217
Media sharing sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr) 18.7 39.3 20.5 11.0 10.5 219
Communication/collaboration tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, Google docs 13.5 22.9 13.5 18.8 31.4 223
Instant Messaging (e.g., AIM, Google Chat) 8.8 12.5 6.5 17.6 54.6 216
RSS Aggregator/Reader (e.g., Bloglines, Google Reader, Netvibes) 8.3 5.5 5.1 16.1 65.0 217 Multimedia editing software (e.g., iMovie, Final Cut, Premiere, Proto 6.3 10.0 13.6 20.8 49.3 221 Voice over IP / Web Conferencing (e.g. Skype, Adobe Connect, Google 5.0 19.7 24.8 20.2 30.3 218
Remote Access (e.g. TeamViewer, GoToMyPC, LogMeIn) 4.1 4.5 4.5 12.2 74.7 221
Gaming or virtual worlds (e.g., WoW, SecondLife) 0.5 1.8 2.3 12.3 83.1 219
