Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services
description
Transcript of Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services
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
[email protected](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