spatial explorations in art, science, music and technology ...
ECAR/MSU STUDY OF FACULTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Explorations in Instructional Technology...
-
Upload
solomon-lester -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of ECAR/MSU STUDY OF FACULTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Explorations in Instructional 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 e-mail, 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 institutions77.3% nationally
OUTCOMES
49% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that the institution was improving student outcomes through technology
52.6% at peer research institutions60.1% 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 institutions40.8% nationally
ANALYSIS #2
“Faculty interest in early-alert systems and intervention notifications is strong (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”
INSTITUTIONAL ALERTSTable 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 InstitutionsGuidance about courses they may consider taking in the future, such as “you may also like” or “we recommend” suggestions
21.6% 23.1% 28.5%
Alerts if it appears a student’s progress in a course is declining
39.5% 43.4% 51.7%
Suggestions for how to improve performance in a course if a student’s progress is substandard
44.1% 42.2% 49.8%
Suggestions about new or different academic resources for your students (e.g., tutoring, skills-building opportunities, etc.)
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 USETable 2Please indicate how you use the learning management system:
MSU Other DR Institutions All US InstitutionsI 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 TRAININGTable 3Faculty 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 EFFECTIVENESSTable 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 EFFECTIVENESSTable 7 Faculty who agree or strongly agree regarding student preparedness for teaching and learning activities:
MSU Other DR Institutions All US InstitutionsI 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 TECHNOLOGY1. 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
Twitter - @jlknott