• No results found

Who Monitors Social Media and How They Learned to Use it

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Who Monitors Social Media and How They Learned to Use it"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

1

Who Monitors Social Media and How They Learned to Use it

Although the following chart compares who monitors the various social media applications, one statistic it quickly communicates is what social networks are not being used. Ning, Wikis, LinkedIn, Flickr and Live Chat have less than a 20 percent usage rate.

As for who is responsible for monitoring these networks, across the board, the responsibility mostly falls to the staff, followed by the director or assistant director (self), student workers and IT/MIS or other department.

The following tables, broken down by institution type, illustrate who within the organization is monitoring each application. As reflected in the chart above, staff are the main monitors followed usually by the director or assistant director (self) or student workers.

They also demonstrate which institution types are using or not using each application. This breakdown shows that program providers use multiple social media channels and associate colleges have not yet adopted social media as a communications tool.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

Facebook Blogs YouTube (Video)

Twitter IM Live Chat Flickr LinkedIn Wikis Ning

Social Media Monitoring Responsibility

Staff

Self

Student Workers

Not monitoring

IT/MIS Dept or Other

(2)

2

Who is Monitoring Facebook by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 21.4% 18.2% 32.0% 48.5% 48.0% 67.2% 36.4% Self 7.1% 36.4% 23.3% 15.2% 10.1% 13.4% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 8.1% 21.8% 3.0% 9.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 5.1% 2.2% 3.0% 27.3% IT/MIS Dept or Other 7.1% 18.2% 1.9% 2.0% 0.0% 9.0% 9.1% Not using 64.3% 27.3% 30.1% 21.2% 17.9% 4.5% 18.2%

Who is Monitoring Blogs by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.1% 2.5% 21.6% 20.7% 38.8% 65.5% 45.5% Self 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 8.0% 5.3% 9.0% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 4.6% 0.0% 9.1% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 2.3% 3.9% 3.6% 9.1% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 12.5% 5.7% 1.1% 4.6% 5.5% 9.1% Not using 92.9% 62.5% 63.6% 64.4% 42.8% 16.4% 27.3%

(3)

3

Who is Monitoring YouTube by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.1% 0.0% 10.8% 14.1% 22.0% 46.1% 33.3% Self 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 4.7% 7.3% 7.7% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 7.1% 3.3% 3.8% 11.1% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 4.0% 5.8% 22.2% Not using 92.9% 100.0% 83.1% 69.4% 61.3% 34.6% 33.3%

Who is Monitoring Twitter by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.1% 12.5% 12.1% 14.0% 19.2% 50.0% 12.5% Self 7.1% 0.0% 6.1% 3.5% 4.1% 10.7% 1.3% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 4.7% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 3.4% 3.6% 25.0% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 9.0% 0.0% Not using 85.7% 75.0% 80.5% 74.4% 67.1% 26.8% 50.0%

(4)

4

Who is Monitoring Instant Message by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.7% 0.0% 10.8% 16.3% 18.3% 25.0% 37.5% Self 0.0% 14.3% 4.8% 7.0% 7.7% 6.3% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 9.9% 6.3% 25.0% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 1.4% 4.2% 0.0% Not using 92.3% 85.7% 79.5% 74.4% 59.9% 58.3% 37.5%

Who is Monitoring LiveChat by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 12.2% 8.0% 23.4% 22.2% Self 0.0% 28.6% 2.5% 4.9% 2.9% 4.3% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 3.6% 6.4% 22.2% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.7% 2.1% 0.0% Not using 100.0% 71.4% 93.7% 80.5% 82.0% 63.8% 55.6%

Who is Monitoring Flickr by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.0% 0.0% 7.6% 8.3% 8.2% 38.6% 0.0% Self 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 4.5% 6.8% 28.6% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 14.3% Not using 93.0% 100.0% 84.8% 90.4% 84.3% 52.3% 57.1%

(5)

5

Who is Monitoring LinkedIn by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 7.1% 0.0% 3.8% 3.8% 4.5% 31.1% 12.5% Self 0.0% 14.3% 2.6% 3.8% 6.8% 6.7% 12.5% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 4.5% 2.2% 12.5% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% Not using 92.9% 85.7% 93.6% 88.8% 85.7% 57.8% 62.0%

Who is Monitoring Wikis by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 15.4% 14.3% 3.7% 0.0% 6.8% 16.3% 22.2% Self 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 1.3% 0.8% 9.3% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.3% 4.7% 22.2% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% Not using 84.6% 85.7% 92.6% 97.5% 90.2% 67.4% 55.5%

(6)

6

Who is Monitoring Ning by Institution Type:

Monitor Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Associate’s Colleges Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Gen

Master’s Doctoral/ Research Institutions Program Provider Specialized Institutions Staff 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 9.3% 14.3% Self 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% Student Workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not monitoring 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 11.6% 0.0% IT/MIS Dept or Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.3% 0.0% Not using 100.0% 100.0% 98.7% 95.0% 96.0% 76.8% 85.7%

How Did Those Using Communication Technology Learn to Use It?

In addition to asking respondents how they were using technology, we also wanted to know how they had learned to use the various types of technology represented in our survey. The below graph demonstrates, for all of the technologies combined, the percentage of how people learned to use the various forms of technology and this is broken down by institution type. As is demonstrated by the results below, most respondents are not using the technology. If they are using a certain form of technology the majority have taught themselves. Few have hired staff with social media skills, worked with their IT departments, or participated in on-line training sessions.

The tables following the chart illustrate, by institution type, how a few of the different forms of technology were learned. It is noticeable that institutions are either not using the technology or have taught themselves. This has striking implications that will be talked about later in this report. A few have been able to go to their IT Departments and receive training but it would be interesting to know what type of training they received and if they were able to apply this training to the education abroad field.

A few respondents did select that they learned through other means than those listed. Many of these responses included such items as not knowing what the technology was or not having time to learn. For those that answered with another method of learning these responses include learning via student workers such as interns and using Google as a resource for training and instruction.

(7)

7 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Associate Bacc Bacc/Assoc Doctoral Masters Program Provider Specialized Institution

How Respondents Learned to Use Technology

Hired Staff with skills

Not using

Taught ourselves

Trained by IT Dept

Used online training

(8)

8 Facebook How learned Associa te's College s Baccalaur eate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaureate/As sociate's Colleges Doctoral/Re search Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master' s College s and Univers ities I or II Program provider organization/co mpany. Speciali zed Institut ion Tot al Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.2% 1.4% 0.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 0.0% 7.1 % Not using 1.2% 5.3% 0.4% 6.5% 4.3% 1.0% 0.4% 19. 1% Other 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.6 % Taught ourselves 0.8% 13.4% 1.8% 27.4% 14.2% 9.9% 1.6% 70. 8% Trained by IT Dept 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6 % Used online training 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8 %

(9)

9 Twitter How Learned Associa te's College s Baccalaur eate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaureate/As sociate's Colleges Doctoral/Re search Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master' s College s and Univers ities I or II Program provider organization/co mpany. Speciali zed Institut ion Tot al Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5% 1.2% 0.0% 3.6 % Not using 2.2% 14.9% 1.9% 23.3% 14.4% 4.6% 1.2% 63. 5% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7 % Taught ourselves 0.5% 3.4% 0.2% 11.1% 5.3% 8.2% 0.7% 30. 0% Trained by IT Dept 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 1.4 % Used online training 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7 %

(10)

10 Instant Messaging How Learned Associa te's College s Baccalaur eate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaureate/As sociate's Colleges Doctoral/Re search Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master' s College s and Univers ities I or II Program provider organization/co mpany. Speciali zed Institut ion Tot al Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0 % Not using 1.7% 13.7% 1.0% 19.0% 14.7% 7.2% 1.0% 59. 4% Other 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0 % Taught ourselves 0.7% 6.0% 1.2% 14.9% 5.0% 5.3% 0.7% 34. 9% Trained by IT Dept 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 1.4 % Used online training 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 %

(11)

11 Blogs How Learned Associate' s Colleges Baccalaure ate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaure ate/Associa te's Colleges Doctoral/Resear ch Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master's Colleges and Universities I or II Program provider organization/ company. Specialize d Institution Total Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 0.0% 5.0% Not using 2.2% 12.0% 1.4% 15.1% 12.7% 2.6% 0.7% 47.1% Other 0.2% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 3.4% Taught ourselves 0.0% 5.5% 0.5% 15.6% 6.7% 7.9% 1.9% 39.4% Trained by IT Dept 0.0% 1.9% 0.2% 2.4% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 6.5% Used online training 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Wikis How Learned Associa te's College s Baccalaur eate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaureate/As sociate's Colleges Doctoral/Re search Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master' s College s and Univers ities I or II Program provider organization/co mpany. Speciali zed Institut ion Tot al Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7 % Not using 1.9% 16.8% 1.7% 27.2% 17.8% 7.9% 1.4% 76. 2% Other 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 % Taught ourselves 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% 3.8% 0.5% 2.4% 0.7% 9.4 % Trained by IT Dept 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% 2.6 % Used online training 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 %

(12)

12 YouTube How Learned Associa te's College s Baccalaur eate Colleges-Liberal Arts or General Baccalaureate/As sociate's Colleges Doctoral/Re search Universities-Extensive or Intensive Master' s College s and Univers ities I or II Program provider organization/co mpany. Speciali zed Institut ion Tot al Hired staff with these skills/inte rests 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.2% 1.7% 0.0% 3.8 % Not using 2.2% 14.9% 1.7% 20.2% 13.2% 4.6% 0.7% 58. 9% Other 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 1.7 % Taught ourselves 0.5% 3.6% 0.2% 12.7% 6.0% 7.5% 1.4% 32. 5% Trained by IT Dept 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 1.9 % Used online training 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2 %

References

Related documents

Although a full understanding of our finding deserves a deeper investi- gation, a first tentative explanation can be provide referring to the CL&N’s results. In particular,

Originally designated by the California Department of Aging to provide specialized services and support to persons with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease or related

Solutions for Green Growth Throughout Europe, city-regions are championing the development and use of electric vehicles (EVs) and other Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs).

Специфічні порушення читання ( дислексії ) слід відрізняти від помилок читання , що закономірно зустрічаються на перших етапах

No licensee shall employ in any manner whatsoever on the licensed premises any criminally disqualified person upon the withdrawal or denial of the application of such person for

PROPOSED SYSTEM:CORE METHODOLOGY The core module in accurate information presentation is translation hence core methodology employ’s mapping one to one rule in English to

The scientific approach of the proposed research combines existing language resources and tools for Slovene with knowledge from the fields of corpus linguistics

Follow- ing the well-known AGM approach, we defined and charac- terised AGM expansion, contraction and revision (for both consistency and coherence preservation) on the monotonic