StudentAffairs.com Virtual Case Study

5 Ways Technology Has Changed Student Affairs Springfield College Julia Golden, Marty Checchi, Caitlyn Egan, and John Zocco

“As futurists, student affairs practitioners can be campus guides for those who are fearful of, overwhelmed by, or even overly enamored with technological innovation. They bring a useful set of values, principles and knowledge bases about human behavior in the context of higher education to serve as resources to move through this jungle of human confusion.” (Komives & Petersen, 1997)

Presentation Overview

 Building Community With Technology  Keeping Up With Students  Staffing Concerns  Network and Computer Security  Moving Into The Future

Building Community With Technology

Social Networking Sites: How They Work

   A person begins by creating what is known as a profile  A profile is a combination of identifying factors about a person (name, hometown, personality characteristics, photographs, music, etc) The next step is making connections  Messages are sent to whomever you want to be your “friend”, which has to be accepted by both parties in order to create the “friendship” “Friending” gives access to your profile and adds them to your network (Dwyer 2007)

PODCASTING

    Derived from combination of the words iPod and broadcasting “in reference to concept in which online audio programs in digital format are downloaded for listening at user’s convenience” (it lit review) Can be recorded on any digital recording device These “audioblogs” provide students with a stronger hold on their own learning pace



PODCASTING

Most evident use of this technology is within academic classrooms; though institutions have begun to turn to podcasts as a new media outreach to students (Huann 2006)  Stanford University works with Apple iTunes to offer students podcasts of lectures, learning materials, locally created music, sports information, and other data

But what can we do?

 Embracing new technology and incorporating it into our everyday atmospheres is exceedingly beneficial to our students  Research has found that these “synchronous environments provide a better learning environment” (Johnson 2001)

But what can we do?

 We as higher education administrators must come to the realization that this “younger generation views technology largely as a means of delivering entertainment… and secondarily as a means of communicating” (Bugeja, 2006)  In seeking to consistently expand enrollment, institutions must understand that “technology rates higher than rigor or reputation in high school focus groups (Bugeja, 2006)

But what can we do?

 “New technologies alarm us for very real reasons, but can and must be addressed in ways that do not crush innovation and fun” (Mitrano 2006)

But what can we do?

 Keep in mind that online communication is healthy and normal for students of these generations  These social networks are “critical to identity development” (Guidry 2006)  “Research confirmed that internet communication does not displace traditional communication” (Guidry 2006)  Rather, it encourages “healthy and natural socialization, as well as identity development” (Guidry 2006)

 

But what can we do?

These online versions of our students’ selves are their needed space to “gather and be seen by peers”  This is their place to rebel and essentially learn so that they mature Student affairs professionals can directly relate these facts to development theories of establishing identity   As Reisser states, this is “any experience that helps students define ‘who I am’ & can help solidify sense of self” (Evans 1998) Baxter Magolda’s thoughts of self authorship also applies  We know that student’s establish knowledge of themselves through their own process of self reflection to establish meaning of what they experience (Evans 1998)

But what can we do?

   “Students do not always use” these new technologies “frivolously; they use them to build & maintain key social contacts & networks” (Guidry 2006)  55 % of Facebook members and 60% of MySpace members access the site everyday (Dwyer 2007)  Many students have admitted to using the site to “manage relationships initiated offline” (Dwyer 2007) As affiliates of colleges and universities, we must “balance the desire to guide students away from costly & dangerous online mistakes with students’ legitimate needs & rightful desires to experiment with communications, technologies and their online identities” (Guidry 2006) “Social networking technologies speak to all that is fresh and innovative in research, teaching, and learning, as well as outreach” (Mitrano 2006)

But what can we do?

 Within the campus community, student affairs staffs can keep students aware of what they are communicating in their online selves  Students in these communities “reveal a lot of information about themselves, and are not aware of privacy options or who is actually viewing their profile” (Dwyer 2007)

Keeping Up With Students

Introducing Your Staff to the Digital Generation

 Who are our students?

“Members of today’s digital generation of students have spent their early lives immersed in robust, visual, electronic media —Sesame Street, MTV, home computer, video game, cyberspace networks, MUD and MOOS, and MP3 players” (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2002).

Digital Generation (cont.)

  “Change your teaching style. Make blogs, iPods, and video games part of your pedagogy. And learn to accept divided attention spans. A new generation of students has arrived -- and sorry, but they might not want to hear you lecture for an hour.” “They ( on Millennials/Digital Generation) are smart but impatient. They expect results immediately. Source: Carlson, Scott. The Net Generation Goes to College. [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, A34.

Can We Keep Up With Students?

 “Universities are straining to keep up with the connectivity demands of students. Today’s undergraduates are already spending hours every day on the Net interacting with faculty, students, and home while accessing knowledge distributed about the world.” (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2000)

How We CAN Keep up!

 Use IT for support in teaching and learning  As found in a case-study on Mount Holyoke, a small private women’s college, “ Two key elements to reaching this goal (becoming a high-performing, inclusive organization) are having a defined mission and vision-with identified institutional strategic initiatives to serve mission and vision-and having an infrastructure to support work.” (Turner and Perry, 2002.)  Mount Holyoke specifically added Library, Information and technology Services that supports all faculty, staff and students.

How We CAN Keep Up (cont.)

 There are many Journals, and web-sites that keep student affair practitioners updated.  Look for support in other places “Internships, offer stipends…Faculty expertise, send staff to relevant courses offered on campus or conferences…Tap graduates from your institution in computer science” (Freeman and Aspray, 1999.)

Network and Computer Security

Security Issues in the News

 In recent years there have been several computer-security breaches at institutions across the country.

 April 2006, University of Texas had 197,000 files breached, 106,000 contained Social Security numbers (Mangan 2006)  Over a 13 month period in 2006, Ohio University left 367,000 files exposed to hackers (Wasley 2006)  January 2008, Georgetown had a hard drive stolen which potentially contained personal information of 38,000 current and former students, faculty, and staff (Georgetown University 2008)

Computer Security

 The total number of security issues at colleges and universities have increased by 67.5% compared to 2006 (Dodge 2008)  22% of incidents resulted from a breach (penetration) of computer software, computer system, or computer network. (Dodge 2008)  38% of incidents resulted from unauthorized disclosure – accidental release of information (Dodge 2008)  Unauthorized disclosure represents the largest area of concern at the moment Graph source (Dodge 2008)

Why We Should Care

 Student Affairs professionals need to be aware of the potential problems that may arise as information goes digital.

 To prevent future unauthorized disclosures policies need to be formed and followed that work to prevent opportunities for disclosure  As the importance of the computer continues to grow in our field so will our need for better security continue

Institutional Responsibility

    Institutional negligence for the theft or exposure of personal data is concern that needs to be addressed. The issue of negligence that is debated in many cases is the determination of what duty and institution has concerning protecting personal data An institution has a duty to have in place a reasonable level of protection on the personal information they hold.

If that duty is breached then an institution can be found liable (Tribbensee 2003)

Institutional Responsibility Continued

 Even Colleges and Universities which are not found liable can occur large costs associated with a security breach  Ohio University’s breach which occurred in 2006 illustrates this point. The following is the breakdown of what the breach cost the institution:  $77,000 spent notifying alumni and students of breaches  $750,000 in 21-day emergency-response expenses for hardware and consulting  $4 million allocated by the Board of Trustees to secure systems (Wasley 2006)

What Can Be Done?

 To reduce the costs that can occur when personal information is lost or stolen insurance plans can be purchased.

“ Should data be compromised, a typical cyberinsurance policy would cover many o the costs that would follow, including those for notifying people whose information has been compromised, providing credit monitoring services to those affected, and hiring computer consultants to decipher the causes of the breach and to plug holes” (Foster 2006)  To reduce costs of policies some institutions have grouped together for better deals (Foster 2006)

What Can Be Done?

 Institutions can help prevent issues with computer security by forming a comprehensive information technology policy  Awareness programs are needed to inform all members of the campus on the dos and don’ts of computer usage  Many times these policies are in place but are either unknown to an individual or ignored (Bruhn and Petersen 2003)

Staffing Issues

Why Do We Need Technology Skills?

 Technology Skills are in demand “There are currently 700,000 open IT jobs…this shortage is expected to double in the next five years” (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2002).

 These skills are needed for higher education “…where information technology has come to effect nearly every aspect of one’s life; where the acquisition, management, and deployment of information are the key competitive advantages; where electronics commerce already accounts for more than 23 million jobs and nearly $500 billion in revenue; education can no longer be seen as a discrete phenomenon, an option exercised only at a particular stage in life or a process following a linear course.” (Alva, 1999)

Why Do We Need Technology Skills? (cont.)

 As student administrators we know our campus’ culture and needs “The planning and design of a campus network is too important a job to outsource completely…but this is also too important a function to entrust entirely to local staff if they are not yet ready to manage it successfully.” (Long, 2000)

Why are we hesitant to learn these skills?

  On faculty, “I have spent sixteen years making myself the best teacher I know hot to be. Please, please don’t put me in a position that undermines everything I’ve been working for. Don’t make me look stupid.” On Staff, “For a while the requirements of a particular grant did not allow staff to attend some professional development session.”  Using technology presents major challenges of reinventing almost everything you do.

Source: Luker, Mark A.(2000). Preparing Your Campus for a Networked Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

The Four Rs Can Help

 Recruitment , IT and HR are teaming up to find well qualified IT people who can train AND support administrators, staff and faculty in their transition into technology.

 Retention , Offer benefits for training and attractive working conditions  Retraining, C administrators onstantly updating and teaching newest technology trends for both IT and  Restructuring -Some IT jobs are being created for specific higher educational needs. Source: Educause Quarterly.

Recruiting and Retaining Information Staff in Higher Education.

Retrieved February 13 th , 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQMOO26.pdf.

Transitioning into the Future

Moving Into the Future

We must:  Let our values guide us.

 Role-model technological learning and proficiency.

 Anticipate future trends.

 Collaborate across and outside of the institution.

 Include all of our constituents in future planning.

Let our values guide us.

As student affairs practitioners, we are committed to student growth and development. Our work must:   Ensure that all students have the same basic levels of technological proficiency. Not all students enter with the same skills or experiences. Technological exposure prior to college varies with race, socioeconomic status and parental education level.

37% of students in nursery school through 12 th grade with family incomes below $20,000 do not use computers at home, compared to 88% from families with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Source: DeBell, M. & Chapman, C. (2006). Computer And Internet Use by Students in 2003 (NCES 2006-065). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics

Role-model technological learning and proficiency.

    As in all that we do, student affairs staff must be leaders in raising our own technological skill levels. Current college students have used technology in their every day lives from a young age. As of 2003, 91% of students in nursery school through 12th grade, used computers on a regular basis. (DeBell & Chapman, 2006) Educators must aim to be as savvy as the students they serve.

Assessment of staff skill levels for working with software, web navigation, and equipment is essential to planning staff development and setting expectations as technology changes (Kleinglass, 2005).

Anticipate Future Trends

 While technology is dynamic and ever changing, we can anticipate trends by considering recent technological advances, and looking at current trends among the rising college generation (Komives & Petersen, 1997).

Collaborate Across and Outside of the Institution

    Student affairs must move forward along with the rest of the institution. In order to keep pace: Partner with Information Technology staff within the institution for staff training and decision-making regarding the introduction of new technology.

Participate in campus committees. Be at the table when decisions are being made, and offer our expertise and perspective.

Establish partnerships with outside organizations and corporations. Learn from their models of technological advancement (Lunday, 2007)

Include All of Our Constituents in Future Planning

 Strategic planning should be done in collaboration with academic leaders, staff and students to ensure that the technology is shaped by and responsive to the needs of the users (Lunday, 2007).

         

REFERENCES

American College Personnel Association (1996).

Principles of good practice for student affairs

. Retrieved February 16, 2008 from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/pgp/principle.htm

. Bruhn, M. & Petersen, R.(2003). Policy development for information security. In M. Lurker & R. Petersen (Eds.), Computer and network security in higher education (59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bugeja, M. (2006). Facing the facebook

. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 (21), C1.

DeBell, M.,& Chapman, C. (2006).

Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003

(NCES 2006 – 065). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Dodge, A. (2008).

Educational security Incidents year in review-2007

. Retrieved February 16, 2008 from http://www.adamdodge.com/esi/yir_2007 Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., Passerini, K., (August 2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace,

Proceedings of Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Duderstadt, J., Atkins D., Houweling, D. (2002)

Higher Education in The Digital Age,

Connecticut: Praeger Publisher.

Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998)

Student Development in College

, California: Jossey-Bass.

Foster, A. (2006). Worried about hackers? Buy some insurance: A rash of data breaches has more colleges seeking new coverage for the liabilities that follow [Electronic version].

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52

(8), A41.

Georgetown University. Office of Communication. January 29, 2008). Georgetown university notifies current and former students, faculty, and staff of data breach.

Georgetown University Press Release.

Retrieved February 5, 2008 from http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=30979

            

REFERENCES

Guidry, K. (September 27, 2006) Online Communication is healthy, normal and critical to identity development,

NASPA NetResults

Huann, T. Y. & Thong, M.K.(2006) 0podcasting.pdf

Audioblogging and Podcasting in Education.

From http://edublog.net/astinus/mt/files/docs/Literature%20Review%20on%20audioblogging%20and%2 Johnson, C. (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice.

The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1),

45 – 60 Kleinglass, N. (2005). Who is driving the changing landscape in student affairs?

New Directions For Student Services

, 112.

Klor De Alva, Jorge. (1999) “Remaking the Academy in the Age of Information,” in Issues in Science andTechnology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Komives, S.R. & Petersen, R.J. (1997). Values and principles guiding technology decision making for the future.

New Directions for Student Services

, 78. Long, P. (2002)

Planning, Designing, and Growing a Campus Network for the Future.

EDUCause Leadership Strategies, 1, p. (41-58). Lunday, E. (2007). Educational facilities and the impact of technology, expectations and competition: Including the top ten critical facilities issues. APPA: Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers.

Mangan, K. (2006). Computer-security breach raises fears at u. of texas [Electronic version].

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52

(35), A44.

Mitrano, T., (2006) A wider world: Youth, privacy, and social networking technologies,

EDUCause Review 41,

16-29 Tribbensee, N. (2003). Liability for negligent security: Implications for policy and practice. In M. Lurker & R. Petersen (Eds.), Computer and network security in higher education (45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Turner, LA., Perry S. (2002)

Campus Human Resource Leadership; A Mandate for Change.

EDUCause Leadership Strategies, 6, p. (53-74). Wasley, P. (2006). ‘More holes than a pound of swiss cheese‘: Computer-protection problems at ohio u. spark complaints from alumni – and firings [Electronic version].

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53

(6), A39.