learning spaces · web tools · web-based Tools Interest in Web-based tools, such as electronic...
Transcript of learning spaces · web tools · web-based Tools Interest in Web-based tools, such as electronic...
learning spaces · web tools · knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | I
R e P O R T I N F O R M A T I O N
Authors:
• CaraLane,PhD,ResearchScientist,CatalystResearchandDevelopment,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• GregYamashiro,ResearchAssistant,CatalystResearchandDevelopment,OfficeofLearningTechnologies
Graphic Designers:
• HansChristianJohnson,StudentAssistant,CatalystClientServices,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• JacobMorris,StudentAssistant,CatalystClientServices,OfficeofLearningTechnologies
Copyright:
•©February2006,C.LaneandG.Yamashiro,OfficeofLearningTechnologies,UniversityofWashington
learning spaces · web tools · knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | II
A c k N O w l e d g e M e N T s
Project Founder:
• LouisFox,ViceProvost,EducationalPartnershipsandLearningTechnologies
Project Manager:
• KaraleeWoody,Director,CatalystClientServices,OfficeofLearningTechnologies
Partners:
• OfficeofLearningTechnologies •CatalystClientServices •CatalystResearchandDevelopment• Computing&Communications• OfficeofUndergraduateEducation •ClassroomSupportServices •OfficeofEducationalAssessment• UWLibraries• UWEducationalOutreach• StudentTechnologyFeeCommittee
Survey Committee:
• BillCorrigan,Director,DistanceLearningDesign,UWEducationalOutreach• SteveHiller,Head,ScienceLibraries,Libraries• RobertaHopkins,Director,ClassroomSupportServices,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• RobertW.Jamieson,Consultant,ClientServices,Computing&Communications• LindaKemnitzer,AssistantDirector,ClassroomSupportServices,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• BrandonKoeller,DistributedSystemsManager,CatalystClientServices,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• BethL.Koemans,LIFECenterManager,CollegeofEducation• NathanKohler,StudentTechnologyFeeCommittee• KurtKors,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• CaraLane,ResearchScientist,CatalystResearchandDevelopment,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• TomLewis,Director,CatalystResearch&Development,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• NanaLowell,Director,OfficeofEducationalAssessment,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• BaytaL.Maring,ResearchScientist,OfficeofEducationalAssessment,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• DebE.McGhee,ResearchScientist,OfficeofEducationalAssessment,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• JillM.McKinstry,Head,OdegaardUndergraduateLibrary,Libraries• KevinL.Pittman,InformationArchitect,CatalystResearch&Development,OfficeofLearningTechnologies• PatrickL.Roberts,AssociateDirector,ClassroomSupportServices,OfficeofUndergraduateEducation• CarolJ.Robinson,Computing&Communications• OrenSreebny,Director,ClientServices&LearningTechnologies,Computing&Communications• JenniferL.Ward,Head,WebServices,Libraries• MelodyJ.Winkle,InformationArchitect,Computing&Communications• GregYamashiro,ResearchAssistant,CatalystResearchandDevelopment,OfficeofLearningTechnologies
Other Contributors:
WewouldliketoacknowledgethefollowingindividualsfromtheOfficeofLearningTechnologiesfortheirassistancewiththisproject:LauraBaldwin(PublicInformationSpecialist),ChrisChu(StudentAssistant),SherryEdwards(ProgramOperationsSpecialist),JoanGoldblatt(Administrator),LucretiaJensen(ResearchAssistant),HansChristianJohnson(StudentAssistant),KimLum(StudentAssistant),VanessaMark(GraduateAssistant),ShellyMartin(StudentAssistant),JacobMorris(StudentAssistant),MarkParson(GraduateAssistant),andKarinRoberts(ProgramManager).
learning spaces · web tools · knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | III
T A B l e O F c O N T e N T sExECUTiVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2
2001 Instructor survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 32002 Instructor survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3
setting goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3creating Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3selecting samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4conducting surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4conducting Focus groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4Analyzing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5Reporting Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5
RESUlTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5 Faculty and Undergraduate Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6
demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6 expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7 Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Perspectives on Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Perspectives on Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
COnClUSiOnS AnD RECOMMEnDATiOnS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8Next steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0
learning spaces · web tools · knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
e X e c U T I V e s U M M A R Y
OVERViEW
Astheroleofeducationaltechnologycontinuestobecomemoreandmorecentral,itisimportanttounderstandwhen,how,andwhytechnologybecomesakeyfeatureintheeducationallandscape.Togainthisperspective,sixcampusunitsjoinedforces:theOfficeofLearningTechnologies,Computing&Communications,UWLibraries,EducationalOutreach,theStudentTechnologyFeeCommittee,andtheOfficeofUndergraduateEducation.HeadedbytheOfficeofLearningTechnologies,thiscollaborativeteamdevelopedanddistributedinstructorandstudentsurveys,buildingonworkbegunduringapreviousiterationofthisstudyconductedin2001and2002.
Inthetwosurveys,instructorandstudent,weaskedaseriesofquestionsaboutrespondents’experienceswithandperspectivesonacademictechnologies.Alargenumberofthequestionswerethesameacrosstheinstructorandstudentsurveys,allowingforacomparisonofthetwogroups;asmallernumberofquestionscarriedoverfromthe2001and2002surveys,allowingforalongitudinalcomparison.Wedividedgraduatestudentsacrossthetwoinstruments:thosethatheldteachingassistantshipscompletedtheinstructorsurveyandthosethatdidnotteachcompletedthestudentsurvey.Inspring2005,wesenttheinstructorsurveyto4,390individualsthathadtaughtcoursesinspring2004,autumn2004,orwinter2005.Atthesametime,wesentthestudentsurveytoarandomsamplingof3,500students.Theresponseratewas34.4%forinstructorsand28.2%forstudents.
Wealsoconductedfocusgroupsinlatespring,with40instructorsand25studentsparticipatinginthisportionofthestudy.Weaskedfocusgroupattendeestodescribetheircurrentuseofeducationaltechnologies,thesupportsandbarrierstothatuse,andtheirgoalsforthefuture.Thefocusgroupsallowedtheresearchteamtogaindetailedknowledgeaboutparticipants’experienceswithandperspectivesoneducationaltechnology.
Inthisreport,wepresentkeyfindingsthatemergedfromouranalysisofthisdata.Thefocusofouranalysiswasacomparisonofexpertisewithtechnology,useoftechnology,andbeliefsabouttechnologyacrossdifferentcampuspopulations.Welistourprimaryconclusionsandproviderecommendationsbasedonthoseconclusionsbelow.Theorderoftheselistsfollowsthechronologyofourdiscussioninthereport.
COnClUSiOnS
Differencesingenderandageinfluencetechnologicalexpertiseratingsandtechnologyusepatterns;mostsignificantly,menratetheirexpertisewithanduseoftechnologyhigherthanwomendo.
Facultymembersuseahighernumberofestablishedtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanundergraduatesdo;undergraduatesuseahighernumberofemergingtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanfacultydo.
Supportforgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservicesishighamongbothinstructorsandstudents.
Undergraduatestudentswantmorecoursematerialsavailableonline.
Facultymemberswantmoreopportunitiestousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction.Inparticular,theywantbetteraccesstotechnologyinclassrooms.
Theadditionofwirelessaccessinclassroomsislikelytohaveasubstantialimpactonhowmanyinstructorsandstudentsbringlaptopcomputerstoclass.
InterestinWeb-basedtools,suchaselectronicportfoliosandonlinediscussionboards,ishigh.
Teachingassistantsandgraduatestudentsthatdonotteachnotonlydifferfromeachotherintheirexperienceswithandperspectivesoneducationaltechnology,buttheyalsodifferfromfacultymembersandundergraduatestudents—makingthedivisionofgraduatestudentsacrossthetwosurveyinstrumentsproblematic.
Teachingassistantsexhibitlessinterestinacademictechnologiesthanfacultymembers,undergraduatestudents,orothergraduatestudentsdo.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
RECOMMEnDATiOnS
Furtherinvestigatehowgenderandageinfluencetechnologyuseandexpertise.
Workwithundergraduatestudentstoidentifywaysthatemergingtechnologiescanbeusedforacademicpurposes.
Continuetosupportgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservices.
Identifyandremoveobstaclestoputtingcoursematerialsandotherresourcesonline.
Committoimprovingtechnologyinclassrooms.
Engageincampusdiscussionsaboutwirelessinclassrooms,includingmodelsofeffectiveuse.
ProvidemoreopportunitiesforstudentsandinstructorstolearnaboutanduseWeb-basedtools.
Revisethedesignoffuturestudiestoincludeaseparatesurveyforgraduatestudents,ratherthandividingthembetweentheinstructorandstudentsurveys.
Providemoreopportunitiesforteachingassistantstousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction.
Inthecompletereportweprovideadetailedexplanationoftheconclusionsandrecommendationsoutlinedabove.Asyoureadthroughitspages,youwillgainawarenessofthemultifacetedrolethattechnologyplaysintheacademiclivesofinstructorsandstudentsattheUniversityofWashington.Thereportalsoexposesseveralareaswherecurrenttechnologicalresourcesdonotkeeppacewiththegoalsandambitionsexpressedbyinstructorsandstudents.InadditiontoincreasingourknowledgeofcurrenttechnologyuseandtechnologicalneedsacrosstheUniversity,thestudydatapointtowardsthefuture—providinginformationthatwillallowthecollaboratingpartnersandtheUniversityasawholetomakeinformeddecisionsaboutthefutureofeducationaltechnologyattheUniversityofWashington.
M e T H O d s
OVERViEW
Inthissection,weprovidedetailsaboutthelogisticsofthisresearchendeavor.WelistthepartnerswhosecollaborativeeffortsmadethisstudypossibleandprovideabriefhistoryofresearchonthistopicattheUniversityofWashington.Thebulkofthissectiondetailstheprocessweusedtoconductthisstudy.
PARTnERS
The2005EducationalTechnologySurveyCommitteeincludedkeyindividualsfromthefollowingcollaboratingunits:theOfficeofLearningTechnologies(OLT),Computing&Communications(C&C),theOfficeofUndergraduateEducation(OUE),UWLibraries,UWEducationalOutreach(UWEO),andtheStudentTechnologyFeeCommittee(STFC).Thepartneringunitwerebroughttogetherbytheirinterestinandworkwitheducationaltechnologies.TheOfficeofEducationalAssessment(OEA),withintheOfficeofUndergraduateEducation,providedexpertiseinlarge-scalesurveydesignandimplementation.TheFacultyCouncilonEducationalTechnologies(FCET)endorsedthesurveyspriortodistribution.
HiSTORY
Overthepastfifteenyears,variouscampusunitshaveconductedstudentsurveysfocusingoneducationaltechnologies.Priorto2002,thesesurveysrepresentedaseriesofdisconnectedefforts.Inasingleyear,anygivenstudentcouldparticipateinmultiplesurveyscontainingquestionsregardingtechnology.Whilethemultiplesurveysoftenaskedsimilarquestions,therewereenoughdifferencesinthephrasingofthequestionstomakeacomparisonofdataacrosssurveysimpossible.Thisprocesswasfrustratingtostudentsandtheresultsbroughtmorequestionsthananswersforthecampuscommunity.Faculty,ontheotherhand,werenotdirectlysurveyedregardingeducationaltechnologies.WhileanoccasionalUniversitysurveymayhaveincludedaquestionortwoontechnology,priorto2001therehadneverbeenafocusedefforttounderstandinstructors’experienceswithtechnology.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
2001 instructor Survey
In2001,theProgramforEducationalTransformationThroughTechnology(PETTT),withintheOfficeofLearningTechnologies,conductedthefirstfacultysurveyoneducationaltechnologies.Resultsoftheoriginalreportareavailableat:
http://www.washington.edu/oea/pdfs/reports/OEAReport0106.pdf
2002 Student Survey
In2002,TheOfficeofLearningTechnologiesbroughttogethersixpartneringgroupstocoordinatetheireffortsingatheringstudents’opinionsoneducationaltechnologies.Resultsofthe2002coordinatedsurveyareavailableat:
http://www.washington.edu/oea/pdfs/reports/OEAReport0304.pdf
PROCESS
Setting Goals
Universitiesarefacedwiththechallengeofbeingawareofandresponsivetocontinuous,andrapid,technologicalchange.ThegoalofthisstudywastoimproveteachingandlearningattheUWby
contributingtoaUniversity-wideconversationabouttheusesofinstructionaltechnology,
increasingstudentandfacultyawarenessofthewaysinwhichtechnologycanbeusedintheserviceofteachingandlearning,
facilitatinginformeddecision-makingregardingallocationofUWresources,and
informingthedesignoftoolsandservicesthatcapitalizeonsuccesses,meetchallenges,andultimatelybestservetheUniversitycommunity’sneedsanddesires.
Creating instruments
Ourstudyofeducationaltechnologyhasfourcomponents:aninstructorsurvey,astudentsurvey,instructorfocusgroups,andstudentfocusgroups.Thismixtureprovidesbothquantitativeandqualitativedatafromwhichwecandrawconclusionsabouttheexpectations,perceptions,andusesofeducationaltechnologyattheUniversityofWashington.
Inthiscurrentresearcheffort,wedevelopedsurveyinstrumentsandfocusgroupquestionswiththelarge-scalegoalsofourstudyinmind.Manyofthesurveyquestionswedevelopedfocusedonanindividual’sself-assessmentoftechnologicalexpertise,patternsoftechnologyuse,andperceptionsoneducationaltechnologies.Focusgroupsquestionsfocusedonanindividual’sexperiencewitheducationaltechnologiesandhisorheropinionsabouttheirfutureuses.
Increatingthesurveyinstrumentswealsokeptthefollowingobjectivesinmind:consistencybetweeninstruments,clarityoflanguage,andusefulnessofquestions.Intermsofinstrumentconsistency,wefacedadifficultchallenge.The2001facultysurvey,createdbyPETTT,wasradicallydifferentthanthe2002studentsurvey,createdbyacollaborativeteam.Wedecidedtousethe2002studentsurveyasamodelforboththe2005studentsurveyandthe2005instructorsurvey.Asaresultofthisdecision,wewereabletocollectverylittlelongitudinaldataontheinstructorside.Inournextiterationofthisstudy,plannedfor2008,wewillbeabletocollectlongitudinaldataforbothstudentsandfaculty.Inordertopursueclarityoflanguage,weintroducedsomechangesbetweenthe2002studentsurveyandthe2005surveysatpointswhereourpreviousdataanalysisindicatedthephrasingofquestionswasunclear.Wealsochosetoremovequestionsthatdidnotyieldusefuldatainthe2002study.
Inaddition,wedecidedtoaddsomequestionstothe2005surveysthatwerenotaskedinthe2002studentsurvey.Inthe2001instructorsurveyandthe2002studentsurvey,respondentswroteincommentsregardingsometechnologiesthathadnotbeenincludedinthesurvey.Thesesameitemswerealsomentioned(unprompted)inthefocusgroups.Therefore,wedecidedtoincludequestionsaboutinstantmessaging,wirelessandmobiledevices,blogging,videoarchivesofinstructionalmaterials,anddistanceeducationinthe2005surveys.Wealsodecidedtoaddquestionsthatwouldallowustoseegapsbetweentechnologies
•
•
•
•
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
andservicescurrentlyavailableoncampusandtheUniversitycommunity’sevolvingneedsandpriorities.Overall,ourdecisionsdecreasedourcapacityforlongitudinalanalysisinordertoincreasetheusefulnessofthecurrentsurveys.
Selecting Samples
WorkingwiththeOfficeofEducationalAssessment,weselectedsamplesofstudentsandinstructorsforthesurveys.Weselectedarandomsampleof3,500studentsforthestudentsurvey,distributedacrossallthreecampuses.Thestudentsselectedconsistedofbothundergraduatesandgraduatestudents.ForthefacultysurveyweincludedallUniversityemployeesthathadtaughtonanyofthethreecampusesinspring2004,autumn2004,andwinter2005.Theinstructorsampleconsistedof4,390individuals,includingfaculty,teachingassistants,lecturers,andstaff.
Conducting Surveys
Weconductedthesurveysduringspringquarter2005.Eachgroupwascontactedmultipletimesduringthequarter.Theinstructorsurveywasdistributedviatwoemailmessagesandtwopaperletters.Theemailmessagespointedinstructorstoanonlinesurvey.Thepaperlettersprovidedrespondentstheoptionofcompletingapapersurvey(includedwithletter)andreturningittous,orcompletingtheonlinesurvey.Notificationsweredistributedasfollows:
DATE DiSTRibUTiOn METHOD AUTHOR
March29 Email G.RossHeath(FacultySenate)
April12 Letter DavidThorud(ActingProvost)
April26 Email NanaLowell(OEA)
May11 Letter OrenSreebny(C&C)
Theinstructorresponseratewas34.4%(1,422),afterfactoringouttheinstructorsthatdirectlydeclinedtoparticipateorthatwecouldnotcontact.57%ofinstructorrespondentscompletedthesurveyonline.
Thestudentsurveywasdistributedviafouremailmessagesandonepaperletter.Theemailmessagespointedstudentstoanonlinesurvey.Thepaperlettersprovidedrespondentstheoptionofcompletingapapersurvey(includedwithletter)andreturningittous,orcompletingtheonlinesurvey.Notificationsweredistributedasfollows:
DATE DiSTRibUTiOn METHOD AUTHOR
April18 Email JoshBis(STFC)
May10 Letter ElizabethFeetham(GraduateSchool)andGeorgeBridges(OUE)
May12 Email DebbieMcGhee(OEA)
May19 Email KaraleeWoody(OLT)
May25 Email JoshBis(STFC)
Thestudentresponseratewas28.2%(987),afterfactoringoutthestudentsthatdirectlydeclinedtoparticipate.76%ofstudentrespondentscompletingthesurveyonline.
Conducting Focus Groups
WeconductedfocusgroupsinJuneandJuly2005,slightlyoverlappingintimewiththesurvey.Surveyrespondentsweregiventheopportunitytovolunteertoparticipateinafocusgroup.Facultyvolunteerswereeagertoscheduletimeandattendasession.Wehad40instructorsparticipateinfocusgroups.Studentswhovolunteeredweredifficulttoconnectwithandveryfewattendedthefocusgroups.Therefore,wesoughtawideraudienceinthestudentpool.WeadvertisedonlineintheCatalyst Lab Newspageandofferedstudentsachanceofwinningajumpdrive.Throughthesecombinedeffortswerecruited25studentparticipants.
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
Analyzing Data
Uponcompletionofthesurveys,TheOfficeofEducationalAssessmentcompiledthedataandprovidedacopytotheOfficeofLearningTechnologies.Theanalysisofthequantitativedataconductedbybothgroupsallowsustoprovidetwodifferentviewsofthestudydata.TheOfficeofEducationalAssessmentcompiledbasicstatisticsthatsummarizetotalresponsestoeachsurveyonallquestions.Theirsummativereportoffindingsappearsonlineathttp://www.washington.edu/oea/pdfs/reports/OEAReport0601.pdf.ThefindingsthatwepresentinthisreportaretheresultofanalysiseffortsbasedinCatalystResearchandDevelopment,withintheOfficeofLearningTechnologies.Inouranalysis,weexaminedportionsofthequantitativedataindepth,alongwithqualitativedatagatheredduringfocusgroupsandinthegeneralcommentssectionprovidedattheendofbothsurveys.Ouranalysis,presentedhere,focusesonacomparisonofkeytrendsacrossdifferentUniversitypopulations.Thetworeportscoordinatewitheachothertoprovideafullpictureofstudyfindings.
Reporting Findings
Thisreportisavailableonlineat:http://catalyst.washington.edu/projects/.Surveyfindingshave,andwillcontinuetobe,presentedatnumerousconferencesandforvariousgroupsoncampusincludingthoselistedbelow.
EducauseAnnualConference–OrlandoFL,Oct2005SIGUCCSAnnualConference–MontereyCA,Nov2005UWATACmeeting–Nov2005UWFCETmeeting–Dec2005UWSTFCmeeting–Dec2005UWComputingDirectors–Jan2006
Scheduledupcomingmeetingsandconferencesinclude:
EducauseWesternRegionalConference–SanFranciscoCA,Apr2006UWSparkSession–Apr2006
R e s U lT s
OVERViEW
Inthissection,welookindepthatportionsofthestudydatainordertounderstandhowtechnologicalexpertise,technologyuse,andperspectivesontechnologyvaryamongdifferentuniversitypopulations.Thisapproachallowsustoexploretrendsthatimpactkeygroupswithinthelargeruniversitycommunity.ThesurveysummariespresentedbytheOfficeofEducationalAssessmentcomplementouranalysis,providinganoverviewofthecompletedatasetsforthefacultyandstudentsurveys.
Someofthemostinterestingtrendsinthedatainvolvedifferencesbetweenfacultymembersandundergraduatestudents.Inthenextfewpagesweprovideademographiccomparisonofthesepopulationsandadetailedaccountoftheirself-reportedexpertiseandexperiencewithvarioustechnologies.Buildingonthisfoundation,wepresentdatafromthesurveysandfocusgroupsregardingfacultyandstudents’perspectivesoneducationaltechnology,includingdesiredlong-termgoals.WeendourcomparisonofthesegroupsbyidentifyingtheemergingtechnologiesthataregainingsupportattheUniversityofWashington.
Next,weexpandouranalysistoincludegraduatestudents.Asdescribedearlier,wedividedthegraduatepopulationbetweenthetwosurveys:thosethathadtaughtoneormoreclassesduringthe2004-5academicyearansweredthefacultysurveyandthosethathadnottaughtansweredthestudentsurvey.Notonlydograduatestudentsdifferfromfacultymembersandundergraduatesonmanymattersinvolvingeducationaltechnology,buttheyalsodemonstratemarkeddifferenceswithintheirownranks.
Focusingouranalysisonfacultymembers/undergraduatestudentsandteachingassistants/graduatestudentsallowsustohighlightthevariedimpactsthattechnologyhasonteachingandlearning.Italsoenablesustobetterunderstandhowtechnologysimultaneouslybridgesandexpandsnaturaldivisionsoncampus.
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
FACUlTY AnD UnDERGRADUATE COMPARiSOn
Demographics
Wegatheredsimilardemographicdataonboththeinstructorandthestudentsurveys.Theinformationbelowprovidesastatisticalcomparisonoftwogroups:undergraduatestudentsandfacultymembers.
Undergraduate students
Undergraduatestudentsaccountedfor648ofthe978respondentstothestudentsurvey.Theaverageageofundergraduatestudentrespondentswas22.ThebreakdownofundergraduaterespondentsbyclassstandingisshowninFIGURE1.Thisdistributionisfairlyrepresentative,particularlyintermsofthebreakdownbetweenlowerclassmenandupperclassmen.Comparedwiththenumberofstudentsenrolledforspringquarter2005,wewereslightlyoverrepresentedinjuniorsandunderrepresentedinseniors.Thegenderdistributionofourrespondentswasnotrepresentativeofcampus.Thepercentageofmaleundergraduatescompletingthesurveywas39%;thepercentageoffemaleundergraduateswas61%.Comparedtoenrolledstudents,where52%werefemaleand48%weremale,ourrespondentpoolcontainsmorewomen.Wewilldiscussthesignificanceofthisdifferencelaterinthisreport.
FacultyFacultymemberscomprised884ofthe1422respondentstotheinstructorsurvey.Theaverageageoffacultycompletingthe
surveywas50.ThebreakdownoffacultyrespondentsbyrankisshowninFIGURE2.Whencomparedwithfacultyrecords(weusedtheHEPPSrecordsforthe2004-5academicyear),thedistributionacrossranksshowinFIGURE2isanaccuratereflectionoftheUniversity.Thegenderdistributionofourrespondentswasalsofairlyrepresentativeofcampus.Thepercentageofmalefacultymemberscompletingthesurveywas61%;thepercentageoffemalefacultymemberswas39%.Thedistributionwithinoursample(basedoninformationrecordedintheHEPPSdatabase)was58%male,35%female,and7%undetermined.Differencesingenderwereevidentbetweenranks.Forexample,45%ofmalesurveyrespondentsidentifiedthemselvesasfullprofessors,comparedwithonly25%offemalerespondents.Whileouranalysisfocusesonthe
ClASS STAnDinG: STUDEnTSFiGURE 1
FRESHMAn 16%
SOPHOMORE 14%
jUniOR 36%
SEniOR 34%
RAnk FACUlTYFiGURE 2
inSTRUCTOR 7%
ASSiSTAnT PROFESSOR 15%
ASSOCiATE PROFESSOR 20%
FUll PROFESSOR 38%
lECTURER 20%
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
differencesbetweenfacultymembersandundergraduates,attimespatternsinthedatawerecomplicatedbydemographicdifferenceswithinthesepopulations.Forinstance,thecomparisonoffacultyandundergraduatesisdistortedonsomeitems,suchasexpertiseratingsforcomputerskills,bygenderdifferences.Since61%offacultyrespondentsweremaleand61%ofundergraduateswerefemale,genderhadastronginfluenceonthispopulationcomparison.Therefore,insomeareasofthisreport,wespendadditionaltimediscussingtheimpactofgender,andotherdemographicinfluences,onourfindings.
Expertise
Thesurveysincludedtwodifferentquestionsaboutexpertise.Thefirstquestionaskedparticipantstoratetheirgeneralleveloftechnologicalexpertise.Thisquestionwasthesameacrossthe2005studentandinstructorsurveys,the2001instructorsurvey,andthe2002studentsurvey,allowingauniqueopportunityforalongitudinalcomparisonofresults.Inaddition,weaskedrespondentstothe2005surveystoratetheirexpertiseonavarietyofspecializedskills.
general expertise
Weposedthefollowingquestiontobothstudentsandinstructors:“Howwouldyourateyourcurrentexpertiseasacomputeruser?”FIGURE3comparesfacultyandundergraduates’responses.Themoststrikingaspectofthiscomparisonisthesimilarityofresponsesbetweenthesetwopopulations.Indeed,thesumtheresponsesunderthe“advanced”and“expert”categoriesareidenticalforeachgroup:47%ofrespondentsplacethemselvesinthesecategories.
Trendsinthequalitativedatacomplicatethisoutcome.Wegatheredqualitativedatafromtwosources:fromopen-endedquestionsattheendoftheinstructorandstudentsurveysandduringfocusgroups.Inbothforums,participantssharedtheirperceptionsofatechnologicaldividebetweenfacultymembersandundergraduates.Manyfacultymemberscommentedonstudents’strongtechnologicalskills.
I never had students complain that the technology was beyond them or they were getting lost in technology or that they didn’t understand technology. My feeling is that they are way ahead of us.
Students are usually much more computer proficient and capable than I am.
Students’observationsoffacultyweremoremixed.Manyobservedthatfacultymembers’expertisewithtechnologyvariedwidelyacrosstheUniversity,bothwithinandamongdisciplines.Ingeneral,studentsappreciatedfacultythatusedtechnologywell,buthadlittlepatienceforpoorexecution.
Many instructors are unfamiliar with the technology that they try to use. These people shouldn’t use it or should learn how.
When they’re on top of the technologies it definitely enhances learning. When they’re not competent, then their use of technology detracts.
Theimpressionsvoicedbyinstructorsandstudentsintheabovequoteswerenotuncommon.Yet,whencomparedtothequantitativedataonexpertise,theseperceptionsdonotappearvalid,sincefacultyandundergraduatesreportednearlyidenticallevelsofgeneralknowledgeabouttechnology.Inordertounderstandandresolvethistension,wepresentthreeelementsthathavebearingonourresults.First,wecompareourquantitativedatawithdatagatheredinthe2001instructorandthe2002studentsurveys.Second,welookathowfacultyandundergraduates’answerscompareonquestionsaboutspecifictypesoftechnologicalskills.Finally,weexplorethedemographicdifferencesthatimpactourdata.
GEnERAl ExPERTiSEFiGURE 3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
ExpertAdvancedintermediatebeginner
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
longitudinal comparison
Alongitudinalanalysisofsurveydatademonstratesthatthesimilaritiesfoundinthe2005databetweenfacultymembersandundergraduatesarenotunique;asimilarpatternexistedwithinthedatafromthe2001and2002surveys(seeFIGURES4and5).
Overthepastfewyears,self-reportedexpertisehasincreasedatasimilarrateforbothfacultymembersandundergraduates.FIGURE4showsa5%increaseinthenumberofundergraduateswhoratedthemselvesasadvancedorexpertin2005,ascomparedto2002.Similarly,FIGURE5showsan8%increaseinthenumberoffacultymemberswhoratedthemselvesasadvancedorexpertin2005,ascomparedto2001.Theextrayearofseparationbetweenthetwoinstructorsurveyslikelyaccountsforthelargergain.Overall,theexpertisenumbersfrom2005showconsistentpatternswiththeexpertisepatternsfrom2001and2002.Whileundergraduatesin2002doratethemselvesslightlyhigherthanfacultyin2001,42%atadvanced/expertforundergraduatescomparedto39%forfaculty,mostofthisdifferencecanbeaccountedforbythetimedelaybetweenthe2001and2002surveys.
categories of expertise
Inadditiontothequeryaboutgeneralexpertise,wealsoposedquestionsto2005instructorsandstudentsaboutspecificareasofexpertise.Bothgroupswereaskedtoratetheircurrentlevelofexpertiseonthirteenskills,rangingfromcriticallyevaluatingsourcesfromtheInternettosettingupapersonalcomputer.Weusedafactoranalysistogroupresultsintosetsofrelatedskills,basedonthesimilarityofresponses.Thisprocessresultedintheidentificationofthreecategoriesofexpertise:infrastructure,production,andresources.
Thefirstcategory,infrastructure,involveshigh-level,complexskills,suchassettingupapersonalcomputer,usingbasicoperatingsystemsfeatures,andcreatingaWebsite.Websitesbelonginthiscategorybecauseofthemanystepsrequiredintheirproduction—individualsnotonlyneedtounderstandWeb-authoringsoftware,butalsotoobtainandmaintainanaccountspace.Productionskillsinvolveusingadvancedfeaturesofasoftwareprogram,suchasusingawordprocessortocreateadocumentwithtextandillustrationsorusingadatabasesystemtosetupandaccessinformation.Thefinalcategory,resources,
GEnERAl ExPERTiSE: UnDERGRADUATESFiGURE 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
ExpertAdvancedintermediatebeginner
UnDERGRADUATES 2002 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
GEnERAl ExPERTiSE: FACUlTYFiGURE 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
ExpertAdvancedintermediatebeginner
FACUlTY 2001 FACUlTY 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �
includesskillsthatinvolveusingacomputertofindinformationortocommunicatewithothers;forexample,theuseofacomputertofindscholarlyinformationandresources.
FIGURE6comparesfacultyandundergraduateresponsesacrossthethreecategories.Thenumbersrepresentthemeanforeachcategory.Onthefour-pointscaleascoreofoneequatestorespondentsaveragingbeginner-levelexpertiseinacategoryandascoreoffourequatestorespondentsaveragingexpert-levelexpertise.
Unlikethequestionaboutgeneralexpertise,thethreecategoriesanalyzedhererevealsomediscrepanciesbetweenfacultyandundergraduates.Althoughtheoveralldifferenceforinfrastructureisstatisticallyinsignificant,withbothgroupsaveraginganintermediate-levelexpertiseinthisarea,forafewindividualitemswithinthiscategorythereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenfacultyandundergraduates.WhileneitherfacultynorundergraduatesmeasuredhighlyontheabilitytocreateaWebsite,facultydidedgeoutstudents:25%offacultyratedthemselvesasadvancedorexpertatthisskill,asopposedtoonly17%ofundergraduates.Thedifferencesbetweenthesepopulationsweremorewidespreadwithintheothertwocategories.Ingeneral,undergraduatesratedthemselveshigherforproductionandfacultyratedthemselveshigherforresources.
Whenaskedtoratetheirabilitytouseawordprocessortocreatedocumentswithtextandillustrations,67%offacultyratedthemselvesasadvancedorexpert,ascomparedto71%ofundergraduates.Basedonqualitativedata,somefacultywoulddisagreewithstudents’self-reportedproficiencyintheseareas.Afewfacultymembersnotedthatalthoughmoststudentshad
basiccompetencywithmosttechnologies,notallstudentswereproficient.Whilestudentsmadesimilarcommentsaboutfaculty,quotedearlier,theytendedtofocustheircritiqueoffacultyskillsonhardwaremanagement,ratherthansoftware.
I spend an inordinate amount of time teaching students how to use basic software (spreadsheets, word processors, et cetera).
Infocusgroups,facultymadefrequentmentionofstudents’enthusiasmforInternetresources,althoughsomeexpressedconcernthatstudentswerenotfindingqualityinformationonline.
I find students can manipulate machines and search for information, but they have very underdeveloped capacities to assess critically that information, combine it into complex analyses, and think deeply.
Qualitativedatasupportsthisobservation;facultyratedthemselvessignificantlyhigherinresourceskillsthanundergraduatesdid.Mostinterestingly,55%ofundergraduatesratedtheirabilitytocriticallyevaluateinformationfromtheInternetandothersourcesasadvancedorexpert,asopposedto67%offaculty:a12%difference.
Lookingatexpertiseininfrastructure,production,andresourcesrevealstwokeytrends.First,bothfacultyandundergraduatesratedthemselveshigheratsomeskillsthanothers—bothgroupsaveragedintermediate-levelskillsintheinfrastructurecategory,butadvancedskillsintheresourcescategory.Additionally,significantdifferencesexistbetweenself-reportedexpertiseforfacultyandundergraduateswithintheproductionandresourcescategories.
demographic Influences
Takingdemographicconsiderationsintoaccountcomplicatesissuesofexpertisefurther.Thegenderdifferencesbetweenfacultyandundergraduatesurveyrespondentshadadirectinfluenceontheirpatternsofresponse.Recallthat61%ofourfaculty
CATEGORiES OF ExPERTiSEFiGURE 6
1
2
3
4
ResourcesProductioninfastructure
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �0
respondentsweremale,while61%ofundergraduaterespondentswerefemale.FIGURE7andFIGURE8breakdownfacultyandundergraduateresponsestothegeneralexpertisequestionbygender.
Whenwetookgenderintoconsideration,verydifferentexpertisepatternsemerged.Whileundergraduatewomenandfacultywomenreportedvirtuallyidenticallevelsofexpertise,therewasasubstantialtechnologicaldividebetweenundergraduatemenandfacultymen.Whentheadvancedandexpertcategoriesweretotaled,only32%ofundergraduatewomenandfaculty
womenplacedthemselvesintheupperlevelsoftheexpertisespectrum.However,56%offacultymenratedthemselvesasadvancedorexpert,alongwith72%ofundergraduatemen.Notonlydothesenumbersdemonstratesignificantdifferencesinself-reportedexpertisebetweenthegenders,buttheyalsohighlightanothertrendthatgoesagainstconventionalwisdom:thegendergaponexpertisewaswiderforundergraduatesthanitwasforfacultymembers.
Someofthereasonsthatfacultywomenwereclosertofacultymeninself-reportedexpertisemayinvolvedifferencesinagewithinthefacultypopulation.Whiletheaverageageforundergraduatewomenandundergraduatemenwasthesame,facultywomenare,onaverage,threeyearsyoungerthanfacultymen.Ouranalysisrevealsanegativecorrelationbetweenageandexpertise—theyoungerrespondentsratedtheirexpertisehigher.
Similardemographicinfluenceswerealsoapparentwithinthethreecategoriesofexpertise,althoughtheyweremoreprominentwithinparticularcategoriesthanothers.Mendramaticallyoutpacedwomenininfrastructure,withthemeanforundergraduatemenat2.56,forfacultymenat2.26,andundergraduateandfacultywomenat1.64.Thus,womenaveragedbetweenbeginnerandintermediateinthiscategory,whilemenfellbetweenintermediateandadvanced.However,thegapnarrowedforproductionanddisappearedforresources.
Webeganthissectionwithacomparisonoffacultyandundergraduates’generalexpertiserating.Wenotedthatdiscrepanciesinqualitativeandquantitativedatasurroundthisexpertisecomparison:quantitativedataplacedthetwogroupsonparintermsoftechnologicalproficiency,whilequalitativedatasuggestedthatundergraduates’technologicalskillsmayoutpacethoseoffacultymembers.Longitudinaldatashowedsimilarexpertiselevelsbetweenfacultyandundergraduates,butlookingatspecificcategoriesofexpertiserevealedimportantdifferencesbetweenthesegroupsintheirarenasofknowledge.Thegender
GEnERAl ExPERTiSE: WOMEnFiGURE 7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ExpertAdvancedintermediatebeginner
FACUlTY WOMEn 2005 UnDERGRADUATE WOMEn 2005
GEnERAl ExPERTiSE: MEnFiGURE 8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ExpertAdvancedintermediatebeginner
FACUlTY MEn 2005 UnDERGRADUATE MEn 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
differencesdiscussedabovefurthercomplicatedtheissueandraisedimportantquestions:Arethepatternsrevealedheredifferencesinactualskillorperceivedskill?Arethesegenderdifferencesconsistentthroughoutthesurvey?Whileourinstrumentsarenotadequatetoanswerthefirstquestion,wewillcontinuetoinvestigatethesecondquestionthroughouttheremainderofthisreport.
Technology Use
Theinstructorandstudentsurveysincludedtwodifferenttypesofquestionsabouttechnologyuse.Thefirstaskedparticipantstoselectfromalonglistoftechnologiestheonesthattheyuseandindicatetheirfrequencyofuse.Thesecondtypeofquestionfocusedonparticipants’useofvariousgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservices,suchascomputerlabsandtheCenterforTeaching,Learning,andTechnology.
general Technology Use
Inouranalysis,wefocusontherangeoftechnologiesundergraduatesandfacultymembersusefortheirlearningorinstruction,ratherthanonhowoftentheyemployparticulartechnologies.Inordertoidentifythemostwidelyusedtechnologiesoncampus,weusedthefollowingmethod.First,weidentifiedtwenty-fourtechnologiesthatwereincludedonbothsurveysandtalliedtheiroveralluseacrossallpopulations:undergraduates,graduatestudents,facultymembers,teachingassistants,andothers.Next,wedividedthislistintofourequalparts,generatingfourtiersoftechnology,eachcontainingsixitems.FIGURE9presentsthefourtiers,alongwiththepercentageofusersforeachtechnology.
Itisnotsurprisingthatmoreconventionaltechnologies,suchasword-processingsoftwareanddesktopandlaptopcomputers,arefirmlyestablishedinthefirsttier.ThetechnologiesinthesecondtierindicatethemostinfluentialemergenttechnologiesatthisUniversity.Theclusteringofgraphicssoftware,digitalcameras,andWeb-authoringsoftwareatthecuspbetweenthefirst
andsecondtiersindicatessignificantuseofvisualelementsandformat-tosupportinstructionandlearning.Aftergeneratingthefourtiersabove,weusedthemtocomparelevelsoftechnologyuseacrossdifferentpopulations.FIGURE10comparesundergraduatesandfacultymembers,basedonthetotalnumbersoftechnologythattheyusedfromeachtier:aratingofoneindicatesthat,onaverage,respondentsusedoneofthesixtechnologiesinthattier;aratingoffourindicatesthat,onaverage,respondentsusedfourofthesixtechnologiesinthattier.
WhilefacultyoutpacedundergraduatesontheuseofTier1andTier2technologies,thosethataremoreestablishedattheUniversity,undergraduatesusedmoretechnologiesinTier3andTier4.Overall,undergraduatesweremorelikelytoemployawiderarrayoftechnologiesforcourseactivities,whilefacultytendedtofavorfewer,moreestablished,technologies.
EDUCATiOnAl TECHnOlOGiESFiGURE 9
TECHnOlOGY PERCEnTAGE TECHnOlOGY PERCEnTAGE
Tier 1 Tier 3
Word-processingsoftware 94% Digitalmusicplayer 17%
Desktopcomputer 87% Cellphonefortextmessaging 14%
Spreadsheetsoftware 82% Video-editingsoftware 14%
Presentationsoftware 75% Web-basedfilestorage 13%
Laptopcomputer 75% Peer-to-peerfilesharingsoftware 11%
Graphicssoftware 49% Audio-editingsoftware 9%
Tier 2 Tier 4
Digitalcamera 43% Onlinemusicstore 8%
Web-authoringsoftware 32% CollaborativeWeb-editingsoftware 8%
Databasesoftware 31% Social/collaborativeservices 8%
Instantmessaging 24% TabletPC 7%
Personaldigitalassistant 19% CellphoneforWebsurfing 5%
Web-basedjournals 18% RSSreaders 5%
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
demographic Influences
Aswithexpertise,demographicinfluencesimpacteddataontechnologyuse.FIGURE11andFIGURE12comparetheuseoftechnologiesineachtierbygroup(undergraduatesvs.faculty)andgender.
Severalsignificantpatternsemergefromthiscomparison.Mostimportantly,similartothedataonexpertise,thenumberofdifferenttechnologiesusedbymenwaslargerthanthenumberusedbywomen:men’sratingswerehigherthanwomen’sforthetoptwotiers—representingconventionaltechnologiesandthemostwidely-usedemergenttechnologies.Onceagain,therewasawidergapbetweenundergraduatemenandwomenintheuseofthesetechnologiesthanappearedforfacultymenandwomen.
WhenweexamineTier3andTier4technologiesthelandscapechanges.Forthesetechnologies,groupmembership(facultyorstudent)hadmoreimpactthangenderindetermininguse,althoughgenderstillhadsomeinfluence.Undergraduatewomenusedmoretechnologiesinthefinaltwotiersthanwereusedbyfacultymen,withfacultywomenusingthesetechnologiestheleast.Thedatasuggestthatgenderdifferencesintechnologyusearemorepronouncedforconventional,establishedtechnologiesthantheyarefornewertechnologies.
TECHnOlOGY USEFiGURE 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 4Tier 3Tier 2Tier 1
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
TECHnOlOGY USE: WOMEnFiGURE 11
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 4Tier 3Tier 2Tier 1
FACUlTY WOMEn 2005 UnDERGRADUATE WOMEn 2005
TECHnOlOGY USE: MEnFiGURE 12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 4Tier 3Tier 2Tier 1
FACUlTY MEn 2005 UnDERGRADUATE MEn 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Thispatternfurthercomplicatesourdataontechnologicalexpertise.Allofthetechnology-specificexpertisequestionsinthesurveysfocusedonTier1andTier2technologies.ItispossiblethatundergraduatewomenwouldbemorelikelytobridgethegendergaponquestionsaboutTier3andTier4technologies.TheimplicationsofthesetrendsaresignificantfortheUniversitycommunity.Usingestablishededucationaltechnologyincoursesmayprivilegeundergraduatemen.Tocombatthistendency,facultyshouldbesuretoprovideexplicitinstructionforalltechnologyskillsrequiredofundergraduatesintheircourses.
Use of Technology Facilities and services
Inadditiontoaskingquestionsabouttheuseofdifferenttechnologies,wealsoaskedstudentsquestionsabouttheiruseofcomputerlabsandothergeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservices.Undergraduateresponsesindicatedthattheyfrequentedseveraltypesoflabsonaregularbasis:75%usedgeneral-accesslabs,47%useddepartmentallabs,and77%usedlibrarylabs.Themostcommonreasonsgivenforusingthelabsweretheirconvenientlocationsandhours.Duringfocusgroups,bothfacultyandstudentsexpressedhighpraisefortheresourcesavailableincampuscomputingcenters.Accordingtoonefacultymember,qualitylabsallowedformoretechnologicaloptionsincourses.
No longer is there any “I can’t get access to a computer” or “there’s a long line at the computer lab” or “I couldn’t print it” or “we didn’t have the right software.” They’re [labs] everywhere, they’re all over the place, they’re readily available, and they’re economical to use. So I can freely give assignments and have projects and homework that require a computer now and students can go and do them. The technical help is good; they can get help in the labs.
Astudentexpressedasimilaropinion,whilealsoemphasizingthevalueofconvenience.
I have actually really enjoyed all the computer labs available on campus, like the fast Internet connection, being able to go to almost any building and there’s a technology resource available. Like Odegaard, having it open 24 hours has been awesome—just knowing that at any time I could go there and do my stuff.
ThequalitativedatagatheredfrominstructorsalsocallsattentiontothevalueofTheCenterforTeaching,Learning,andTechnology,whereCatalystWebToolsaredevelopedandsupported.AlthoughtherewerenodirectquestionsaboutCatalystonthesurvey,facultymembersmentionedCatalystfrequentlyinfocusgroupsandintheirgeneralcommentsattheendofthesurvey.Overall,facultymade132unpromptedmentionsofCatalyst.Ofthese,104werepositive,18werenegative,and10wereneutral.Thefewnegativecommentsfocusedonchallengesencounteredwithaparticulartool,advancedusers’preferencestodothingsontheirown,andconcernsthatCatalysttoolsdidnotadequatelymeetallneedsoncampus.Positivecommentsincludedtheusefulnessofparticulartools,thevalueofthetrainingandsupportofferedbyCatalyst,thebenefitofbeingabletolearnatone’sownpaceandpickupnewtoolsandnewskillsovertime,andtheabilitytouseCatalysttoolsbothwithinandoutsideofacoursecontext.MostfacultymemberswhomadecommentsaboutCatalystfocusedonthesupportandassistancetheyreceived.Thefollowingcommentistypical.
I have been helped enormously by Catalyst. The Catalyst staff helped me put together an interactive course Web site with syllabus and course information, announcements, email discussion board, electronic submission of papers, etc… Catalyst also helped me create a personal Web site.
Dataontheuseofparticulartechnologiesandgeneral-accessfacilitiesandservicesindicatethatalargenumberoffacultyandundergraduatesaretakingadvantageoftheresourcesavailabletothemattheUniversity.ItemphasizesthequalitysupportthatwecurrentlyofferattheUniversityofWashington,butalsoallowsustoenvisionnewdimensionstothatsupportthatwillbenecessaryinthefutureasdifferenttechnologiesbecomemorewidelyusedattheUniversity.Wediscusssomeoftheseemergingtrendsmorefullylaterinthisreport.
Perspectives on Technology
Theinstructorandthestudentsurveysposedaseriesofquestionsabouttechnologygoals.Oneofthesequestionsbeganwith“TheUWshould…”andthenaskedrespondentstoratetheirlevelofagreementwiththevariousphrasesthatcompletedthesentence.Forexample,“TheUWshouldrequireallcoursesattheUWtohaveacourseWebsite.”Acomparisonoffacultymembersandundergraduates’desiredgoalsdemonstratesthedifferentprioritiesheldbyeachgroup.
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Undergraduate students
WhenaskedwhattheUniversityshoulddointhefuture,anoverwhelmingmajorityofundergraduatesprioritizeddevelopingandenhancingonlineinformation.Onthestudentsurvey,80%ofundergraduatestudentsexpressedsomelevelofagreementwithastatementaboutrequiredcourseWebsites(quotedabove).FIGURE13graphsstudentresponsetothisquestiononafive-pointscale.
Infocusgroups,studentresponseshighlightedadesireforimprovementstoWeb-basedresources.Attheendofeachsessionweaskedstudentstolooktowardsthefuture:“Dreamalittledream!Ifyoucoulddoanythingyouwantedwithtechnologytosupportyourlearningwhatwoulditbe?”Moststudents’dreamswerequitepracticalandhadimmediateshort-termbenefits:theyaskedforaccesstospecifictools,forbasiccourseinformationtobeavailableonline,andsimilartechnologicalresources.Whileonestudentwantedvideo-conferencingwithherpeersinAsia,moststudents’dreamsstayedclosetohome.Onestudent’sresponsesummarizedasentimentvoicedbymanyofhispeers:
Something that would help support my learning would be having more information about a course online, especially requiring professors to put a syllabus on a Web site. It would be nice to
look on the teacher’s Web site and see all the assignments. That would be fantastic.
Anotherstudentexpressedthesameviewinamannerthatechoedthephrasingofoursurveyquestion,“IthinkeverycourseshouldhaveahomepageontheWeb.”Whetherpromptedbyadirectquestiononthesurveyoraskedtothinkgenerallyabouttheirgoalsanddesires,undergraduatesgaveonlineresourceshighpriority.
Theresultsfromthe2002studentsurveydemonstratedasimilarpattern.In2002,studentsweregivenseveralversionsofthestudentsurvey;differentversionsaskeddifferedquestions.Approximatelyhalfoftheundergraduatessurveyedthatyearwereaskedtorespondtogoal-orientedquestions,includingastatementaboutrequiringcourseWebsites.FIGURE14comparesresponsesfromundergraduatesin2002and2005.Asyoucansee,undergraduates’opinionsonthisissuehavenotchanged:theyexpressedastrongdesireforrequiredcourseWebsitesin2002andtheycontinuedtoarticulatethatdesirein2005.
While2005undergraduatestudentsrespondedtothesurveyquestionaboutrequiringcourseWebsitesinamannervirtuallyidenticaltotheir2002counterparts,2005undergraduatesandfacultymembershadverydifferentopinionsonthisissue.FIGURE15comparesfacultyandundergraduateresponses.While54%ofundergraduatestudentsstronglyagreedwith
REqUiRE COURSE WEb SiTESFiGURE 13
DiSAGREE STROnGlY 3%
DiSAGREE SOMEWHAT 4%
nEUTRAl 13%
AGREE SOMEWHAT 26%
AGREE STROnGlY 54%
UnDERGRADUATES 2005
REqUiRE COURSE WEb SiTESFiGURE 14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Disagree StronglyDisagree SomewhatneutralAgree SomewhatAgree Strongly
UnDERGRADUATES 2002 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
thisstatement,only9%offacultymembersagreed.Facultymemberswerenotmerelyneutral;49%selected“disagreesomewhat”or“disagreestrongly.”Thedivergentopinionsoffacultymembersandundergraduatestudentsonthisissuerepresentthewidestdividebetweenthesetwopopulationsonanyitemsurveyed.
Anotherquestionaskedonboththe2005instructorandstudentsurveysfocusedspecificallyontypesofonlineresources.ItaskedbothgroupstoratetheimportanceofvariouscomponentsofcourseWebsites.Accordingtoundergraduatestudents,themostimportantitemsincludedcoursesyllabi,lecturenotes,andproblemsetsorexercises:forfaculty,thetopthreeitemswerecoursesyllabi,coursereserves/archives,andproblemsetsorexercises.Whilefacultyandstudentsagreedontwooutofthreeitems,theoptionofputtinglecturenotesonlinewasanotherissuethatdividedthesetwogroups.FIGURE16comparesresponsesforthisitem.
Infocusgroupsandtheopen-endedquestionattheendofthesurvey,studentsandinstructorsvoiceddifferentperspectivesonlecturenotes.Instructorswereconcernedthatstudentswouldbelesslikelytoattendclassiflecturenoteswereavailableonline.Studentsexpressedthathavingaccesstolecturenoteshelpedthemstudyandbetterunderstandcourseinformation.Accordingtooneinstructor,lecturenotesandothertypesofonlineinformationhadanimpactthatextendedbeyondwhetherornotstudentsattendedclasssessions.
In many ways, technology has helped the student do less and less and made the instructor do more. Spoon-feeding them a Web-posted, day-to-day course syllabi can easily hamper the ability to pursue interesting issues that spontaneously come up. Too many students are no longer comfortable if it isn’t all laid out beforehand in black and white (better if it is flashy). Not a good formula for effective education.
Qualitativedatafromstudentscounterstheseconcernswithdescriptionsofwhatcanbegainedfromhavingonlineaccesstocoursematerials.
Some people have different learning styles. If you are in a big lecture hall you don’t want to sit there the whole time and jot down everything the teacher says, because you don’t get everything as well. If you sit and actually listen, you get a lot more of it. And then you could get the notes later [online].
Thetwoopposingperspectivesevidentinthesequotesdemonstratethecomplexityofthisissue.Whilefacultyand
REqUiRE COURSE WEb SiTESFiGURE 15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Disagree StronglyDisagree SomewhatneutralAgree SomewhatAgree Strongly
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
OnlinE lECTURE nOTESFiGURE 16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
not importantSomewhat importantVery importantExtremely important
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
undergraduateshavedifferentopinionsonwhatshouldberequiredfortheUniversity,itisclearfromtheircommentsthatbothgroupshavegivenconsiderablethoughttotheimpacts,bothpositiveandnegative,thatonlineinformationhasonteachingandlearning.
Faculty Members
Undergraduates’desireformoreonlinecourseresourceswasconsistentwithlargertrendsinthedata.Ingeneral,undergraduatestudentslookedtofacultymemberstoprovidethemwithadditionalsupport.Ontheotherhand,facultylookedtotheUniversitytoprovidesolutionstotechnologicalneeds.Forfacultymembers,thegoalthatgarneredthestrongestpositiveresponsewas,“TheUWshouldprovidemoreopportunitiesforfacultytousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction.”FIGURE17showsthedistributionofresponses.
Thequantitativedatacollectedintheinstructorsurveydoesnotprovideaconclusiveaccountofwhattheseadditionalopportunitiesshouldinclude.However,evidencefromqualitativedata,fromfocusgroupsandsurveycomments,highlightfacultymembers’desireforadditionaltechnologicalresourcesinclassrooms.Inbothvenuesourquestionsweregeneralandopen-ended.
Althoughwedidnotaskspecificquestionsaboutclassroomtechnologiesineitherforum,thedesireforimprovementsinthisareadominatedfacultycomments.Allfortyoftheinstructorfocusgroupparticipantsexpressedsomelevelofdissatisfactionwithexistinglevelsofclassroomtechnology.Approximatelyhalfoftheinstructorsthatcompletedthesurveyleftcommentsattheend.Ofthecommentsprovided,approximately35%involvedclassrooms.Topconcernsexpressedbyinstructorsincludedthefollowing:lackofcertaintechnologies(suchascomputerswithprojection)inmanyclassrooms,encounterswithunreliableequipment,inconsistenttechnologicalinfrastructureacrosscampusclassrooms,andfrustrationwith“schlepping”equipment(projectors,DVDplayers,laptops)toandfromunequippedclassrooms.Thequotesfrominstructorslistedbelow,indicatetherangeofcommentsonthisissue.
The thing I would add is more electronically-equipped classrooms like the ones at Mary Gates Hall around campus.
The point is that we are so keen on preparing things using technology, but if the classroom does not support technology then it doesn’t mean anything. It has been a hindrance that there’s no sort of standardization across the University.
Accesstoequipmentinclassroomshasadirectimpactonwhetherornotfacultymembersinvestthetimetousetechnologyintheircourses.Accordingtooneinstructor,accesstoatech-equippedclassroomforonequarterwasnotenough;instructorsneededtobeabletocountonconsistentaccess.
Most lecture halls are equipped with the appropriate technology, but most small classrooms are not. If you invest the time to use technology in a 50-person class and don’t know if you are going to get the same classroom every year, the significant cost of transformation may not pay off in the event that you do not get an equipped classroom again.
PROViDE OPPORTUniTiES TO USE TECHnOlOGYFiGURE 17
DiSAGREE STROnGlY 2%
DiSAGREE SOMEWHAT 3%
nEUTRAl 21%
AGREE SOMEWHAT 42%
AGREE STROnGlY 31%
FACUlTY 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Theinstructorandstudentsurveysdidnotaskgeneralquestionsaboutclassrooms.Theydidinclude,however,aquestionabouttheimpactthatvarioustechnologieshadinaseminarclassroom(definedas20-30people).Weaskedrespondentstoindicatewhetherornoteachtechnologylistedenhanced,detracted,orhadnoimpactonteachingandlearning.Forfaculty,thetopthreetechnologiesthatenhancedinstructioninaseminarclassroomwerecomputerswithprojection,overheadprojectors,andTV/VCRs.Interestingly,theonlyitemonthislistthatisnotcurrentlystandardinclassroomsofthissizewasthetop-rateditem:computerswithprojection.Undergraduatestudentsalsogavethisitemthehighestranking.FIGURE18comparesresponses.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatnotechnologylistedreceiveditshighestmarksfromfacultyorundergraduatesinthe“detracts”column.Thisindicatesthatbothgroupsdonottendtoseetechnologyasanimpedimenttoeducationalactivities.
Althoughundergraduatesagreedwithfacultymembersthataccesstotechnologyinseminarclassroomsenhancedtheireducationalexperience,theydidnotagreewithfacultyonallissuessurroundingclassroomtechnologies.Mostsignificantly,whilefacultyvoicedsubstantialcomplaintsaboutunreliableclassroomequipment,studentscomplainedaboutadifferentissue:thelackoftechnologicalprowessamongfacultymembers.Studentopiniononthisissueissummarizedbythequotesbelow.
I feel like the instructors should know how to use the tool better and have to take classes! I have been in so many classes where they have NO clue how to set things up and class time is wasted.
What have not been so helpful [to my learning] are instructors that are unfamiliar with the tools they are using. I think instructors could use professional development support so they are confident using the technologies at their disposal and understand how their students are using technologies.
Ingeneral,undergraduatestudentspreferredthatinstructorsusedtechnologyintheclassrooms;however,attimestheyfoundthatinstructors’difficultiesinexecutionmadetechnologymoreofahindrancethananenhancement.Althoughfacultyandstudentsascribedsomeofthecurrentproblemswithclassroomtechnologiestodifferentsources(faultyequipmentversuslackoffacultytraining),itisclearthatbothgroupswouldbenefitfromseeingthesepatternschange.Thefactthattheissuessurroundingaccesstotechnologyinclassroomsdominatedthequalitativedata,withoutpromptingfromtheresearchteam,demonstratesthatthisissueiscentraltothefutureofeducationaltechnologyattheUniversityofWashington.
demographic Influences
Unlikeexpertiseandtechnologyuse,demographicinfluencesdidnotexertsignificantinfluencesoverperspectivesontechnology,withtheexceptionofdivisionsinage.Youngerrespondents,particularlyundergraduates,showedmoreinterestinopportunitiestouseagreatervarietyoftechnologies.Inparticular,undergraduatesexpressedmoreinterestincollaborativetechnologies,suchascomputersforsmallgroupworkandonlinediscussionspaces.Youngerfacultymembersweremoreinclinedtosharetheseintereststhantheiroldercounterparts.GenderdifferenceshadlittleconsistentinfluenceonopinionsaboutthepaththeUniversityofWashingtonshouldpursueinthefuture.Inthisarea,divisionsbetweenfacultyandundergraduates,drivenbydifferencesinageandexperience,hadthegreatestinfluence.
Theperspectivesontechnologysharedbyundergraduatesandfacultymembersimagineamorepervasivetechnologicalenvironmentoncampus—onewheremoreclassroomsareequippedwithtechnologyandwheremoreresourcesareavailableonline.OurdatasuggestthatiftheUniversitycommunityweretomakeprogresstowardseitherorbothofthesegoalsitwouldhaveasubstantialimpactonteachingandlearning.Facultywouldbeabletousemoreresourcesintheircourses,trynewthingsintheclassroom,andinvesttimeintechnologywithoutfearoftheireffortbeingwastedforfutureclasses.Undergraduates
COMPUTER WiTH PROjECTiOnFiGURE 18
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
EnhancesneutralDetractsnA
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
wouldbeabletoaccessawiderarrayofresourcesonlineandcoulduseWeb-basedinformationtoexpandtheirunderstandingofcoursematerials.
Emerging Technologies
Whileclassroomtechnologiesandonlineresourcesrepresenttwokeyareaswherefacultyand/orundergraduatesmadedirectrequestsforimprovementstotheUniversity’stechnologicalinfrastructure,additionalsurveydatapointedtoothertechnologiesthatweregainingmomentumattheUniversityofWashington:laptopownershipwasontherise,interestinWeb-basedtoolswashigh,andsynchronouscommunicationtechnologies(i.e.,instantmessaging)werepopularasacademictools.
laptops and wireless
Onthe2005instructorandstudentsurveysweaskedaseriesofquestionsaboutlaptopownershipandtheuseoftheUniversity’swirelessnetwork.FIGURE19showsthecurrentrateoflaptopownershipforundergraduatesandfacultymembers.Asthedatashow,themajorityofourrespondentsinbothgroupsownlaptops.Thefigurealsocompareslaptopownershipamongundergraduatestudentswhocompleted2005and2002surveys.Therearesomelimitationstothisdata:onthe2002surveyonlyahalfoftheundergraduaterespondentswereaskedquestionsaboutlaptops.The2001instructorsurveydidnotaskaboutlaptopownership.Evenwhentheselimitationsaretakenintoaccount,itisclearthatlaptopownershipisontheriseamongundergraduates.
Althoughthemajorityoffacultyandundergraduatesreportedowninglaptops,mostofthemwerenotinclinedtobringtheirlaptopstoclassonaregularbasis.FIGURE20presentstheregularitywithwhichbothgroupsreportedbringingtheirlaptopstoclass.Qualitativedatasuggesttwokeyreasonsthatahigherpercentageofusersdonotuselaptopsinclasswithgreaterfrequency:laptopsareheavyandwirelessaccessisspotty.Onthesurveyswealsoaskedfacultyandundergraduatelaptopownerswhetherornottheywouldbringtheirlaptopstoclassifwirelesswereavailable.FIGURE21presentstheirresponses.
Accordingtothedata,thepresenceoflaptopsinclassroomsislikelytoincreasedramaticallywiththeavailabilityofwirelessaccess;35%moreundergraduatesand17%morefacultyreportedthattheywouldbringtheirlaptopstoclasssometimes,usually,oralways.Itisinterestingthatthenumbersjumpedmoreforundergraduatesthantheydidforfaculty.Thisdiscrepancymaybeduetothefactthatahigherpercentageoffacultymembersarealreadyusingtheirlaptopsinclass.Itcouldalsorelatetodiscrepanciesinequipmentbetweenfacultyandstudents.While82%ofundergraduatelaptopownersreportedthattheirlaptophadwirelesscapability,only73%offacultyreportedthesame.Eventhoughahigherpercentageoffacultyownedlaptops,theirlaptopswerelessadvancedthanundergraduates’machines.
TheUniversity’sstrategicplancallsforwirelessaccessacrosstheentireSeattlecampuswithinthenextthreeyears.Basedonsurveydata,itappearsthatasmoreandmoreclassroomsareequippedwithwireless,moreandmoreundergraduatesandfacultywillbringlaptopswiththemtoclass,changingcurrentpatternssignificantly.Infocusgroups,weaskedbothinstructorsandstudentstosharetheirthoughtsontheplantobringwirelesstotheSeattlecampus.Forthemostpart,bothgroupswereenthusiasticabouttheplan,butnotwithoutreservations--themostsubstantialinvolvedconcernsthatwirelessandwirelessdevicescouldbecomeadistractionduringclass.Studentsexpressedbothbenefitsanddrawbacksofincreasedwirelessaccessinclassrooms.
The ability to get online whenever I need has a huge impact on my ability to look up study materials for class.
Having the Internet in classrooms just encourages students to tune out, browse the Internet, watch videos, or do things other than paying attention.
lAPTOP OWnERSHiPFiGURE 19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2002
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Ingeneral,studentsinfocusgroupsexpressedmorereservationsoverwirelessinclassroomsthanfacultydid.Whileafewstudentssaidthattheycurrentlyusedwirelessaccessintech-equippedclassroomsforactivitiessuchastakingcollaborativenotesduringlectures,mostwerenotsurehowwirelesscouldbeutilizedinclass.
Unlikestudents,facultyfocusedtheirconversationaboutwirelessonthenewopportunitiesthatsuchaccesswouldafford.Facultylookedforwardtobeingabletodomoregroupactivities,totakingstudentsoutsidetheclassroom,toeasilyaccessingfiles,andtoincorporatingmoreonlineresourcesintotheirday-to-dayclassactivities.Somedidexpressconcernthatwhilewirelesswasapowerfultool,onitsownitwouldnothaveasignificantimpactonfutureacademicactivities.
My concern about a wireless policy all over campus would be that wireless would be there, but nothing that supports good teaching with wireless would be there.
Astudentexpressedasimilarpointofview.
The things that will make wireless really powerful will be new applications that begin to use that connectivity to do new things.
Thefacultyandstudentopinionscapturedaboveindicatethatharnessingtheeducativepowerofwirelesstechnologytakesmorethanmakingitavailableacrosscampus.Educationalactivitiesneedtoexpandtotakeadvantageofthenewopportunitiesmadeavailablebywireless.
ClASSROOM USE OF lAPTOPS: CURREnTFiGURE 20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
AlwaysUsuallySometimesSeldomnever
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
ClASSROOM USE OF lAPTOPS (WiTH WiRElESS)FiGURE 21
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Always or almost alwaysUsuallySometimesSeldomnever or almost never
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �0
web-based Tools
Onthestudentsurvey,welistedeightdifferenttechnologiesandaskedrespondentstoselecttheonestheywouldliketoseeinstructorsuseintheircourses.FIGURE22presentsthefourtechnologiesthatreceivedthehighestmarksfromundergraduates.
Thetechnologiesthatreceivedthetopresponserateswerenotsurprising.Moreinterestingwastheitemthatreceivedthefourth-highestmarks:onlineportfoliosforclassprojects.Exactly50%ofundergraduaterespondentsindicatedthattheywereinterestedinhavinginstructorsusethistoolfortheircourses—12%moreinterestthanwasgiventostreamingvideo.Theinstructorandstudentsurveysincludedanotherquestionaboutonlineportfolios.Respondentswereaskedtoindicatetheirlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatement:“TheUWshouldprovidestudentswithguidanceinbuildingonlineportfoliosoftheirworkandaccomplishments.”FIGURE23graphsfacultyandundergraduateresponsetothisquestion.
Asthegraphindicates,morefacultyandundergraduatesagreedwiththisstatementthandisagreedorremainedneutral.Thisindicatesastronglevelofinterestinonlineportfolioswithinbothpopulations.Thisinterest,however,appearstooutpacetheuseofthistechnologyattheUniversity.Ontheinstructorsurveyweincludedonlineportfoliosforclassprojectsinoneofthequestionsfortechnologyuse:86%offacultyindicatedthattheyhadneverusedthistechnology.Wedidnotaskthesamequestiononthestudentsurvey.Regardless,onlineportfoliosappeartobeatechnologythatcapturestheinterestofbothundergraduatesandfacultymembers.
Otheronlinetoolsalsogarneredtheattentionoffacultyandundergraduates.Inadditiontoaskingaboutonlineportfolios,wealsoaskedbothgroupstoexpresstheirlevelofagreementwiththefollowing:“TheUWshouldencourageinstructorstouseWeb-basedtoolsforstudentdiscussionandcollaboration.”Interestinthesetoolswasquitehigh:59%ofundergraduatesexpressedsomelevelofagreementand46%offacultymemberssharedthatopinion.Neithergroupdisagreedwiththisobjective;althoughthereweresignificantnumberswhowereneutralontheissue,seeFIGURE24.ThenumbersforthesetypesofWeb-basedtoolswereslightlyhigherthanthenumbersforonlineportfolios;however,theirfrequencyofusewasalsohigher.Onthefacultysurveyweaskedabouttheuseofonlinediscussionboards:49%offacultyindicatedthattheyhadsomelevelofexperiencewiththistechnology.Wedidnotaskthesamequestiononthestudentsurvey.
Instant Messaging
Instantmessagingisanothertechnologythatreceivedahighlevelofattentionfromundergraduatestudents.While52%ofundergraduatesindicatedthattheyusedthistool,only10%offacultymembersindicatedthesame.However,thedividebetweenpopulationsintheuseofthistoolmaynotbeproblematic.Whenweaskedundergraduatestoindicatewhich
DESiRED COURSE TECHnOlOGiESFiGURE 22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Online PortfoliosAudio/Video Clips,Animation or Slides
PowerPointPresentations
Electronic Distributionlists
UnDERGRADUATES 2005
SUPPORT ElECTROniC PORTFOliOS FiGURE 23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeneutralSomewhat DisagreeStrongly Disagree
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
technologiestheywouldliketoseeinstructorsusefortheircourses,only26%selectedinstantmessaging.
Insummary,ourcomparisonofexpertise,technologyuse,andperspectivesbetweenundergraduatesandfacultymembersidentifiesseveralkeyissuesthatareimportanttothefutureofeducationaltechnologyattheUniversityofWashington.Weneedtobetterunderstandandaddresstheexpertisedifferencesthatexistbetweenfacultyandundergraduates,aswellasbetweenwomenandmen.Weneedtosupportnon-traditionaltechnologiesthathavegainedwideacceptanceoncampus.Overthenextfewyears,weneedtoincreaseourunderstandingofhowundergraduatesareputtingnewtechnologiestoacademicuse.WealsoneedtoinvestigatewaystomakethepervasivecomputingenvironmentdesiredbystudentsandfacultyarealityatourUniversity.Inthefinalsectionofthisreport,weoffersomerecommendationsforworkingtowardsthesegoals.
GRADUATE STUDEnT AnD TEACHinG ASSiSTAnT COMPARiSOn
Demographics
Beforeweturntorecommendationsformeetingtheneedsidentifiedbyourcomparisonoffacultyandundergraduates,thereisanothersegmentoftheUniversitypopulationthatneedsattention:graduatestudents.Asdiscussedearlier,wedividedtheUniversityofWashington’sgraduatestudentpopulationbetweenthestudentandinstructorsurveybasedonteachingstatus.Forthepurposesofreportingresults,werefertograduatestudentsthatcompletedtheinstructorsurveyandtaughtclasses
as“teachingassistants”andrefertothosewhocompletedthestudentsurveyanddidnotteachas“graduatestudents.”
Bythenumbers,411teachingassistantscompletedtheinstructorsurveyand286graduatestudentscompletedthestudentsurvey,foratotalof697participantsfromthesetwogroups.FIGURE25showsthebreakdownofteachingassistantsandgraduatestudents.Whilethetotalnumberofgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsapproachesthenumbersofundergraduatesandfacultymembers,wedecidednottocombineresultsforteachingassistantsandgraduatestudentsinouranalysis.Therearetworeasonsforthisdecision.First,thetwogroupscompleteddifferentsurveys,whichaskedthemto
WEb-bASED TOOlSFiGURE 24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeneutralSomewhat DisagreeStrongly Disagree
FACUlTY 2005 UnDERGRADUATES 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS/TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTSFiGURE 25
TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 41% GRADUATE STUDEnTS 59%
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
respondfromparticularperspectives—asaninstructororasastudent.Combiningresultswouldnottobetruetothecontextofthesurveys.Second,andmoresignificantly,thereweresubstantialdifferencesinhowgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsrespondedtosurveyquestions.Inthissection,wehighlightanddiscussthesepointsofdivergence.
Withinthegraduatestudentgroup,55%ofrespondentswereinmastersprogramsand45%wereindoctoralprograms.Theaverageageforgraduatestudentswas32;forteachingassistants,theaveragewas29.Thegenderbreakdownforthisgroupwas39%maleand61%female—thesameratioasundergraduates.Withintheteachingassistantgroup,44%weremaleand56%werefemale.Ingeneral,dataforgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsrevealedsimilardemographicinfluencesontechnologyuseandexpertisethatwesawwithfacultyandundergraduates;mentendedtoratetheirexpertisemorehighlyandtousemoretechnologiesthanwomendid.Sincethesepatternsparallelthosediscussedearlierinthisreport,wewillnotdiscussthemindetailinthissection.
Expertise
Ingeneral,responsesforgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsfitbetweenundergraduateandfacultyresponses,bridgingthedifferencesbetweenthosegroups.Inthisreport,wefocusontheitemswherepatternsintheresponsesdidnotunfoldinthispredictablemanner.Thesepointsofinterestemphasizethatgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsareuniquepopulationswithuniqueneeds.
Whenwecomparedfacultytoundergraduates,wefoundthetwopopulationstoberemarkablysimilarintermsofoverallexpertisewithtechnology.FIGURE26addsgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantstothemix.Tosimplifythecomparisonbetweenthesefourgroups,weonlygraphthesumofresponsesintheadvanced/expertcategories,ratherthanallpointsalongthefour-pointscale.Throughoutthissectionwesimplifydatainasimilarmanner;wecallattentiontokeypoints,ratherthanprovidingcomprehensivecoverage.
AsFIGURE26demonstrates,graduatestudentsandteachingassistantsaresimilartoeachotherintheirresponses;however,respondentsfrombothgroupsratethemselvessignificantlyhigherthanbothundergraduatesandfaculty.Asimilarpatternemergesforthethreecategoriesofexpertise.FIGURE27comparesundergraduates,graduatestudents,teachingassistants,andfacultyoninfrastructureskills.Remember,thiscategoryfocusesonhardwareandcomplexprocesses.Onceagain,graduatestudentsandteachingassistantsratethemselveshigherthanundergraduatesandfaculty.However,thepointofinterestisthehighratingforgraduatestudents.Asimilarpattern,althoughlesspronounced,appearswithproductionskills(notshown),aswellaswithresources(showninFIGURE28).
Intheresourcescategorythegapbetweenundergraduatesandgraduatestudentsisevenmoreextremethanitisfortheothercategories,whileteachingassistantsandfacultylooknearlyidentical.Unfortunately,ourdatacannotfullyexplainthereasonsforthisresult.Thediscrepancydoesraiseinterestingquestionsaboutrelativeexpertiselevelsbetweendifferentgroups.Dograduatestudentstendtohavehigherskillsinthisarea?Dograduatestudents’highexpertiseratingstranslatetohigherlevelsoftechnologyuse?
GEnERAl ExPERTiSEFiGURE 26
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Advanced/Expert
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Technology Use
Thedatafortechnologyuseamonggraduatestudentsandteachingassistantswereconsistentwiththepatternsestablishedintheexpertisesections.Inparticular,thistrendcanbeseeninacomparisonofTier1andTier2technologies,showninFIGURES29and30.Foracompletelistingofthefourtechnologytiers,seeFIGURE9.
Asthedataindicate,graduatestudentsusedmoreTier1technologies,onaverage,thananyothergroup.AlthoughtheydroppedtothesamelevelasundergraduatesforTier2technologies,theirlevelwasstillrelativelyhigh.Teachingassistants,ontheotherhand,usesubstantiallyfewerTier1andTier2technologiesthananyothergroup.Theirlowerlevelsofreportedusewerenotconsistentwiththeirrelativelyhighexpertisescores.Ininstructorfocusgroups,oneparticipantmadeacommentthatfocusedonthelevelofskillsdemonstratedbystudentsinhisdoctoralprogram.Whileitisnotknownfromthedatawhetherornotthestudentsinquestionwereteachingassistantsornot,hiscommentwasconsistentwiththetrendsinsurveydatadiscussedabove.
Strangely enough I still find problems with graduate students worse than undergraduates. Perhaps it is simply that in my discipline I have graduate students who are allergic to technology and they didn’t have anything to do with it. It’s quite surprising to me that they won’t deal with simple graphics and that kind of thing.
Sincethesurveyquestionpresentedabovefocusedspecificallyontechnologyusedtosupportteachingandlearningactivities,itisalsopossiblethatthistrendhadlesstodowithteachingassistants’skilllevelandmoretodowiththeopportunitiesthattheyhavetousetechnologyinthecoursestheyteach.Datafromotherareasofthesurvey,inparticulartheuseofmultimediaandcomputerclassrooms,presentedthesamepattern—teachingassistantswerelesslikelytoteachinthesespacesthanfaculty.Whenteachingassistantsdidteachinhigh-techclassrooms,theywerealsolesslikelytomakeuseofthetechnology.Sinceteachingassistantsrepresentthenextgenerationoffaculty,thispatterndoesraisetheconcernthattheseeducatorsmaynotbegainingfamiliaritywitheducationaltechnologyduringtheirtimeattheUniversityofWashington.
inFRASTRUCTURE ExPERTiSEFiGURE 27
1
2
3
4
infastructure
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
RESOURCES ExPERTiSEFiGURE 28
1
2
3
4
Resources
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Perspectives on Technology
Earlierinthisreport,wepresentedthetechnologicalgoalsthatreceivedthemostsupportfromundergraduatesandfaculty.Undergraduatesfeltthat“theUWshould”requirecourseWebsites.Facultywantedmoreopportunitiestousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction;inparticulartheywantedbetteraccesstotechnologyinclassrooms.Inthissection,wepresentthegoalthatreceivedthemostsupportfrombothteachingassistantsandgraduatestudents.Wealsodiscussgraduatestudentsandteachingassistants’opinionsontheissueschampionedbytheirundergraduateandfacultycounterparts.
Required Technologies
Accordingtograduatestudentsandteachingassistants,thefirsttechnologicalgoalthattheUWshouldpursueistoinformstudentsofthetechnologiesthatarerequiredintheircourses.FIGURE31comparesagreementwiththisstatementacrosspopulations.InFIGURE31,thepercentagethatagreerepresentthecombinedtotalofthosethatmarkedagreesomewhatoragreestrongly.
Thisitemreceivedmoresupportfromgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsthananyoftheothergoalslisted.Althoughitdidnotoccupythetopspotforundergraduatesandfacultymembers,itdidreceivestrongsupportfromthesegroups.Therefore,graduatestudentsandteachingassistantswerenotuniqueindesiringthistypeofinformationbeshared,butwereuniqueinthisbeingtheirtopconcern.
TiER 1 TECHnOlOGY USEFiGURE 29
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 1
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
TiER 2 TECHnOlOGY USEFiGURE 30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 2
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
inFORMATiOn On REqUiRED TECHnOlOGiESFiGURE 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Agree
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Online Resources
Forundergraduates,requiredcourseWebsiteswerethetoppriority.FIGURE32compareslevelsofagreementwiththisgoalacrosspopulations.Onceagain,wehavesimplifiedthescaletofacilitatetheeasyidentificationofpatternsacrossgroups.Thenumbersforagreeincluderesponsesfromagreesomewhatandagreestrongly:fordisagree,theyincludedisagreesomewhatanddisagreestrongly.
Theresponsesfromgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsfallbetweenthoseofundergraduatesandfaculty—afrequentpatternwithinstudydata.Moresignificantly,therewassubstantialdifferencebetweengraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsonthisissue.Teachingassistantsalignedmorecloselywithfacultythantheydidwithgraduateorundergraduatestudents.Evenso,theystilltendedtofavorcourseWebsites—moreagreedthanexpressedneutralityordisagreement—unliketheirfacultycounterparts.
classroom Infrastructure
FacultymembersbelievedthattheUWshouldprovidemoreopportunitiestousetechnologyforinstruction:73%offacultyrespondentsexpressedsomelevelofagreementwiththisgoal.Teachingassistantsalsosupportedthisgoal,butwithsomewhatlessenthusiasm:60%expressedsomelevelofagreement.Forfaculty,oneofthemainmeansbywhichtheUniversitycouldmeetthisgoalwasbyimprovingaccesstotechnologyinclassrooms.Onthesurveys,weaskedinstructors
andstudentstoindicatewhetherparticulartechnologiesenhancedordetractedfromtheirinstruction/learning.Bothfacultyandundergraduatesagreedthatacomputerwithprojectionwasanenhancement.FIGURE33showsteachingassistantandgraduatestudents’responses,alongsidethoseofundergraduatesandfaculty.Tosimplifythecomparison,weshowpercentagesofresponsesfordetractsandenhances,butnotforneutralornoexperience.
Whilebothgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantssawacomputerwithprojectionasanenhancementtotheseminarclassroom,theydidnotrankitashighlyasundergraduatesandfacultydid.Inparticularonly71%ofgraduatestudentssawthistechnologyasanaidtolearning,asopposedto84%ofundergraduates.Teachingassistantsshowedstronginterest,with79%seeingthistechnologyasanenhancement,butthiswasnotthecasewithmanyoftheotheritemslisted.Inparticular,teachingassistantsdidnotseestudent-centeredtechnologies,suchaslaptopcomputersforstudentwork,asanenhancement.FIGURE34comparesresponsestothisitemacrossallfourpopulationgroups.
REqUiRE COURSE WEb SiTESFiGURE 32
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
DisagreeneutralAgree
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
COMPUTER WiTH PROjECTiOnFiGURE 33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
EnhancesDetracts
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Teachingassistantsweretheonlypopulationthatmarkedanyofthetechnologyoptionsforseminarclassroomsasmorelikelytodetractthanenhanceinstruction.Fouritemsreceivedmarksfromteachingassistantsunderdetractsthatwerethesameorhigherthanthoseunderenhances:Ethernetaccessforstudents’laptops,wirelessaccessforstudents’laptops,adesktopworkstationforeachstudent,andalaptopcomputerforeachstudent.Allfouritemshadastudentfocus.Lookingacrossallstudypopulations,themajorityineachgrouptendedtobeneutralonthesetechnologies.However,thisdoesnotaccountforthefactthatmoreteachingassistants’sawtheseparticulartechnologiesasdetractingfromeducationalactivitiesthansawthemasanenhancement—apatternthatappearedinnoothergroup’sresponses.Thesefiguresreinforcepatternsdiscussedearlierinthisreport.Teachingassistantsarenotonlyusingfewertechnologiesfortheirinstruction,buttheyarealsomorelikelytoseethesetechnologiesasundesirable.
Thereareseveralreasonsthatteachingassistantscouldbelessinclinedtousetechnology:thetypesofresponsibilitiestheyhaveinmanycourses,alackofdecision-makingpowerovercurriculum,limitedclasspreparationtime(teachingassistantsgetcourseassignmentswithlessadvancenoticethanfaculty),andlessaccesstoequippedrooms(thiswasapparentinresponsestoquestionsabouttechnologyclassrooms).
Whiletheseelementswerediscussedbrieflyinsomefocusgroups,wedidnothavesessionsthatfocuseddirectlyon
issuesfacingteachingassistants,somanyofthesepossibilitiesarespeculative.Whatisclearfromthedatawedidcollectisthatteachingassistantshavedifferentpatternsoftechnologyusethantheirfacultycounterparts.Ratherthanbeingmoreprolificintheiruseoftechnology,astheirageandexpertiselevelwouldsuggestaslikely,theyarelessso.
Emerging Technologies
laptops and wireless
Inacomparisonofdataonemergingtechnologies,graduatestudentsandteachingassistants’responsestendedtoalignwithundergraduatesinsomecasesandwithfacultyinothers.Bothgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsownedlaptopsatratessimilartofaculty:78%ofgraduatestudentswerelaptopowners,aswere79%ofteachingassistantsand79%offacultymembers.
Althoughaveryhighpercentageofgraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsownedlaptops,thefrequencywithwhichtheybroughtthemtoclasswasmoresimilartoundergraduatesthanitwastofacultymembers.FIGURE35comparesthepercentagewithineachgroupthatcurrentlybringsalaptoptoclasswiththepercentageofrespondentsineachgroupwouldbringalaptoptoclassifwirelesswereavailable.Inthisscenario,teachingassistantstendedtofallbetweenfacultyandundergraduates.Graduatestudentswereslightlylesslikelythantheothergroupstobringalaptoptoclass.Withallfour
lAPTOPS FOR STUDEnTSFiGURE 34
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
EnhancesDetracts
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
ClASSROOM USE OF lAPTOPSFiGURE 35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
With WirelessCurrent
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
groups,however,responsesindicatethatlaptopsinclassarelikelytoincreasewithwirelessintheclassroom.
web-based Tools
Aninterestingdifferenceappearsbetweengraduatestudentsandteachingassistantsonquestionsaboutonlineportfolios.FIGURE36showsresponsestoagoalstatementaboutsupportingonlineportfoliousebystudents.Interestingly,graduatestudentsendorsedthisgoalmorestronglythananyoftheothergroupsdid.Conversely,teachingassistantsexpressedthelowestlevelofsupportforthisgoal.Thispatterncorrespondswithtrendsdiscussedearlierinthisreport;inparticular,theresponsetothequestionaboutonlineportfoliosonceagaindemonstratesthatteachingassistantsfindtheuseoftechnologylessdesirablethanothergroupsdo.Ontheotherhand,thelevelofinterestinonlineportfoliosexpressedbygraduatestudentssuggeststhatmembersofthisgroupwouldbenefitfromatargetedefforttoprovidethemwithtrainingandsupportinthisarea.
Laptops,wireless,andonlineportfoliosweretheemergingtechnologieswheregraduatestudentandteachingassistants’responsesrevealedpatternsthataddednewdimensionstoelementsdiscussedinthesectiononundergraduatesandfacultymembers.Intheinterestofsavingspaceandminimizingrepetitionwehavestreamlinedsomeofourcoverageofgraduatestudentsandteachingassistants,butwhatwehavepresentedheredemonstratesthatthesetwopopulationshaveuniqueresponsesandneedsthatrequirestrategiestargetedtothesegroups.
c O N c l U s I O N s A N d R e c O M M e N d A T I O N s
OVERViEW
Inthissection,wesummarizetheprimaryconclusionspresentedintheresultssection.Foreachconclusion,weprovidealistofrecommendedactionsfortheUniversitycommunitytoconsider.Weendwithadiscussionofthefutureofthisproject.
COnClUSiOnS
Thelistofconclusionspresentedbelowconsolidatesthedominanttrendsinthesurveyandfocusgroupdata.Wepresentthelistinanorderthatmatchesthediscussionoftheseitemsinprevioussectionsofthisreport,ratherthaninorderofsignificance.
Differencesingenderandageinfluencetechnologicalexpertiseratingsandtechnologyusepatterns;mostsignificantly,menratetheirexpertisewithanduseoftechnologyhigherthanwomendo.
Facultymembersuseahighernumberofestablishedtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanundergraduatesdo;undergraduatesuseahighernumberofemergingtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanfacultydo.
Supportforgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservicesishighamongbothinstructorsandstudents.
Undergraduatestudentswantmorecoursematerialsavailableonline.
Facultymemberswantmoreopportunitiestousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction.Inparticular,theywantbetteraccesstotechnologyinclassrooms.
•
•
•
•
•
SUPPORT ElECTROniC PORTFOliOSFiGURE 36
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
DisagreeneutralAgree
FACUlTY 2005 TEACHinG ASSiSTAnTS 2005
GRADUATE STUDEnTS 2005UnDERGRADUATES 2005
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Theadditionofwirelessaccessinclassroomsislikelytohaveasubstantialimpactonhowmanyinstructorsandstudentsbringlaptopcomputerstoclass.
InterestinWeb-basedtools,suchaselectronicportfoliosandonlinediscussionboards,ishigh.
Teachingassistantsandgraduatestudentsthatdonotteachnotonlydifferfromeachotherintheirexperienceswithandperspectivesoneducationaltechnology,buttheyalsodifferfromfacultymembersandundergraduatestudents—makingtheirdivisionacrossthetwosurveyinstrumentsproblematic.
Teachingassistantsexhibitlessinterestinacademictechnologiesthanfacultymembers,graduatestudents,orundergraduatestudentsdo.
RECOMMEnDATiOnS
Approach
Wedesignedthestudytotakeabroadperspective,capturinggeneralcampustrends,ratherthanlookingatafewissuesindepth.Forthisreason,manyofourrecommendationsarequitegeneral.Attimeswecallforthefurtherinvestigationofanissue.SuchinquiriescouldbecarriedoutbyavarietyofUniversitygroups:thecollaborativepartnershipthatcreatedthissurveyorafewofitsconstituents,otherUniversityunitswithaninterestineducationaltechnology,and/orcurrentorfuturecommitteeschargedwithmakingdecisionsintheseareas.Inthenextfewpages,weprovidespecificrecommendationsforeachoftheconclusionslistedearlier.
demographic Influences
Differencesingenderandageinfluencetechnologicalexpertiseratingsandtechnologyusepatterns;mostsignificantly,menratetheirexpertisewithanduseoftechnologyhigherthanwomendo.
Werecommendfurtherinvestigationtoassessactualtechnologyskills,ratherthanself-reportedexpertise.Withinourstudy,theconsistencyofdataintheseareasleadsustorecommendthattheUniversitycommunitybeawareofhowgenderandagemayinfluencecertaintechnologyskills.
Technology Use
Facultymembersuseahighernumberofestablishedtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanundergraduatesdo;undergraduatesuseahighernumberofemergingtechnologiesforacademicpurposesthanfacultydo.
Werecommendfurtherinvestigationtobetterunderstandhowstudentsarebeginningtousenewtechnologiesforacademicpurposes.Thisinvestigationcouldbeformalorinformal,fromfocusgroupswithstudentstocommunitydiscussionforums.Theresearchteamalsoplanstorevisefuturesurveyssothatemergingtechnologiesareincludedintechnologyexpertiseassessmentquestions(inthe2005surveysexpertisequestionsfocusedsolelyonestablishedtechnologies).
University Technology Facilities and services
Supportforgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservicesishighamongbothinstructorsandstudents.
Theresearchteamdoesnotrecommendchangesinthisarea,sincesupportisstrongforgeneral-accesstechnologyfacilitiesandservice.Thecontinuedsuccessofthesefacilitiesandservicesplaysaroleintherecommendationswemakeinotherareas.
Online Resources
Undergraduatestudentswantmorecoursematerialsavailableonline.
Werecommendfurtherinvestigationtoidentifytheobstaclestoputtingmaterialsonlineandtoprovidemoreinformationaboutthereasonsbehindfacultyresistanceonthisissue.Severalmembersofourteam—includingtheOfficeofLearningTechnologies,Computing&Communications,andEducationalOutreach—havestartedworkingtogethertofindwaystostreamlinetheexistingonlinepublishingprocessandhelpfacultyputmaterialsonline.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | ��
Inaddition,newdevelopmentsfromtheCatalystgroup,withintheOfficeofLearningTechnologies,maymakeiteasierforfacultysharecoursematerialswiththeirstudentsonline.TheCatalystgrouprecentlyintroducedanewWeb-basedtool,ShareSpaces,forUniversitystudents.Thistoolprovidesanonlinespaceforstudentgroupstosharefiles;theStudentTechnologyFeeCommitteefundeditsdevelopment.TheCatalystgroupisworkingwithComputing&Communicationstoreleaseaversionofthistooltofaculty.Whenthetoolbecomesavailableforfacultyuse,itwillprovideanewoptionforsharingcoursematerialswithstudents.
classroom Technologies
Facultymemberswantmoreopportunitiestousetechnologytosupporttheirinstruction.Inparticular,theywantbetteraccesstotechnologyinclassrooms.
WestronglyrecommendthattheUniversitymakeacommitmenttoimprovingtechnologyinclassrooms.FurtherinvestigationisneededtoidentifythespecificchangesthatwouldenhanceUniversityclassrooms.Sinceourstudydidnotaskmanydirectquestionsaboutclassrooms,ourunderstandingofthisissuecomesfromunpromptedcommentsmadeduringfocusgroupsandinthegeneralcommentsattheendofthesurveys.Whilethequalitativedataindicateastrongneedforimprovementinthisarea,furtherfocusedinvestigationisneededtodevelopacomprehensiveplanofaction.
wireless
Theadditionofwirelessaccessinclassroomsislikelytohaveasubstantialimpactonhowmanyinstructorsandstudentsbringlaptopcomputerstoclass.
ThisissuerequiresadditionalobservationofpatternsovertimetoseeifthetrendspredictedinthedataholdtrueoncewirelessisavailableinmoreplacesontheSeattlecampus.Wewillinvestigatethisissuefurtheronfutureiterationsoftheeducationaltechnologysurveys.Inthemeantime,themixedopinionsonthisissue—thenewopportunitiesforlearningthatthistechnologyaffordsalongwithitspotentialtodisruptclasses—requiresadditionaldiscussionwithintheUniversitycommunity.
Werecommendthatalargerdiscussionoftheissuessurroundingwirelessaccessinclassroomsshouldtakeplaceastheimplementationofthistechnologyprogresses.TheUniversitycommunitystandstobenefitfromdiscussionforums,presentations,and/orworkshopsonthisissue.Intheforumsmentionedabove,orinothervenues,itisimportanttopresentusefulmodelsofthepedagogicaloptionsthatthistechnologyaffords.Someoftheseoptions,suchasgroupworkandactivitiesoutsidetheclassroom,werediscussedinfocusgroups,aswastheneedforpracticalmodelsforusingthistechnology.
web-based Tools
InterestinWeb-basedtools,suchaselectronicportfoliosandonlinediscussionboards,ishigh.
WerecommendincreasingtheeducationandoutreacheffortsforWeb-basedtools.TheCatalystgroupisusingtheresultsofthisstudy,alongwithfindingsfromotherresearchefforts,tohelpshapeitssupport,development,andmarketingplans.Inadditiontoworkingontheeducationaltechnologysurveysandfocusgroups,researchersfromCatalystgrouparealsoworkingwiththeNationalCoalitionofElectronicPortfolioResearchtoinvestigatetheuseofelectronicportfoliosinhighereducation.Inspring2005,researchersinterviewedseveralstudentsthathadenteredtheCatalystPortfolioContest.FindingsfromthisstudyinformedaredesignoftheportfolioassignmentintheFreshmanInterestGroup(FIG)programandarecurrentlybeingusedtoinformapilotprojectintheEnglishdepartment.Findingsareavailableonlineathttp://catalyst.washington.edu/projects/.
graduate students/Teaching Assistants
Teachingassistantsandgraduatestudentsthatdonotteachnotonlydifferfromeachotherintheirexperienceswithandperspectivesoneducationaltechnology,buttheyalsodifferfromfacultymembersandundergraduatestudents—makingthedivisionofgraduatestudentsacrossthetwosurveyinstrumentsproblematic.
Weplantomakechangestothenextiterationoftheeducationaltechnologysurveys.Insteadofdividinggraduatestudentsbetweentheinstructorandstudentsurveys,wewilllookatgraduatestudentsseparately,withsomequestionsforallgraduatestudentsandotherstargetedtowardsteachingassistantsorgraduatestudentsthatdonotteach.Wealsorecommendthatthelargeruniversitycommunitylookcloselyatthesegroupswhenstudyingourinstitution,inordertoensurethattheirneedsanddesiresareadequatelyrepresented.
•
•
•
•
knowledge services
catalyst.washington.edu ED TECH SURVEY REPORT | �0
Teaching Assistants and Technology Use
Teachingassistantsexhibitlessinterestinacademictechnologiesthanfacultymembers,undergraduatestudents,orothergraduatestudentsdo.
Werecommendfurtherinvestigationtoidentifyandovercomeobstaclesthatgetinthewayoftechnologyusebyteachingassistants.WealsorecommendthattheUniversityprovidemoretrainingandresourcesforteachingassistantstousetechnology.Theresearchteamplanstoconductfocusgroupswithteachingassistantstobetterunderstandtheirneeds.Wewillschedulethesefocusgroupsbeforewedesignthenextsurvey.
next Steps
OneobjectiveofthesurveysandfocusgroupswastogatherinformationthatwouldhelpguidethefuturedirectionofeducationaltechnologyattheUniversityofWashington.Asafirststeptowardstherealizationofthisgoal,thecollaboratingpartnersareusingstudydatatohelpguidetheirfuturework.Forinstance,TheOfficeofLearningTechnologiesandComputing&Communicationsareexploringwaystosimplifytheprocessofputtingresourcesonline.Additionally,theCatalystgroup,intheOfficeofLearningTechnologies,isusingsurveydatatohelpshapefuturetooldevelopmentefforts.TheresearchpartnershopethatotherUniversityconstituentswillconsiderfindingsfromthisreportastheymakedecisionsinvolvingeducationaltechnology.
Beforeweconcludethisreport,thereisonemoreissuethatrequiresattention.Onerespondenttothefacultysurveyvoicedanimportantconcernaboutthedesignofthisstudy;thisfacultymemberfeltthatthesurveywasbiasedbecauseitwascreatedanddistributedbygroupsthatweredirectlyorindirectlyinvolvedwithcampustechnology.WhilethepartnersinvolvedinthisprojectareactivelyinvolvedinsupportingeducationaltechnologiesattheUniversity,webelievethatthisinvolvementisabenefittothisprojectbecauseweareinapositiontodirectlyrespondtostudyresults.Thesurveyandfocusgroupdataallowustobetterunderstandtheneedsandthedesiresofthecommunityweserve.Eventhoughmanyofusaretechnologyadvocates,thepromotionofmoretechnologyuseisnotourultimategoal.Ourgroupsworktohelpinstructorsandstudentsusetechnologyinwaysthatservethelargermissionofouruniversity—tosupportteachingandlearning.Thesurveysandfocusgroupsaretoolsforexpandingourawarenessoftheeducationalcomponentofeducationaltechnology.
Technologyonitsownhasverylittleinnateabilitytoimpactteachingandlearning;itscapacitytosupportorundermineeducationalactivitiesisrealizedbythemannerinwhichitisemployed.Thissentimentwasvoicedbyseveralstudyparticipants.Astudentinoneofthefocusgroupsobservedthefollowing:
What I have noticed about instructors using technology in class is that often it is simply being used for the sake of using technology. Good teaching is still about being a good teacher, engaging your students, and using the most appropriate tool for the job.
Thisstudent’scommentsareastrongreminderofwhatisatstakeinconversationsabouteducationaltechnology;thefirstwordintheterm—educational—istheonethatneedsemphasis.
Whilevoicingconcernsaboutnon-educationalusesoftechnology,studentsandinstructorsalsocommentedonwhytechnologyisaneffectivetoolforsupportingeducation.Thefirstquotecomesfromastudentandthesecondfromafacultymember.
The UW should make a policy that encourages instructors to use technology, not for the bells-and-whistles sake of being novel, but as a superior mode for lecture and instruction compared to what we have known in the past.
I think students nowadays are so in tune to technology. So, I think if we give them something they are very familiar with, they can use it more and they can learn more from it.
Thisreportdoesnotaimtopromotetheuseoftechnologyforitsownsake,butrathertopromotetheuseoftechnologyinamannerthatbenefitsteachingandlearningattheUniversityofWashington.
Theresearchteamplanstorepeatthisstudyeverythreeyears.Thenextiterationofthestudy,in2008,willallowustotrackthechangingroleoftechnologyattheUniversity.Inthemeantime,wewillbeinvolvedinotherresearchendeavors.In2006,theEDUCAUSECenterforAppliedResearch(ECAR)willsurveyUniversityofWashingtonstudentsabouttheirtechnologyuseaspartofanationwidestudy.ResearchersintheOfficeofLearningTechnologieswillcompareECARresultswithresultsfromthe2005surveysandfocusgroupsandsharetheirobservationswiththeUniversitycommunity.Theresearchteamalsointendstofollowuponsomeofthetrendsidentifiedwithinthisstudy.
•