Transcript ECAR/MSU Study of Faculty and Information Technology

ECAR/MSU
STUDY OF FACULTY AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
Explorations in Instructional
Technology
November 21, 2014
INTRODUCTION
In February of 2014, IT Services Teaching and Learning partnered with the Educause
Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) to distribute a survey to all instructors of
record at Michigan State University, gauging their attitudes regarding the use of
campus technology in their academic work. The optional survey was distributed via email, and no reminder or follow-up messages were sent.
TIMELINE
February 24, 2014 – Surveys distributed to all instructors of record
March 16, 2014 – Survey closed
May 1, 2014 – Data files received from ECAR
August 18, 2014 – ECAR study published
September, 2014 – MSU report published
SAMPLE - MSU
Distributed to all instructors of record for FS12, SS13, US13
157 responses
5% response rate
8% margin of error
National response rate – 15%
TECHNOLOGY INTERESTS - MSU
93.6% identified that they were interested in technology for teaching and learning
51.6% identified they were interested in technology for research and scholarship
49% work mostly with undergraduates
38.2% work mostly with graduate students
12.1% work mostly with professional students
.6% do not typically work with students
RANK AND TENURE
95.5% identified as full-time faculty members, 4.5% as part-time
 Peer institutions: 54.7% full-time, 16.9% part-time
 Nationally: 68.9% full-time, 31.1% part-time
81% tenured, 7.4% not tenured but tenure track, 37.8% non-tenured
 Peer institutions: 48.8% tenured, 18% not tenured but tenure track, 33.2% non-tenured
 Nationally: 50.1% tenured, 18.7% not tenured but tenure track, 32.1% non-tenured
ONLINE TEACHING - MSU
74.1% did not teach a fully online course in the past academic year
13.8% said that less than half their load was online
12.1% taught at least half their teaching load online
USE AND SATISFACTION
MSU faculty are connected:
80.7 out of 100
MSU faculty are relatively satisfied with their campus tech experiences:
67.7 out of 100
MSU faculty are not technophobic:
67.7 out of 100
MSU faculty are relatively conservative in their approach to technology:
54.9 out of 100
INSTITUTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
ANALYSIS
MSU, peer doctoral institutions,
and the national picture
ANALYSIS #1
“Faculty recognize that online learning opportunities can promote access to higher
education but are more reserved in their expectations for online courses to improve
outcomes (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”
ACCESS
73.7% of MSU faculty agree or strongly agree that online courses will
expand the availability of higher education to more populations and increase student
access
 73.3% at peer research institutions
 77.3% nationally
OUTCOMES
49% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that the institution was
improving student outcomes through technology
 52.6% at peer research institutions
 60.1% nationally
ONLINE LEARNING POTENTIAL
25.5% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that online learning has the
potential to help students learn more effectively
 33.1% at peer research institutions
 40.8% nationally
ANALYSIS #2
“Faculty interest in early-alert systems and intervention notifications is strong (Dahlstrom
& Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”
INSTITUTIONAL ALERTS
Table 1:
Faculty responding that they are “very interested” or “extremely interested” to the question “How interested are you in your institution providing your students with the
following early-alert or intervention notifications, even if it means additional input on your part?”
MSU
Other DR Institutions
All US Institutions
Guidance about courses they may
21.6%
consider taking in the future, such as “you
may also like” or “we recommend”
suggestions
Alerts if it appears a student’s progress in 39.5%
a course is declining
23.1%
28.5%
43.4%
51.7%
Suggestions for how to improve
performance in a course if a student’s
progress is substandard
Suggestions about new or different
academic resources for your students
(e.g., tutoring, skills-building
opportunities, etc.)
44.1%
42.2%
49.8%
53.5%
55.8%
60.4%
Automated tracking of your students’
course attendance via college ID card
scanners or other automated means
26.3%
36.2%
40.1%
ANALYSIS #3
“The majority of faculty are using basic features and functions of LMSs but recognize that
these systems have much more potential to enhance teaching and learning (Dahlstrom &
Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”
LMS USE
Table 2
Please indicate how you use the learning management system:
MSU
Other DR Institutions
All US Institutions
I don’t use the LMS at all
10.9%
15.5%
14.2%
To push out information, such as posting a
syllabus or other handouts
62.6%
63.9%
57.5%
To promote interaction outside of the
classroom by using discussion boards,
assignments, assessments, etc.
42.9%
40.8%
40.9%
To teach partially online courses (or
competency-based programs)
20.4%
17.3%
19.1%
To teach completely online courses (or
competency-based programs)
22.4%
19.9%
28.4%
TECHNICAL AND TRAINING
Table 3
Faculty reporting that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” in regard to technical and training aspects of the campus LMS:
MSU
Other DR Institutions
All US Institutions
System availability
77.1%
74.4%
75.2%
System response time
50%
58.5%
62.6%
Ease of use
45%
48%
57.2%
Initial use training
39.3%
35.5%
45.6%
Ongoing training/professional
development
37.5%
29.1%
37.5%
Overall satisfaction
40.8%
51.1%
60.5%
ANALYSIS #4
“Faculty think they could be more effective instructors if they were better skilled at
integrating various kinds of technology into their courses (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p.
4).”
VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESS
Table 4
Faculty who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they could be a more effective faculty member if they were better skilled at integrating technologies:
MSU
Other DR Institutions
All US Institutions
Learning Management System
63%
55.4%
53.6%
Online Collaboration Tools
51.3%
53.8%
55.1%
ePortfolios
27.4%
32.7%
35.4%
eTexts
41.7%
48.4%
48.7%
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Student preparedness,
equipment availability, and
managing technology
VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESS
Table 7
Faculty who agree or strongly agree regarding student preparedness for teaching and learning activities:
MSU
Other DR Institutions
All US Institutions
I wish students were better prepared to use
institution-specific technologies
37.9%
46.5%
53.3%
I wish students were better prepared to use
basic software programs and apps
36.2%
40.5%
46.8%
Most of my students have adequate
technology skills
70.1%
66.6%
65.7%
Too many of my students look to me or my
TAs for tech support
27.2%
27.3%
29.6%
FACULTY MOTIVATIONS FOR USING TECHNOLOGY
1.
Clear indication/evidence that students would benefit
2.
Release time to design/redesign my course
3.
Direct assistance from an instructional design expert
4.
A better understanding of the relevant types of technologies
5.
Direct assistance from IT staff
6.
A teaching assistant to assist with technology implementation
7.
Working in a faculty cohort or community
8.
More/better technology-oriented professional development opportunities
9.
Tenure decisions and other professional advancement considerations
10. A monetary or other value-oriented incentive
11. Increased student expectations of technology integration
12. Support/encouragement from peers
QUESTIONS/CONTACT
Jessica Knott
IT Services Teaching and Learning
(517)884-0674
[email protected]
Twitter - @jlknott