Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student

Services

A partnership project between NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc

Presented by: Julia Panke Makelawith support from

The NCSD Technology Advisory Committee

Survey Development & Procedures

Going about figuring it out

3

Technology Area Questions• In what areas have student development

professionals in two-year colleges implemented technology tools?

• Are there differences in the areas technology tools by implementation by demographics (e.g., size, location, region)?

• Are these technology tools easy for staff to use?

• Do these technology tools effectively meet the needs of staff?

4

Implementation Level Questions

• Can we uncover information about the level of technology implementation by two-year institutions?

• What types of technology are found in two-year colleges with low-level implementation? Moderate implementation? Extensive implementation?

5

Method for Exploring Questions• Established an NCSD Technology Advisory

Committee (TAC) to determine technology areas and specific questions to address– Evelyn Clements, NCSD Past President– Jim Grigsby, Germanna Community College (VA)– Gilbert Hermosillo, MiraCosta College (CA)– Mike Lopez, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

(MN)– Peg Morelli, James A. Rhodes State College (OH)– Darrow Neves, Middlesex Community College (MA)– Susan Roberts, Columbia-Greene Community College

(NY)– Lori A. Sebranek, Madison Area Technical College (WI)– Sandra H. Thomas, John Wood Community College

(IL)– Henry B. Villareal, College of San Mateo (CA)

6

Method for Exploring Questions

• Developed a survey covering:– 11 technology areas– respondent demographics– overall concerns

• Conducted the survey online via Survey Monkey

• Used SPSS and Excel to run data comparisons at the National Office, with feedback gathered from the NCSD TAC

Survey Participants

Who helped us figure it out?

8

Participants• Originally contacted:

– 589 Chief Student Services Officers • 168 NCSD members • 421 non-members

– One contact per community college, contacts obtained from NCSD Membership List and Contact List

• Participated:– 118 responded (20.0%)– 102 (17.3%) provided usable surveys

• 49 NCSD members (29.2% of those contacted)• 53 non-members (12.6% of those contacted)

9

Demographics – Participant Role

• The possible respondent categories included:– President or Vice President of your

Institution– Dean or Vice President of Students, Student

Affairs, or Student Development– Director of a Student Services Office (e.g.

Admissions, Financial Aid, Career Services– Associate or Assistant Director of a Student

Services Office– Faculty or Instructor– Chief Technology Officer, or IT Staff Member– Other (please specify)

10

Demographics – Participant Role

• Target audience 1: Dean or Vice President of Students, Student Affairs, or Student Development

• Target audience 2: President or Vice President of your Institution.

• Over 85% of respondents fell in these categories.

11

Demographics –Region• The possible responses included the NCSD regions:

– Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode

– Region 2: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania– Region 3: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia– Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee– Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,

Wisconsin– Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas– Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska– Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Utah, Wyoming– Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada– Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington– Region 11: Canada

12

Demographics –Region• Largest response from:

– Region VI - Midwest (23%)– Region IV - Southeast

(23%)– Region V - Southwest (11%)

• Smaller response from:– Region III – Middle East

Coast (8%)– Region VII – South (7%)– Region VIII – Midwest /

Central (7%)– Region I – Northeast (7%)– Region X – Northwest (5%)– Region II – Upper east coast

(5%)– Region IX– Central (4%)

13

Demographics - Size• Potential responses included the Carnegie

Classification sizes for two–year institutions:– Less than 500– 500 to 1,999– 2,000 to 4,900– 5,000 to 9,999– 10,000 or more

14

Demographics - Size• Responding

institutions were primarily from larger institutions:– 10,000 or more

students (36%)

– 5,000 – 9,999 students (25%)

– 2,000 – 4,900 students (26%)

15

Demographics - Environment

• The possible responses included:– Urban– Suburban– Small Town– Rural– Other

16

Demographics - Environment

• Responding institutional environments were more evenly distributed than their geographic regions. – 26% suburban– 24% small towns– 23% rural – 21% urban

• 6% reported other environments

Technology Area Implementation

So, what do they have?

18

11 Technology Areas• Admissions and

student recruitment• Financial aid• Academic

placement, orientation, and assistance

• Academic advising• Registration• Student email

• Assistive technology for people with disabilities

• Counseling• Career services• Student activities• Other student

services

19

Admissions and Recruiting• Does your institution have?

– Technology-based recruiting tools – Online marketing materials

• Prospective students website• Virtual tour

– Online applications

• Before seeing the results… What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

20

Admissions and Recruiting• Technology-based recruiting tools

– Yes 74.5% No 19.6% Don't Know 4.9%

• Online marketing materials– Prospective students website 64.7 %– Virtual tour 28.4 %

• Online applications– Yes 90.2 % No 8.8 % Don't Know 0.0%

21

Admissions and RecruitingBest Experiences• Online applications• Fast, easy

communication• Websites, online

registration and online orientation

Biggest Challenges• Inadequate technology• Loss of face-to-face

interactions / personal touch

• Technology glitches (e.g. duplicate applications, system crashes)

• Accuracy of information• Time for data entry

22

Financial Aid• Does your institution have?

– Online processing for financial aid applications– Online view for application progress– Online inquiry for application progress

• Before seeing the results… What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

23

Financial Aid• Online processing for financial aid applications

– Yes 84.3% No 8.8 % Don't Know 6.9%

• Online view for application progress– Yes 64.7% No 12.7% Don't Know 8.8%

• Online inquiry for application progress– Yes 66.7 % No 11.8 % Don't Know 8.8%

24

Financial AidBest Experiences• Timeliness / speed at all

phases of the application process

• Ease of use• Specific system feature

Biggest Challenges• Loss of personal touch –

students want face-to-face for financial matters

• Training• Security / privacy /

FERPA• Ease of use• Student usage• Accuracy of input• Student access and

literacy

25

Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance

• Does your institution have?– Computer-based academic placement– Computer-based student orientation– Academic assistance

• Computer-based academic tutoring• Computer-based study / Life skills training• Advising via online chat• Tutoring via online chat

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

26

Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance

• Computer-based academic placement– Online 52.9%– Offline 50.0%

• Computer-based student orientation– Online 39.2%– Offline 8.8%

• Academic Assistance– Computer-based academic tutoring 62.7%– Computer-based study / Life skills training 34.3%– Advising via online chat 25.5%– Tutoring via online chat 18.6%

27

Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance

Best Experiences• Student reception and

access• Specific system feature• Timely and effective

communication

Biggest Challenges• Ensuring access• Security / privacy /

FERPA / identity verification

• Staff time• Low usage• Training• Cost

28

Academic Advising• Does your institution have technology for…

– Student academic records– Academic placement records– Web-based degree audits– Transfer articulation records– Student class schedules– Automated advisor assignment– Web-based self-scheduling for student-advisor

appointments

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

29

Academic Advising• Student academic records 90.2%• Academic placement records 90.2%• Web-based degree audits 61.8%• Transfer articulation records 60.8%• Student class schedules 93.1%• Automated advisor assignment 28.4%• Web-based self-scheduling 20.6%

30

Academic AdvisingBest Experiences• Specific system feature,

e.g. degree audit, academic history

• Current, accurate information

• Ease of use• Software system• Use in distance advising

Biggest Challenges• Current, accurate

information• Ease of use• Integration with other

systems / software• Security• Training• Time and cost• Improve specific feature,

e.g. transfer articulation check

• Flexibility for 2- yr. college environments

31

Registration• Does your institution have?

– Computer-based methods of registration

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

32

Registration• Computer-based methods of registration

– Online 85.3%– Offline 30.4%

33

RegistrationBest Experiences• Students can be more

self-sufficient / personally responsible for registration process

• Real time access 24/7• Saves time and space –

more efficient• Specific system feature

Biggest Challenges• Technology glitches• Loss of personal touch –

face-to-face time is necessary for some

• Student data entry error• Training• Inadequacy of user

interface or system features

• Cost and staff time• Security• Keeping the technology

current

34

Student Email• Does your institution have?

– Email accounts for students

• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of email usage by students?– Low, medium or high?

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

35

Student Email• Email accounts for students

– Yes 65.7% No 28.4% Don't Know 0.0%

• Level of email usage by students– Low 40.3%– Medium 43.3%– High 11.9%– Don’t Know 4.5%

36

Student EmailBest Experiences• Communication to

individual students and groups

Biggest Challenges• Student use

– Other personal accounts– How to assess?– Is it effective?

• Managing account assignment

• Training• Spam• Managing the volume of

emails sent to students• Creating a single

password

37

Assistive Technology• Does your institution have?

– Assistive technology for people with disabilities

• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by students?– Low, medium or high?

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

38

Assistive Technology• Assistive technology for people with

disabilities – Yes 72.5% No 9.8% Don't Know 10.8%

• Level of assistive technology usage by students– Low 15.7%– Medium 30.4%– High 22.5%– Don’t Know 3.9%

39

Assistive TechnologyBest Experiences• Specific software, e.g.,

ZoomText, JAWS• Student use and

reported satisfaction• Access / effectiveness

Biggest Challenges• Cost• Staying current• Training• Space / hours of

operation• Access• Knowledge of available

resources / use• Standardization• Anticipating needs• Specific tool, e.g. books

on tape

40

Counseling• Does your institution have?

– Computer-based needs assessment– Computer-based client intake– Counseling via online or chat services

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

41

Counseling• Computer-based needs assessment

24.5%• Computer-based client intake

10.8%• Counseling via online or chat services

16.7%

42

CounselingBest Experiences• Distance counseling /

various locations• Needs assessment• Student reported

satisfaction

Biggest Challenges• Security / confidentiality

/ verification of identity• Use• A need for more in this

area• Personal touch

43

Career Services• Does your institution have?

– Self-assessment– Career / major exploration– Placement– Client data tracking

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

44

Career Services• Self-assessment

– Online 50.0% Offline 55.9%

• Career / major exploration– Online 58.8% Offline 59.8%

• Placement– Online 33.3% Offline 67.6%

• Client data tracking– Online 21.6% Offline 16.7%

45

Career ServicesBest Experiences• Wealth of information• Access• Specific software, e.g.,

job posting

Biggest Challenges• Student use• Personal touch• Current info for local

labor market

46

Student Activities• Does your institution have?

– Technology to encourage student clubs/groups to interact online

• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by students?– Low, medium or high?

• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?– Low– Medium– High

47

Student Activities• Technology to encourage student

clubs/groups to interact online– Yes 38.2% No 42.2% Don't Know 5.9%

• Level of email usage by students– Low 38.8%– Medium 41.8%– High 11.9%– Don’t Know 7.5%

48

Student ActivitiesBest Experiences• Improved

communication• Improved access for

distance students• Use • Student engagement

Biggest Challenges• Inappropriate use • A need for more in this

area• Use• Staying current

Technology Implementation Levels

Exploring implementation

areas across institutions

50

Level Exploration Strategy• 86 respondents completed all 11 sections of

the survey, and therefore could be included in overall trend analyses.

• Give institutions credit for ANY type of technology in an area

• These 86 institutions reported having implemented technology in:– Minimum of 5 (45.5%) areas – Maximum of 11 (100.0%) areas– Average of 9 (81.8%) areas

51

Implementation Categories• Institution were

categorized as follows:– Low implementation

7 or fewer areas– Medium implementation

8-9 areas– High implementation

10-11 areas

• Number of institutions in each category:– 12 low implementation– 41 medium

implementation– 33 high implementation

Number of Areas

Percent of Areas

Number of

Institutions

5 45.45% 2

6 54.55% 1

7 63.64% 9

8 72.73% 19

9 81.82% 22

10 90.91% 16

11100.00

%17

52

Low Implementation Institutions (12)

Technology Area Number of Institutions

Percent

Admissions 12 100.0%

Financial Aid 5 41.7%

Placement / Orientation

11 91.7%

Academic Advising 11 91.7%

Registration 9 75.0%

Student Email 5 41.7%

Assistive Tech 3 25.0%

Counseling 1 8.3%

Career Services 10 83.3%

Student Activities 1 8.3%

Other 11 91.7%

53

Popular Technology for Low Implementation

Institutions

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Low Implementation Medium Implementation High Implementation

Pe

rce

nt

Ins

titu

tio

ns

Admissions Placement / Orientation Academic Advising Other

54

Medium Implementation Institutions (41)

Technology Area Number of Institutions

Percent

Admissions 41 100.0%

Financial Aid 38 92.7%

Placement / Orientation

39 95.1%

Academic Advising 39 95.1%

Registration 39 95.1%

Student Email 25 61.0%

Assistive Tech 30 73.2%

Counseling 13 31.7%

Career Services 39 95.1%

Student Activities 6 14.6%

Other 41 100.0%

55

Additional Popular Technology for

Medium Implementation Institutions

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Low Implementation Medium Implementation High Implementation

Pe

rce

nt

Ins

titu

tio

ns

Financial Aid Registration Career Services

56

High Implementation Institutions (33)

Technology Area Number of Institutions

Percent

Admissions 33 100.0%

Financial Aid 33 100.0%

Placement / Orientation

32 97.0%

Academic Advising 33 100.0%

Registration 33 100.0%

Student Email 29 87.9%

Assistive Tech 33 100.0%

Counseling 24 72.7%

Career Services 33 100.0%

Student Activities 31 93.9%

Other 33 100.0%

57

Additional Popular Technology for

High Implementation Institutions

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Low Implementation Medium Implementation High Implementation

Pe

rce

nt

Ins

titu

tio

ns

Assistive Tech Student Activities

58

Technology Not Addressed

Technology AreaLow

Implement

MediumImpleme

ntHigh

ImplementAdmissions 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Financial Aid 41.7% 92.7% 100.0%

Placement / Orientation

91.7% 95.1% 97.0%

Academic Advising 91.7% 95.1% 100.0%

Registration 75.0% 95.1% 100.0%

Student Email 41.7% 61.0% 87.9%Assistive Tech 25.0% 73.2% 100.0%

Counseling 8.3% 31.7% 72.7%Career Services 83.3% 95.1% 100.0%

Student Activities 8.3% 14.6% 93.9%

Other 91.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Technology Ease and Effectiveness

How is technology

really addressing

needs?

60

Ease / Effective Exploration Strategy

• Please tell us about your staff’s experience with ____.– Is it easy to use?– Does it effectively meet your needs?

• Reponses were rated on a 5 point scale– 1 Not at all– 2 Somewhat– 3 Moderately– 4 Very – 5 Extremely

– Or, Don’t Know

61

Exploration Strategy, Con’t.

• For each set of ease / effectiveness questions, we created difference scores– Respondent 1: Ease1 – Effectiveness1 =

Difference1

– Respondent 2: Ease2 – Effectiveness2 = Difference2

– …

– Respondent n: Easen – Effectivenessn = Differencen

• Then, the mean of the differences was found.• A two-tailed t-test for the differences was

computed at α = .05

62

What differences do you see?

Not significant• Marketing• Financial aid

applications• Academic placement

tools• Academic advising

applications• Registration• Assistive technology for

people with disabilities• Online career services

Significant• Recruiting tools• Admissions applications• Orientation tools• Academic support tools• Student email• Counseling services• Offline career services• Student clubs and groups

For all, ease of use scores were significantly higher than effective scores.

Overall Future Challenges

What overall challenges will

community colleges face

down the line?

64

Most Cited Challenges1. Resources (30)

– Cost / Funding (19)– Time (4) – Infrastructure (4) – Other (3)

2. Specific Area (25)– Advising (8)– Distance Education (6)– Email (3) – Counseling (2)– Other (6)

65

Most Cited Challenges3. Training (19)

– Staff / Faculty (11)– Students (6)– Not specified (2)

4. Staying current with technology changes (18)

5. Expectations / consumer market (10)6. Others…

– Data entry / conversions / compatibility (8) – Student use / awareness (6)– Access / literacy (6)– Security (5)– Quality / high tech-high touch (3)

Thank you for listening!

For questions or additional information,

contact:

Julia Panke MakelaAssistant Director,

NCSD National Office

jpmakela@uiuc.edu(217) 244-0731

Special Thanks to CampusWorks, Inc

CampusWorks Inc. (CWI) is an information technology (IT) management and strategic planning

services firm dedicated exclusively to technology support to higher education. CampusWorks

specializes in working within the community college higher education arena and provides information

technology leadership and technical expertise to a number of North American clients. You can learn

more about them at:www.campusworksinc.com