S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.
-
Upload
trista-pheasant -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.
![Page 1: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ECAR Study of UG Students
2013 Results: Nationally & UoMS. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD
Advanced Learning CenterFall 2013
![Page 2: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Started by EDUCAUSE in 2004◦ UoM began participating in 2005 ◦ 2013 was the 8th year that UoM participated
Method:◦ Data collected in Spring 2013◦ All UG classes solicited (Only Fresh/Senior in past)
◦ Online survey request: Email from CIO TigerLAN prompt page at login
Study Overview
![Page 3: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
General Resultsand Findings
![Page 4: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
250+ institutions participated in 2013
Response rate:◦ US – 29,262◦ UoM – 771 (2.6% of all responses)
120 Freshmen / 143 Sophomores / 190 Juniors /262 Seniors / 56 Other
72% Female / 28% Male (similar to previous years)
Summary of Participation
![Page 5: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
In most cases the results from UoM students largely mirror those from other institutions in this study. This is a trend we’ve seen since beginning participation in this study.
A few notable exceptions are highlighted in this report.
Worth Noting: Our students continue to look like other students across the U.S.
![Page 6: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Equipment OwnershipOwn… UoM Nationally
…Laptop 95% 97%
…Desktop 53% 42%
…Tablet 52% 42%
…eReader 29% 22%
…Smart Phone 85% 85%
Notes:
• Laptop up from 83% in 2011
• Desktop is down from 56% 2011
• Tablet is up from 20% in 2011
• eReader is up from 10% in 2011
• iPhone is up from 62% in 2011
![Page 7: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Observations and Implications
![Page 8: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
85% of our students say that their personal laptop is very or extremely important to their academic work and success.
In addition, 67% say the same about their smartphone 90% of our students own two (2) or more internet-enabled devices
and 60% own three (3) or more.
Observation: Personal ownership of internet-enabled personal technology is very relevant to our students’ academic success.
Implications: Innovative pedagogical strategies (BYOD, flipped, in-class polling, etc.) that rely on personal devices can be readily pursued.
![Page 9: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
How our students use lab equipment: When they leave personal laptop at home (57%) Printing (67%) Specialty software (31%) Faster internet (27%)
Observation: Campus investments in computer labs are seen by students as primarily for convenience & printing.
Implications: Consider print-only labs or similar spaces? Expand the benefit of bringing personal laptops to campus (charging stations, furniture, space, etc.)?
![Page 10: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Things they can do with a mobile device: Access library resources (40%) Check grades (61%) Register for courses (49%) Check financial aid (51%) Access online course information (40%)
Observation: Campus support for mobile device as a practical tool is making headway.
Implications: Explore other ways in which the campus can take advantage of student’s willingness to use personal mobile equipment for conducting business as a student.
![Page 11: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Coursework, Faculty, Etc.
![Page 12: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Observation : Perception of faculty use of technology is improving
2011 201330%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Use Tech Ef-fectively
2011 201330%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Have Adquate IT Skills
Most or All Faculty…
Implications: Campus faculty community is becoming more prepared for teaching with technology. (A similar survey of faculty self-perceptions might be useful.)
![Page 13: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Students want faculty to use more: Regular email (65%) Face-to-Face conversation (61%)
…but not so much on social networking: Texting (34%) Chat (23%) Facebook (13%) Twitter (10%)
Observation: Students still prefer direct communication with their faculty via traditional means.
Implications: Faculty should not feel bad sticking to traditional means of connecting with their students.
![Page 14: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Pct of our students who did not use the LMS in the last 12 months is 21%, while the US average is 5%. However, 40% wish faculty would use the LMS more often to communicate.
The campus LMS is perceived to be very important for your academic success?◦ UoM = 51%, US = 74%
Observation: Campus use and perceived value of LMS (D2L) lags other campuses in US.
Implications: Need to understand why our faculty use the LMS less than at other campuses. Perhaps need programs/incentives to encourage more use.
![Page 15: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
More use of personal equipment in the classroom:◦ Laptops (53%), Smartphone (40%), Tablet (38%)
In terms of how technology helps them:◦ 54% say is makes them more actively involved
◦ 74% say it helps them achieve academic success
◦ 73% say technology prepares them for future educational plans.
But our faculty seem to be going in the other direction:◦ 70% report smartphones being discouraged or banned entirely in
class
◦ Only 1 in 5 report encouragement to use their laptop in class
Observation: Students would like to have more use of technology in the classroom.
Implications: Disconnect between students and faculty on the role of personal technology in the classroom. What are the impediments? (wireless, furniture, culture, skills)?
![Page 16: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Good news: 50% have taken a fully O/L course in the last 12 months.
Bad news: Only 10% prefer fully O/L. Preference: Blended is preferred by 60% of
our students.
Observation: While fully O/L has become mainstream, students do not prefer it.
Implications: Perhaps better understand why students feel this way? Is there a need to improve fully O/L experiences for students?Should we explore formalizing a broader use of blended courses for the future?
![Page 17: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Classroom lecture capture – 62% want more access to video-recorded classroom lectures that are available via the web.
MOOCs are not on students’ radar:◦ Only 2% of our students have taken a MOOC in the last
12 months with only 0.4% reported completing it.
◦ 75% don’t even know what a MOOC is.
◦ These numbers are essentially identical to U.S.
Miscellaneous Observations:
Implications: Should we be cautious about our MOOC investments and instead think about more lecture capture technology?
= ?
= Yes
![Page 18: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Recap
![Page 19: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
1. The UoM continues to mirror national trends (significant variances are rare; e.g., LMS usage).
2. Students see our faculty as having better skills using technology in the classroom.
3. Ownership of personal computing devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc.) is nearing 100%.
4. Student perceptions on the value of technology in classes is strong,…
5. But there is a disconnect with actual use in the classroom.
Recap of Findings
![Page 20: S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081518/5517628555034645368b47ae/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Presenter: [email protected]
EDUCAUSE/ECAR: http://www.educause.edu/ecar
All past ECAR study data on UMwiki
Follow up: