2011 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology

Transcription

1 2011 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology Final Report Sponsor: Michael Taves, Executive Director, Information Technology Services, Report Author: Marilyn Dispensa, Instructional Technology Coordinator, ITS Survey Data Statistics and Analysis: Claire Borch, IC Office of Institutional Research

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents...2 Executive Summary...3 I. Introduction...4 A. Background...4 B. Purpose...4 C. Methodology...4 D Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology...5 II. About the respondents...6 A. Respondent Demographics...6 B. Personal Technology Use [Q1]...7 C. Perceptions and Perspectives [Q2] [Q3]...7 D. Technology Adoption [Q2,Q3]...10 E. Teaching Goals [Q5]...13 F. Motivations and Barriers [Q15, Q17]...15 III. Specific Technology Use and Priorities...17 A. Usage of Technology in Courses [Q11]...17 B. Technologies Respondents are Interested in Learning [Q19]...18 C. Usage of Web-based Tools [Q10]...19 D. Classroom Technologies [Q12]...21 E. Online Teaching [Q14]...23 F. Most Important Issues to Address [Q7]...23 IV. Technology Services and Support...25 A. Awareness and use of ITS services [Q19]...25 V. General Comments...25 VI. Conclusions and Future Directions...26 VII. Bibliography...27 VIII. Appendix...28 Additional Data...28 Open Text Responses: (2011)

3 Executive Summary The was sent out to 660 faculty members at Ithaca College in March 2011 to assess the current use and perceptions of instructional technologies, their current and future technology needs, and the barriers and motivators to using these technologies. There were a total of 223 responses indicating a response rate of 34% of all tenured, non-tenured and part time instructors. The survey was designed to gather data to inform Information Technology Services and others on campus on how to best align services and support in ways that will meet instructors teaching needs and technology preferences. A similar survey was conducted in Respondents were classified into one of two groups based on their usage and attitudes towards technology, the early adopter/early majority group and the late majority/reluctant group as described in Section II-D. Some responses by the two groups were significantly different, indicating different use patterns, attitudes, and support needs. Below are highlights from the survey results with more detail and analysis in the body of this report. Top 5 teaching goals ranked by importance (regardless of technology) 1. Making lectures more interactive and engaging 2. Demonstrating complex concepts 3. Giving prompt feedback 4. Addressing students diverse learning styles 5. Communicating with students outside of class Top 5 motivators to using instructional technologies (ranked by degree of importance) 1. Enhance my ability to teach my material 2. Facilitate students access to course materials. 3. Address different learning styles and needs 4. Facilitate communication amongst students and instructors 5. Save time Top 5 barriers to using instructional technologies 1. Lack of time 2. Difficulty keeping up with changes with technology 3. Lack of personal technical skills 4. Lack of knowledge of how to effectively integrate technology into my teaching 5. Lack of financial support Top 5 most frequently used technologies in courses (% who use it regularly & rarely) 1. Presentation technologies (72%) 2. Online access to student grades (55%) 3. Online assignment or homework collection (39%) 4. Online library resources (39%) 5. Audio or video production (23.6%) Respondents who use web tools to provide access to course materials or activities Yes (78.5%) No (15.2%) Top 5 technologies respondents were most interested in learning about 1. Video and audio production (53.6%) 2. Online teaching (51.0%) 3. Narrated presentations or lectures (46.4 %) 4. Podcasting (42.3 %) 5. Electronic books (41.3%) Top 5 web-based tools used (of those who answered YES to previous) 1. Blackboard 85.7% 2. IC Library web resources (33.1%) 3. Web site on Ithaca College server (27.4%) 4. Media-sharing site (YouTube, Flickr, itunes etc) (25.1 %) 5. Web site on external web server (24.0 %) Top 5 classroom technologies ranked by importance 1. Podium computer with projection 2. Traditional blackboard or whiteboard 3. Internet access during class 4. Single projection screen 5. Ability to request immediate technical assistance Top 5 things for IC to address ranked by importance 1. Support for course management systems 2. Faculty development opportunities for effectively integrating technology into courses 3. Technology project development and production assistance for faculty 4. Providing technology and support for producing and delivering audio and video content 5. Providing support for eclassrooms Online Teaching 80.5% never taught an online class % Never taught but plan to teach online in the next year 19.5% Experience teaching one or more online classes 3

4 I. Introduction A. Background The range of ways the computer and other technologies are used in higher education varies widely and includes such activities as managing classroom logistics and grades, presentation and office productivity, playing, producing, and distributing media, communication, collaboration, imaging, animation, research and data analysis, self-paced tutorials, drills, games, virtual worlds, and personal response systems. For the purposes of this survey, the intentionally broad terms of instructional technology or instructional technologies, refer to any hardware or software used by instructors and students in the service of teaching and learning. Arguably, these technologies may enhance learning but can also help with logistics and communications, conveniences that should not be discounted. The sponsor of this survey recognizes that more technology does not ensure efficient and effective educational experiences for students as much as the learning environment created by excellent teachers, who may choose to wisely integrate or not integrate technology. In order to better support instructors in their use of instructional technologies this survey attempts to gather data on the use, needs, challenges, motivations and aspirations of instructors at Ithaca College. A similar survey was given in 2009 and comparisons will be made as appropriate. B. Purpose The purpose of this survey is to provide ITS and others at Ithaca College information to make better decisions for current and future technology support specifically as it applies to teaching and learning. The data collected may be compared to prior and future surveys. Specific objectives are: 1. Assess faculty perceptions of instructional technology. 2. Identify barriers and motivators to incorporating instructional technologies in teaching and learning. 3. Assess current use of instructional technologies. 4. Assess faculty current needs and future aspirations related to instructional technologies. 5. Measure awareness and use of services, facilities, and support. C. Methodology Survey Sample: A list of 660 active, paid leave, and partial active employees whose primary role at IC is as a faculty member as of 2/09/2011 were obtained from a query against the human resources (HR) information system. Faculty with no address recorded in Parnassus were dropped (n=15). Both the Ithaca and Rochester campuses were included as were rehired retirees and emeriti. Gender, age, full time/part time status, school, department, rank, and years of continuous service were imported from the HR information system into the survey results. In the 2009, this information was reported by the respondents. Survey Tool and Design: Surveygizmo.com was used to develop and deliver the survey and collect the results. Each member of the survey sample was sent a direct with a link to the survey. Each link was unique to prevent double submissions. Individuals had approximately two weeks to complete the survey. Two reminder s were sent to participants who had not yet completed their survey. Data from partially completed surveys were eliminated. The survey had 20 questions. A copy of the survey instrument is located at 4

5 Survey response: A total of 223 surveys were completed for a total response rate of 34%. A summary of this information, is in Table I-a Survey sample and response by school. While the response rate varied between schools the sample adequately represents the 5 schools. Table I-a Survey sample and response by school. Primary School/Division # Total Faculty Sampled % Total Sampled # Completed Surveys % of Total Completed Response Rate School of Business % School of Communications % School of HSHP % School of H&S % School of Music % Total % % 34% Survey Analysis: The Office of Institutional Research did the statistical analysis of the raw survey data using SPSS. D Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology In the spring of 2009, the first Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology was sent to 285 faculty members (1/2) of the entire faculty. This survey had a response rate of 52% (n=147). The 2011 Survey was intentionally similar to allow for longitudinal analysis. Some questions and options were added and several flawed questions were modified. The 2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology report and questions are located at the following URL Actions taken by ITS as a result of the survey. Below are some actions taken by ITS as a result of feedback from the 2009 Survey. In many cases the feedback validated efforts already underway. This list does not include efforts from other units like the Center for Faculty Excellence and the Library. Adoption of Sakai as an improvement over Blackboard as the campus course management system (CMS). One-on-one support for all users of student response system (clickers). Updates to the campus wired and wireless network. Continued attention to assistance with production and distribution of digital audio and video: e.g, the Digital Media Series, and TLC workshops. Participation in the GOLD Faculty online teaching workshop. Continued support of itunes U. Assistance with production of faculty media projects. Evaluation and selection of streaming video solution. Drop and run Classroom Tech Support TLC offering after hours workshops for students and drop-in hours for students. Creating of the CET recording room and the loaner podcasting kits. Increased support for Skype and Adobe Connect. 5

6 II. About the respondents A. Respondent Demographics Primary school affiliation, age, school, and years of continuous service were reported from the HR database. Results are reported in Figure II-a. Compared to the 2009 survey, these demographics did not change significantly. Respondents by Rank Respondents by School Professor 19% Associate 30% Lecturer 14% Assistant 34% H&S 56% HSHP 18% Park 9% Music 13% Business 4% Instructor 3% Respondants by age (years) Respondents by years of continuous service at IC % 16 to 20 5% 21 + yrs 25% % % 10 to 15 17% 0 to 3 31% % % 4 to 9 22% Figure II-a. Respondents by school, rank, age and years of service (n=223) 6

7 B. Personal Technology Use [Q1] To determine which technologies respondents use in their personal as well as professional lives, they were asked to indicate how often (daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never) they used common technologies [Survey Question 1]. For easier visualization, the data was aggregated into two groups: more than monthly or rarely or never. These results are shown in Figure II-b. A more detailed table of this data is in the Appendix, Table VIII-a. Q1. Frequency of technology use by respondents (professional or personal) Media sharing sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr) mp3 player (e.g. ipod, Zune) Social networking Communication and collaboration tools (e.g., Voice over IP / Web Conferencing (e.g. Skype, Smart phone or PDA (e.g. Blackberry, iphone, Multimedia editing software (e.g., imovie, Final 30% Instant Messaging (e.g., AIM, Google Chat) 28% RSS Aggregator/Reader (e.g., Bloglines, Google 19% Remote Access (e.g. TeamViewer, GoToMyPC, 13% Gaming or virtual worlds (e.g., WoW, SecondLife) 5% 61% 54% 50% 50% 44% 79% 96% % * 15* n/a 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Percentage (n= ) More than monthly Rarely or never Figure II-b. [Q1] Frequency of technology use. Users were asked to specify if they used these tools daily, weekly, monthly, rarely or never. Responses of daily, weekly and monthly were aggregated into the group, more than monthly. * indicates the largest increase in usage since Analysis: Smart phone or PDA usage was at 44% of respondents who indicated they used it daily or weekly, up from 15% in The use of Skype and other web conferencing tools nearly doubled since As usage and comfort with technologies, especially emerging technologies, trickles into instructors daily lives, the potential for integration into teaching and learning will increase. C. Perceptions and Perspectives [Q2] [Q3] Perceptions about technologies [Q2] Respondents were asked to choose whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements demonstrating their perceptions of technology [Survey Question 2]. The results are shown in Table II-a. 7

8 Table II-a. [Q2] Perceptions of technologies (n= ). % respondents agree/disagree with following statements. The questions in shaded rows lean towards comfort with technology, while those in unshaded rows lean towards discomfort with technology. Perceptions about Technologies Statements It is important to integrate technologies with traditional teaching methods. I select and use appropriate technologies that are particularly suited to my course learning outcomes. The use of technologies in my courses increases student achievement and retention. 5 Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree AVG I would like to use technology more effectively in my teaching I use little or no technology in my course, but wish to in the future. Technology isn't particularly valuable in teaching my discipline. I generally do NOT need assistance or support when using new technologies I am generally uncomfortable with new technologies Analysis: Generally the results show that 86% of respondents have a positive view of technology as having some useful role in teaching. Sixteen percent of respondents report using little or no technology in their courses and only 6 % agree that technology isn t valuable in their discipline. About 22% report being uncomfortable with new technologies and 46% indicated they still need some assistance when using new technologies. Since most people have a positive view of technology but still a significant minority identifies themselves not being comfortable, instructional technology support efforts should make sure that these needs are addressed. The responses were similar to those in the 2009 Faculty Survey on Instructional Technology. Perceptions about students [Q3] Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with several statements about their students and technology [Survey Question 3]. The results are shown in Table II-b and Table II-c. Table II-b. [Q3] Perceptions of students. Percent of respondents who agree/disagree with the listed statements Statement 5 Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree Don't know My students have the technology skills needed to succeed in my courses My students have adequate access to hardware and software My students have adequate network access I spend too much class time teaching technology to my students Analysis: 10 % of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, My students have the technology skills needed to succeed in my courses, up from 5% in % disagreed that students had adequate network resources. These results suggest that the majority of faculty do not seem to find students having deficient technology skills or access to technology. Most answers to these questions weren t substantially different than the 2009 results. 8

9 Table II-c. [Q3] Perceptions of students by adopter grouping. Respondents were designated as in an early adopter/majority group or a late majority/reluctant group. This table reports the percent of each group who disagrees or strongly disagrees with the statement. Statements About Students Skills and Needs % disagree + strongly disagree Early adopter group Late adopter group My students have the technology skills needed to succeed in my courses My students have adequate access to hardware and software My students have adequate network access I spend too much class time teaching technology to my students Analysis: When these data were broken out by technology adoption grouping there was a difference between early adopters/early majority and late majority/reluctant. The early adopter group was three times more likely to disagree with the statement that students have adequate network access than the late adopter group. The data in Table II-c indicate that those respondents in the early adopter/majority group believe their students are less skilled and have less access to technology than their counterparts in the late majority/reluctant group. See Section II.D for a discussion of technology adoption. Selected open text responses [Q]. See the Appendix for all responses. Comments on students needs, skills or access to technology. My students regularly complain that there aren't enough computer labs available regularly, since classes take place in so many of them. While some have laptops, others have to rely on campus-owned computers As coordinator of the Ithaca Seminar I know that students have a lot of trouble with reliable and speedy wireless in the dorms. If I were them I would think was unacceptable. They need Library home page and its various databases. They are very technologically savvy in TV-R Students have too much access to network access. Texting and using their smartphones in class is a huge problem. It would be nice if classrooms didn't have access to wireless networks. I need a classroom where students have access as a group to digital communication periodically. It would also be very helpful to have classrooms that were set up for video conferences. I have to spend too much time trying to set up situations to meet my pedagogical needs. Considering they are the computer generation, their innate software abilities are not that high except for their social networking. There are many exceptions, but overall they need more assistance than I expect, especially with clunky software like Blackboard. Our slow server is a great hindrance to classroom technology and learning outcomes. We need a faster server NOW. I think students are pretty savvy about technology, but not necessary schooled in appropriate use, implications and responsibility of using tech. I find that students are selectively knowledgeable about technology, but then, so am I, so we often teach each other. What I'm really interested in is going beyond looking at web sites and YouTube videos. I've tried having students set up wikis twice, but to my disappointment, most students did a half-hearted job, or worse. I also discovered that there are still some students who are technologically quite illiterate--not only can't they use the software, they don t understand how computers "think." My experience also has been that students are not all that keen to use technology all the time in their courses. 9

10 D. Technology Adoption [Q2,Q3] Rogers (1983) addressed faculty willingness to adopt new techniques in teaching and learning. He identified five categories of adopters distributed along a bell curve: Innovators (3), Early Adopters (14), Early Majority (34), Late Majority (34), and Reluctant (Laggards) (16). Geoghegan (1994) expanded Rogers framework to the adoption of technology, distinguishing innovators as those eager to use technology in teaching, early adopters as those interested enough to try using technology, the majority requiring more incentive and support to venture into use of technology, and reluctant who refuse to use technology. Figure II-c Adapted from Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations In order to assign respondents to these categories, two questions were used from the survey to measure respondents use and attitudes about technology: In Survey Question 1 users were asked to indicate the frequency they used certain technologies either personally or professionally (daily, weekly, monthly, rarely or never). For each response as a score was given of 5,4,3,2, and 1, respectively. In Survey Question 2 users were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements designed to measure attitudes about technology. See Table II-a (above) for these results. Similar point scores were given to each of these questions. These two scores were added together compute to a possible score of between with the higher scores being more frequent users and more comfortable with these technologies and the lower scores being less frequent users and less comfortable. The author makes no judgment that one group is superior at teaching over the other. Results: The scores assigned to individual respondents ranged from with a mean total score of 58. The distribution of scores is shown in Figure II-d. 10

11 2011 Technology Adoption Score for IC faculty median score = median score = Number of Faculty increasing use, comfort and positive perception of technology Distribution of total score for all items in questions 1 and 2 (possible scores 21-95) Figure II-d. Technology adoption profile for IC faculty (n=223). Analysis: As in the 2009 survey, the respondents of this survey showed a close to a normal distribution of number of faculty and their technology adoption score, similar to Roger s adoption curve. The scoring system was identical between 2009 and 2011 so that trends could be observed. In order to simplify the analysis the faculty were grouped into two groups, instead of Roger s five. Those with an adopter score of 57 or above, were categorized in the early adopter/early majority group, while those with a score of less than 57 were categorized in the late majority/reluctant group. Throughout the rest of this report, results may be analyzed by the Early Adopter and Late Adopter groups. From , the median shifted from 54.5 to 58, which could be explained by users have more time to adopt the technologies and perhaps a shift in faculty demographics. Figure II-e shows the adoption groupings from the 2009 and 2011 surveys. There is a significant increase in those who fall into the early adopter category. The two groups have quite different skills and attitudes towards technologies and it is likely that the support needs and aspirations would vary accordingly. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Technology Adoption Groupings 2009 (n=147) vs 2011 (n=223) Late Adopter 55.8% Early Adopter 44.2% Late adopter 44.4% Early Adopter 55.6% Early adopter-early majority (score = 57+) Late adopter-late majority (score <57) Figure II-e. Technology adoption groupings 2009 & 2011 Faculty Instructional Technology Surveys 11

12 Technology adoption and relationship to other factors As in the 2009 survey, there were some significant differences in many of the questions in this survey based on the respondents technology adoption profile. Significant differences were defined by having a level of > 0.05 on Levene s (1960) Test for the Equality of Variances. Table II-d shows for each age range the percent adoption category. Figure II-f shows that for each adopter grouping, the percentage belonging to each age range. Table II-d. Percent of each age range that falls into the two technology adoption groupings. Age Groupings Adopter grouping n= n= n= n= n=43 Early adopter/early majority 100% 71% 55% 45% 49% Late majority/reluctant 0% 29% 45% 55% 51% % Age Range in Each Adopter Grouping 100% % of total per adoption grouping 0% % % % % Early adopter/ % % % % % Late majority/ n = 124 reluctant n = 99 Figure II-f. Percent of each technology adoption grouping by age ranges. Analysis: In general, the younger faculty members are more likely to be in the early adopter group as defined in this report. However, in the age group the split between early adopter and late adopter groupings is nearly 50/50 as seen in Table II-d. There will likely be new technologies to adopt so the measure is likely to change over time. This report highlights some but not all of the significant differences in the results of the survey based on technology adoption. Technology adoption by school was compared as shown in Figure II-g. Business and Park Communications had a larger proportion of early adopters/early majority than the other schools although the difference is not significant. 12

13 Technology adoption by school Music 54% 46% HSHP 44% 56% H&S Communications 56% 44% 70% 30% early adopter/majority late adopter majority Business 70% 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of total respondondents per school in each adopter category Figure II-g. Percent in each technology adoption group per school. E. Teaching Goals [Q5] Recognizing that the effective use of technology is related to how it can help instructors achieve their teaching goals, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a list of such goals regardless of technology [Survey Question 5]. This list of teaching goals was the same as in the 2009 survey and drawn loosely from Chickering and Gamson (1987) as well as from instructional technology surveys from other institutions. See Table II-e for a summary of the results. Respondents were also given the opportunity to leave open text responses [Question 6] about how technology helped them achieve their teaching goals. Significant differences based on adopter category were seen in several cases. 13

14 Table II-e. [Q5] Mean importance of teaching goals with breakdown by adopter grouping. *Significant differences are bolded. 0 = Not important, 1=Slightly important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Very important. List is sorted by mean importance. Goal statement mean importance (0-3) Early adopter/early majority Late majority/ reluctant Making lectures more interactive and engaging Demonstrating complex concepts Giving prompt feedback * 2.15* Addressing students' diverse learning styles Communicating with students outside of class * 2.18* Managing class logistics (e.g., attendence,grades) * 2.02* Focusing students on real world problems or tasks Ensuring 24/7 access course materials for students * 1.93* Providing students with practice or reinforcement of learning * 1.97* outcomes Facilitating student collaboration outside of class Using alternatives to traditional assessment * 1.46* Providing connections with outside experts or community Providing an engaging online component to face-to-face courses * 1.09* Creating a virtual or simulated experience Analysis: Nine out of thirteen of the listed goals had mean importance scores over 2.0, indicating that most users considered these goals to be somewhat to very important. There is no clear explanation for why the respondents in the early adopter category rated all the goals higher than those in the later adopter group. Providing faculty development opportunities to address these goals, with or without technology, would likely be beneficial. Selected open text responses [Q6]. See the Appendix for all open text responses. Provide examples of how technology has helped you achieve your teaching goals Ability to supply multiple representations of quantitative data. Ability for students to explore mathematical relationships to make conjectures or experience real-time effects of parameters. At this point, I only use technology to facilitate my communication with students. I would be interested in learning more possibilities. Videotaping of Student Performances for their self-critiques My teaching goals are simple and don't require tech: teach IC students that IC is not a production house, an employment agency, or a place for "hands on." These students devalue reading and studying...in fact, they don't even know what it takes to study for an exam... I have used Blackboard to give daily low stakes assignments, which has helped students in introductory classes be more successful. I use Discussion Boards as a space for students to record the results of in-class activities, both to share with each other and to allow me to evaluate participation. Show cell processes in living cells or realistic computer animations 14

15 F. Motivations and Barriers [Q15, Q17] From a list of common motivations and barriers reported from several other schools surveys on instructional technologies, respondents were asked to rate the degree each was a barrier or motivator on the scale: 0=not a motivator (or barrier), 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree [Survey Questions 15 & 17]. The mean scores for motivators are reported in Table II-f and for barriers, in Table II-g. Results were broken out by technology adoption grouping. There was also an opportunity to add open text comments [Questions 16, 18]. Table II-f. [Q15] Motivators to using instructional technologies. Mean Score (0=not a motivator 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree). Mean Early and Mean Late refer to means broken out by adopter grouping. Significant differences between early and late groups are indicated in bold and with and *. Motivators to using instructional technologies n Mean All Mean Early Mean Late enhance my ability to teach my material *2.71 *2.47 facilitate students access to course materials *2.69 *2.41 address different learning styles and needs facilitate communication amongst students and instructors *2.40 *1.98 save time *2.33 *1.93 enhance the quality work from students *2.31 *1.89 manage courses with large enrollments expose students to the technology needed for future *1.85 *1.38 employment respond to expectation of students for technology in their *1.79 *1.36 courses personal enjoyment *1.87 *1.17 reduce cost of education for students reach students who can t come to campus *1.31 *0.72 grants or awards recognition from my peers Highlights from open ended comments on motivators [Q16]. See Appendix for all responses. Class sizes are growing and I've been exploring new ways to keep the class engaged. I have taught hybrid online courses at another institution. It was great. I use what makes sense for my material It's the 21st Century. Those (and more advanced) technologies await students when they graduate makes life easier...should facilitate my working from home or anywhere Analysis: The statements with a mean value over 2.0 indicate that most users are motivated to use instructional technologies to a moderate or high degree by this factor. Not surprisingly, the mean score for many of the motivators was higher for respondents in the early adopter group as compared with the late adopter group. These results suggest that technologies and that address these motivators may be more readily adopted by instructors. Compared to the survey results from the 2009 survey, the ranking of motivators changed only slightly. There were some significant differences between the early adopter and late adopter groups. 15

16 Table II-g. [Q17] Barriers/challenges to using instructional technologies. Mean score (0=not a barrier 1=small degree, 2=moderate degree, 3= large degree). Mean Early and Mean Late refer to means broken out by adopter grouping. Significant differences between early and late groupings are indicated with an *. Challenge/barriers n Mean score (0-3) Mean All Early Adopter Late Adopter lack of time difficulty keeping up with changes with technology *1.63 *2.01 lack of personal technical skills *1.11 *1.80 lack of knowledge of how to effectively integrate *1.14 *1.75 technology into my teaching lack of financial support unreliability of technology lack of models or examples of effective uses of technology *1.04 *1.39 lack of technical support lack of access to technology enhanced labs or classrooms lack of the students technical skills copyright or intellectual property issues lack of rewards or incentives for tenure inadequate student access to technology Highlights from open ended comments on barriers [Q18] (See Appendix for all responses): Accessibility and reimbursement for training for part-time lecturers. Computer labs in park comm. have very limited hours I am a technophobe--i have to devote a lot of energy to overcoming my aversion to learning new technologies before I will actually sit down and start to learn. I don't know how I would apply some of these technologies to the teaching of chemistry. I would love to use the clickers - but can't justify $50.00 cost to students. There needs to be accommodation for those of us who want a more simplified (and cheaper) version for our students. Internet on campus is just too slow, blocks certain high end websites...if we had SMALLER class sizes and LESS preps, I'd investigate learning more technologies we teach over 120 students a term...so there is no incentive to experiment...you can barely keep up with grading much less innovating. Just takes too much time. Keep having to change things from platforms, such as from WebCT to blackboard. Just don't have time for that. Would be nice to see more of what other instructors are doing so we're not all out there reinventing the wheel on this. For example, have organized sharing sessions on resources, tips, etc. The second barrier professionally is the technology failing. That makes me feel so unprofessional when I cannot get access to the web to show a video, or when the projector doesn't work (can't get the video to show on the screen). The third barrier is the students themselves, the ones who text during class or surf the web and watch youtube videos while I am speaking. Analysis. Lack of time was the most significant barrier to using instructional technologies. Small or moderate barriers include difficulty keeping up with changes with technology, lack of personal skills, lack of technical or financial support and lack of model examples of how to effectively integrate technologies in teaching. ITS, 16

17 Center for Faculty Excellence (CFE), the Library can all play a role in lowering these barriers. There are significant differences between early adopters/early majority and late adopters/reluctant groups for what motivates and challenges them. We must be cognizant of these differences when planning support and services. III. Specific Technology Use and Priorities A. Usage of Technology in Courses [Q11] Survey Question 11 asked respondents to indicate the frequency they use specific technologies in courses (regularly, rarely, never). These technologies were chosen because they are widely used in higher education and were used as examples in surveys from other institutions. In the 2009 survey, this question used a different scale so a direct comparison was not possible however the relative rank is similar to the 2011 data. These results are indicated in Figure III-a. See the Appendix Figure VIII-a and Figure VIII-b for detailed results broken down by adopter grouping. In nearly all cases, frequency of use of these technologies was higher in the early adopter/early majority group than in the late majority/reluctant group. Accordingly, the frequency of those who indicated they never used each of the listed technologies was always higher in the late majority/reluctant group. Q11.Frequency of Technology usage in Courses Presentation technologies (e.g., Powerpoint, Keynote) Online access to student grades Online assignment or homework collection Online library resources (including e-reserves) or Audio or video production Asynchronous class discussion (e.g., discussion Posting online lectures (e.g narrated slide show) Online quizzes Wikis (e.g. Google Sites, Wikispaces, WebPaint) Blogs or online journaling Digital image collections (e.g. Artstor): Simulations or games Clickers (i.e. audience response system) Video conferencing with remote expert/participants Podcasting Synchronous online chatrooms or instant messaging 23% 19% 17% 15% 12% 8% 8% 13% 6% 12% 6% 6% 5% 5% 2% 16% 12% 18% 72% 55% 48% 39% 15% 21% 14% 19% 25% 24% 16% 29% 31% 15% 13% 30% 24% 30% 52% 57% 68% 65% 74% 73% 79% 82% 88% 79% 83% 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Respondents who reported using Regularly, Rarely, Never Regularly Rarely Never Figure III-a. [Q11] Frequency of technology use in the classroom. Respondents were asked to indicate usage as regularly, rarely, or never which is reported as a percentage of total responses for that technology. Analysis: Presentation technologies and online assignment collection and access to student grades were the most frequently used technologies. These technologies have become common place and seem accessible to most 17

18 respondents. However, attention should be paid to the other technologies that reported less frequent or no usage. Some of these technologies may be effectively used but instructors may not have the awareness or skills to use them. Learning opportunities that raise awareness, provide examples, and skill training should be considered. Since there is a marked difference in the use of these technologies between the different adopter groups varied approaches should be considered. B. Technologies Respondents are Interested in Learning [Q19] Respondents were asked which technologies they were interested in learning more about [Survey Question 19]. They could check one or more of the options. Most of the choices were the same as the 2009 survey with added topics that include clickers, electronic books, augmented reality, online teaching and data visualization. The question was worded differently in 2009 so a direct comparison cannot be made. Results were reported for all respondents and by technology adoption grouping. Results are shown in Table III-a. Table III-a. [Q19] Interest in learning new technologies. Respondents were asked to indicate which technologies they were interested in learning about [n=223]. The results are ranked by % of all respondents and ranked by adopter grouping.. Instructional technology % respondents indicating interest in learning All Early adopter group Late adopter group video and audio production online teaching narrated presentations or lectures podcasting electronic books online collaboration synchronous audio or video conferencing online collaboration tools blogs or online journaling lecture capture/delivery software in-class voting or Personal Response System clickers games or simulations data visualization mobile learning social networking augmented reality multi-user virtual environments add your own (see below)

19 Open text answers identifying what technologies respondents are interested in learning about: new Powerpoint type system embedding video in Powerpoint Powerpoint mapping software stereography, 3d production, robotics for entertainment telegraph, space travel, nanostudents [lol] Smartboard creation of websites for curricular resources and development Asynchronous video response capabilities access to itunes library in the classroom music editing, podcasting Adobe illustrator, Photoshop -the whole adobe suite of tools for graphic design on line survey creation use of sound effects Analysis: These results suggest that the college should support efforts to raise awareness of these technologies, conduct trainings, and share best practices and examples by other faculty members. Many of the technologies respondents are interested in learning more about were on the 2009 survey as well. There have been number of workshops and discussions addressing mobile learning, online learning, creating narrated Powerpoint presentations in response to those results. C. Usage of Web-based Tools [Q10] Respondents were asked if they currently provided access to course materials or activities via web-based tools [Survey Question10]. The same question was asked in the 2009 survey. See Figure III-b for the results for all respondents and broken out by early or late adopter grouping. The percentage of respondents who use web tools in their courses was 78.5%, up from 70 % in When broken down by adopter grouping, 86.2% of the early adopter group uses web tools (up from 83.1 % in 2009) and 68.7 % of the late majority/reluctant group uses web tools (up from 58.5 % in 2009). In order to determine which web tools were used, a follow up question was directed to those with a yes response [Survey Question 10]. Users were allowed to check one or more options and enter open text. Results are shown in Figure III-c. Technologies listed were the same as in the 2009 survey except that Twitter (microblogging) was added as an option. Sakai was not available at the time the survey was given so was not included. The breakdown by technology adoption grouping was collected but the data is not shown in this report. In most cases technologies showed higher percentage of use by the early adopter/majority adopter group vs. the late majority/reluctant adopter groups. 19

20 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% [Q10] % Respondents who use web tools for course materials or activities 4.8% 6.3% 8.1% 8.9% No 15.2% No 23.2% Yes 86.3% Yes 78.5% Yes 68.7% early adopter/majority All respondents Late adopter/reluctant Adopter classification NA No Yes Figure III-b. [Q10] Percent of respondents who use web-based tools in courses. Yes/no results shown for all respondents and for the early adopter/majority group and late adopter/reluctant group. [Q10] Web Based tool usage in courses Blackboard IC Library Web resources Web site on Ithaca College web server. Youtube, Flickr, itunes, or other media-sharing site. Web site on external web server. Online document sharing tools (Microsoft Office Web Profile Manager Blog or wiki Wiki (e.g. Google Sites, Wikispaces) Social networking site (i.e. Facebook) Microblogging (e.g. Twitter) 33.1% 27.4% 25.1% 24.0% 17.1% 13.7% 12.6% 10.3% 10.3% 2.9% 85.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% % of respondents who report using listed tools Figure III-c. [Q10] Web-based tool usage. Respondents could check one or more web-based tools (percent of total users who reported using any web-based tool). 20

21 Open text responses: Other web technologies used were: CVS (concurrent versioning system) File server space Dedicated database server , Google forms Taking it Global platform idisk itunes U Dropbox.com Self-made course management system Publisher electronic workbook University of Washington Catalyst Powerpoint Sites related to language learning Voicethread. Analysis: 78.5 of respondents reported using a web-based tool to deliver course materials or activities and of those, 85.7% used Blackboard. These results indicate that a majority of instructors use the web, and if they fall in the early adopter/majority group, that number goes up significantly. However, since 2009, there was only a 3 % increase in usage of web tools among those in the early adopter group but a 10% increase in the late adopter group. This behavior is expected if one subscribes to Roger s (1983) diffusion of innovation. Many users use web tools besides Blackboard and it is likely this number will increase in the future as the number of free, easy-to-use cloud computing resources increases. This suggests that there should still be robust support for a centralized CMS and awareness of other web-based tools. D. Classroom Technologies [Q12] Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various classroom technologies in their face-to-face teaching using a scale of 0 (not important) to 3 (very important) in Survey Question 12. The choices were the same as in the 2009 survey. Mean scores for all respondents are reported in Figure III-d. 21

22 [Q12] Importance of classroom technologies for F2F teaching podium computer with projection traditional blackboard or whiteboard internet access during class single projection screen ability to request immediate technical presentation software DVD player wireless internet access analog projection labs (each student has a computer) VHS player sympodium monitor multiple projection screens electronic whiteboard or smart board Personal Response System (clickers) E= 2.09 L=1.63 E=1.78. L=1.19 E=1.19, L=1.60 E=1.54, L=0.97 E=1.50, L= Mean scores ranked from most to least Important for all respondents 0=not important, 1= slightly important, 2=somewhat important, 3 = very important E=mean of early adopter group, L = Mean importance of late adopter group Figure III-d. [q12] Importance of various classroom technologies. Respondents were asked to report the importance on the following scale: 0=not important, 1= slightly important, 2=somewhat important, 3 = very important. E and L indicate the mean scores of the early adopter/majority and late majority/reluctant groups and are only indicated if differences are significant. Open text responses [Q13]. Summary of selected comments regarding A flexible setup where each student has computer access but can also collaborate with others in a group Having a faster network and having machines that do not take one or two minutes to wake up from sleep. Audio/video recording system to record student presentations/performances Better multiscreen, multiprojector arrangements Working and ready to use doc cameras are great but rarely available Wireless in the class is double-edged. Students can use computer to take notes and even look up things, but it's a Distraction to their neighbors especially when they are checking sports scores or chatting with FB friends. It would be great to have the option of turning off the wi-fi in a large lecture hall (textor, park etc). WHITEBOARDS AND CHALKBOARDS... YES, the old fashioned stuff works the best. Virtual conferencing equipment Programs like flash and itunes are regularly out of date and when needed take time out of class to run updates. 22

23 The PCs in networked classrooms are extremely slow when it comes to startup. I waste a lot of class time waiting for students to be able to log in and get started on whatever online activity I'd like them to complete, which is frustrating. Analysis. From the data and comments, it is clear that respondents want a robust, fast classroom technology environment. Departments and ITS should continue to have a high emphasis on network connectivity, good projection, and quality sound. It also appears more people want ability to show something on a screen as well as be able to write on a whiteboard or blackboard. E. Online Teaching [Q14] Online teaching is on the rise as an instructional delivery method. A new question on online learning was included in the Results are shown in Table III-b. Table III-b. [Q14] Online teaching experience. Choices are indicated and only one could be selected. % respondents What experience do you have teaching All Early Late completely online courses at IC or elsewhere? I've never taught online and don't plan to I've never taught online and probably will in the next year I've taught 1 or 2 online courses I've taught 3 or more online courses Analysis. Eighty percent of respondents have never taught on line but 21% of those plan to in the next year. About 20 % have taught online before, nearly 9% of those had taught 3 or more courses. Ithaca College is primarily a residential, undergraduate school so it is expected that a large majority of the faculty do not have online teaching experience. The IC 20/20 vision suggests that online teaching will increase. If faculty are expected to or want to teach online, there should be increased efforts to support this in the faculty development arena and in instructional support services in ITS. F. Most Important Issues to Address [Q7] In Survey Question 7 respondents were asked to indicate which topics were important for IC to address using a scale of 0 - not important, 1 - slightly important, 2 - somewhat important, 3 - very important. Questions were the same as in the 2009 survey with the addition of: Options for sharing large files and Support for online teaching. Mean scores are shown in Figure III-e. Results were broken out by technology adoption grouping when significant differences were observed. 23

24 Support for course management systems (e.g. Blackboard, Sakai) Faculty development opportunities for effectively integrating technology into courses Development and production assistance for faculty technology projects Technology and support for producing and delivering audio and video 2011 Q 7 Importance for IC to address E =2.54, L=2.34 E=2.43, L= * * 2.57 Support for eclassrooms Options for sharing large files (e.g. datasets, video, audio) Incentives to promote the use of instructional technology in teaching (e.g., release time, Support for online teaching Video/web conferencing support and technologies Installing and maintaining online communication and collaboration tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, chat) Lecture capture technology (i.e. Help recording your class) E =2.24, L=1.85 E=2.16, L= * 2.03* Mean scores ranked from most to least important (n=217 to 221) 0=Not important, 1= slightly important 2=somewhat important 3= very important Means with significant differences are indicated with an* Figure III-e Importance of issues for IC to address. Mean scores on a scale of 0 3. E = mean importance from early adopter/early majority group and L= mean importance from late majority/reluctant group. Don t know responses were dropped from score calculations. Analysis: Attention to issues with an importance score over 2.0 (somewhat to very important) should be prioritized. These results validate expanded support efforts and investigation in the areas of course management systems, video and audio, eclassrooms and online teaching. Open Text Response Highlights [Q8] For all responses see Appendix: Video conferencing facilities are at the top of my list. Being able to upload videos of students' performances to something like Blackboard so that students can access them. Being sure eclassroom are capable of handling the variety of multimedia materials typically used (e.g. video on powerpoint, etc.) for both mac and pc. Media often does not work I need classrooms where students can collaborate, have group access to technology, and also have individual access to technology... and I need it for every class period! Technology classrooms is now essential and some rooms have inadequate technology, e.g., Textor rooms have dim bulbs. Photos are projected too dark. Working mac and pc platform in each classroom. Takes 5 minutes load windows. 24