Aggie R-r-ring Program Use Survey Fall 2005 Results

Transcription

1 Aggie R-r-ring Program Use Survey Fall 2005 Results Background In a Pew Internet & American Life Project study of college students Internet use, Jones (2002) found that college students are frequently looking for with 72% checking at least once a day (p. 2). The study also found that 66% of college students use at least two addresses (p. 2). According to the study, college students used to communicate with faculty members, classmates, friends, and family. Almost half (46%) of the students agreed that enabled them to express ideas to faculty that they would not have expressed in class (p. 3). Three-fourths (75%) communicated with classmates about group projects and 31% said they ed classmates at least once a week or more (p. 14). The Pew study also revealed that online communications did not substitute for other forms of communication. Most college students (69%) were still more likely to use the phone than online communication for social conversations. And only 19% of students preferred to communicate with their professors more via than face-to-face (p. 3). Students are using such tools as IM clients and as new media to reproduce the social interaction with which they have had previous experience (Jones, 2002, p. 18). According to the Texas A&M University s Quality Enhancement Plan s (QEP) webpage, Every curriculum in the University now requires students to be computer-literate, and to be able to access and use informational resources electronically to support their studies (p. 22). The webpage also describes the goal of prompting academic units to evaluate technologies essential for inclusion in their curricular offerings, and to identify which competencies are necessary to achieve defined student learning outcomes (p ). The purpose of this study was to benchmark Texas A&M students use of . In particular, this study asked students how often they check , how many addresses they used, and how often they used for academic purposes as well as other activities such as social interaction with friends. Method and Sample Callers, trained and supervised by Measurement and Research Services (MARS), conducted phone interviews using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. Students not at home were returned to the sample list for a later attempt. Contact was attempted with a random sample of 1,443 undergraduate students. Of those, 76%, or 1092, were wrong numbers or had no contact information in the official student database. For the remaining 351 students, 38% (134 students) did not wish to participate. Sixty-two percent (62%), or 217 students, agreed to participate in the survey. Table 1, on the following page, illustrates the demographics of survey participants, the original sample group, and the Fall 2005 Texas A&M undergraduate population demographics.

2 Demographic Category Survey 2 Participants (n=217) Adjusted Sample (n=348) Original Sample Group (n=1443) OISP Fall 2005 data (n=44,578) Gender Female 50% 49% 47% 48% Male 50% 51% 54% 52% Classification Freshmen 30% 28% 25% 20% Sophomore 16% 15% 17% 17% Junior 12% 16% 18% 20% Senior 26% 27% 27% 24% Graduate 16% 15% 12% 18% Residence On-Campus 45% 45% 37% 21% Off-Campus 55% 55% 63% 79% Ethnicity African American 3% 3% 3% 3% American Indian 1% 1% 1% <1% Asian American 19% 18% 13% 3% Caucasian 60% 63% 70% 75% Hispanic 15% 14% 13% 10% Other 1% 1% 1% <1% Table 1: Demographic information for the survey participants, adjusted sample, original sample, and Fall 2005 campus population Results Results are reported as frequency percentages for the number of people (n) who responded. Percentages are rounded for ease of reading and means are reported where relevant. Standard deviations, which describe the spread of data, are available upon request. Students were asked if they owned a personal computer. The majority (97%) said they did own a computer. A follow-up question asked the computer owners what type of internet connection they used for their personal computer. The majority (581%) said they used broadband services such as a cable modem, DSL, or Resnet (an Ethernet service offered within the campus residence halls). Another 29% used dial-up services such as TAMUnet or AOL. Ten percent (12%) had wireless access while another 1% did not have an internet connection for their personal computer. Students were asked what types of devices they used for accessing through a select-all-thatapply option list. Table 2 depicts the responses in descending order. Computer Device Percent Home desktop 51% Laptop 45% TAMU owned computers 32% Cell phone 4% PDA 0% Table 2: Computer devices used for instant messaging (n=217) - 2 -

3 All Texas A&M students are assigned a campus address when they enroll at the university through a system called Neo. Neo serves as the official communication method between the institution and the students. Students were asked if they set their Neo to forward to a non-university account. Almost a third (31%) said they did forward their account. A follow-up question asked all students how frequently they checked messages addressed to their Neo account. Three-quarters (77%) said they checked the messages once a day or more. Another 15% checked their Neo message a few times a week, 3% checked once a week, 4% checked less than once a week, and 1% checked less than once a month. Another 1% said they never checked their Neo messages. Students were asked how many accounts (i.e., Neo, Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL) they checked. Figure 1 illustrates that 88% of the students had two or more accounts. No students reported having zero accounts. 10% 12% 25% 53% one two three four or more Figure 1 Number of accounts checked by students (n=191) Another question asked students to select the best option for how often, on average, they checked any account during the academic year. The majority (96%) said they checked once a day or more. Another 4% checked a few times a week and 1% said once a week. The next set of questions asked students to identify the forms of communication they currently used with specific groups of individuals through a list of select-all-that-apply options. Table 3 depicts the responses in descending order for . seemed to be a popular form of communication for all but two groups family and academic advisors. Groups Face-to-Face Phone Instant Messaging Postal Mail Professional Staff/University Staff 92% 58% 31% Student Organization Advisors 92% 61% 18% 6% 2% Instructors/Faculty 80% 29% 5% 1% 1% Friends 61% 69% 73% 57% 17% Classmates 59% 36% 29% 22% 1% Academic Advisors 47% 61% 9% Family 30% 30% 78% 12% 11% Table 3: Forms of communication currently used with specific groups (n=217) - 3 -

4 A follow-up question asked students to identify the form of communication they most preferred to use with each group. Table 4 displays their choices in descending order for . was the majority choice for professional staff, faculty, and student organization advisors. Groups Face-to-Face Phone Instant Messaging Postal Mail n Professional Staff/University Staff 72% 20% 8% Instructors/Faculty 70% 28% 3% Student Organization Advisors 69% 27% 4% Classmates 43% 32% 14% 10% Academic Advisors 30% 64% 6% Friends 8% 45% 38% 9% Family 6% 29% 62% 2% 1% 191 Table 4: Preferred forms of communication for specific groups Another set of questions asked students to estimate how many per week during the academic year they spent using for a variety of activities. Table 5 illustrates the responses. Students spent most of their time communicating with friends, family, and classmates. Activity Communicating socially with friends 14% 56% 22% 5% 3% Communicating with classmates about academic 16% 74% 7% 3% 1% work Communicating with family members 32% 51% 13% 1% 3% Communicating with instructors (people who teach 27% 68% 4% 1% -- your classes) Communicating with staff members (i.e., advisors) 53% 42% 5% Communicating with strangers 85% 14% 1% -- 1% Table 5: Hours students spend per week, on average, participating in specific activities using (n=212) Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements using the scale 5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Undecided, 2=Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree. Table 6 depicts all of the responses in descending mean order. Students agreed that they were comfortable using and thought it had a positive impact on their academic experience. Statement Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree I am comfortable using as a 56% 43% 1% communication tool. My professors use as a 31% 68% -- 1% communication tool. has had a positive impact on my 34% 60% 6% 1% college academic experience in general. has been beneficial in my 25% 63% 9% 3% relationship with classmates. allows me to more freely express 12% 59% 10% 18% my ideas to professors. Table 6: Level of agreement to statements regarding (n=155) - 4 -

5 A final question asked students how they used compared to face-to-face meetings with professors. Almost half (45%) said they used and face-to-face meetings about the same. Another 35% said they used less than face-to-face meetings and 17% said they used more than face-to-face meetings. Three percent (3%) did not know how much they used compared to face-to-face meetings. Limitations First, the volume of wrong numbers in the original sample may have impacted the results by removing numerous students from the pool of available survey respondents. The students who were not successfully contacted may not be similar to the students who were contacted. Second, some of the sample demographics did not accurately reflect the campus demographics. The responses from these groups may not reflect the opinions of the students in these demographic categories. Third, the sample numbers for some groups such as ethnic minorities were quite small and cannot provide any concrete conclusions about these populations. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of this survey, Texas A&M students differed from college students who participated in the Pew Internet & American Life study (2002). For instance, 72% of the Pew study participants checked at least once a day while 96% of the Texas A&M students did so. The Pew study also reported that 66% of college students use at least two addresses; 88% of the Texas A&M students said they used two or more addresses. Texas A&M students also differed from the Pew subjects in how they viewed for communication with faculty. While only 19% of the Pew subjects preferred to communicate with faculty through compared to face-to-face interaction, 70% of Texas A&M students preferred using over face-to-face interaction. And while 46% of the Pew subjects agreed that enabled them to express ideas to faculty that they would not have expressed in class, 72% of Texas A&M students agreed. This study did not address what students discuss in their communications. The Pew study found that the most popular online social activity was forwarding messages to friends and family (p. 4). In addition, when ing faculty, the study reported that more than half of college students discuss grades and almost two-thirds report absences. More exploration into what students discuss in their s is needed to determine whether or not technology is contributing to students academic experience. Similar to the findings of the Pew study, while A&M students are using , it does not seem to serve as a substitute for other forms of communication. A&M students prefer face-to-face interaction or the telephone to communicate with friends and family yet prefer communication for faculty and professional staff members. Gatz & Hirt (2000), in a study of how students use , found that students may use to avoid face-to-face meetings with faculty. More exploration into preferred methods of communication should be conducted to determine why A&M students choose for contacting faculty. Is it to avoid face-to-face meetings as was suggested in the literature or is it because of convenience issues? What is lost and what is gained for the preference of communication over face-to-face communication? Understanding how and why students use technology to communicate can help university staff and faculty identify additional uses for the different forms of technology that may be used to enhance students academic experiences

6 References Gatz, L. B. & Hirt, J. B. (2000). Academic and social integration in cyberspace: Students and . The Review of Higher Education, 23(3), Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today s technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C. Office of Institutional Studies and Planning (2005). Fall 2005 campus demographics. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from: Quality Enhancement Plan (2005). Retrieved May 15, 2005, from Enhancement-Plan/QEP-Report-Final.pdf. Prepared by: Peggy Holzweiss, Student Life Studies Prepared on: January 25, 2006 Services provided by Student Life Studies are funded, in part, by Texas A&M Student Service Fees - 6 -