GATEWAY TO COLLEGE STUDENT TECHNOLOGY SURVEY: FINAL REPORT. Pacific Research and Evaluation, LLC 3507 SW Corbett Avenue Portland, OR 97239

Transcription

1 GATEWAY TO COLLEGE STUDENT TECHNOLOGY SURVEY: FINAL REPORT Pacific Research and Evaluation, LLC 3507 SW Corbett Avenue Portland, OR September, 2015

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Guiding Research Questions... 1 Methodology... 2 GTC Survey Respondent Characteristics... 3 Subgroups of Interest... 7 Research Question #1: How do under-served students access technology? a. Information Technology Device Ownership and use b. Social Media Websites c. Software Applications d. Academic use of software and web-based media e. Technology and Training Preparedness f. Psychological Sense of School Membership Summary of Research Question 1: How do under-served students access technology? Research Question #2: What implications does students access to technology have for technologysupported education and/or courses that rely on online curricula? a. Academic use of software and web-based media b. In-class use of information technology devices c. Online and Hybrid Courses d. Technology and Training Preparedness Summary of Research Question #2: What implications does students access to technology have for technology-supported education and/or courses that rely on online curricula? Research Question #3: What is the best way to communicate with students? a. Communication Technologies b. Use of Social Media Websites, , and Course/Learning Management Systems c. Use of Social Media Websites and for Academic Purposes Summary of Research Question #3: What is the best way to communicate with students? Conclusions/Implications... 45

3 1 P a g e Introduction Gateway to College National Network s (GtCNN) enables colleges, school districts, and states to build sustainable pathways for disconnected youth to earn a high school diploma and meaningful postsecondary credential. GtCNN began in 2000 as a single program partnership between Portland Public Schools and Portland Community College (PCC) as a local strategy to reengage students who had dropped out (or who had fallen so far behind that they were going to drop out) of high school. In 2004, PCC received a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to replicate Gateway to College (GtC) in communities around the country, and in 2008, the college spun off GtCNN as a separate nonprofit organization. The network currently extends into 41 communities in 21 states, annually serving around 5,000 students. Through the Gateway to College program, students are placed in a peer learning community, provided with holistic support from a dedicated resource specialist, and enrolled in dual-credit courses on the community college campus with flexible class times to fit the life circumstances of non-traditional students. During their first term, students rebuild or reinforce their academic foundation in English and Math, while learning the attitudes, behaviors, and skills necessary to be successful college students. Thereafter students continue to take courses on the college campus, receiving both high school and college credit through articulation and funding agreements between the student s home K-12 school district and the community college that are facilitated by GtCNN. Students graduate from the Gateway program with a full high school diploma and significant college credit. Across the country, GtC programs are considering how best to integrate technology into their academic programs. Technology and next generation learning are revolutionizing the classroom and the workplace. However, internal and external studies indicate that technology-supported and online coursework at least as currently and typically implemented may actually hinder academic progress for low-income and underprepared students. GtCNN is interested in understanding students attitudes toward, and practices related to, technology-supported education and next generation learning in order to inform the design and implementation of these strategies in the classroom. The Understanding Academic Success initiative, funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York, provided GtCNN with an opportunity to gather information to better understand students comfort with and perceptions of information technologies. GtCNN is hopeful that this information can influence program improvement within National Network and intends to share findings with the National Network and beyond. One of the three areas of inquiry included in the Understanding Academic Success initiative is to better understand how GtC students access technology and perceive courses that use technology to present curriculum either in hybrid formats or completely online. In 2014, GtCNN contracted with Pacific Research & Evaluation, LLC to help design, administer, and analyze a student survey process to inform this area of inquiry; the results of this survey are presented in this report. Guiding Research Questions The GtC student technology survey was designed to explore how non-traditional students access technology, students skills and attitudes regarding technology, and the implications for technology-

4 supported education. The information gleaned from this survey is expected to provide insight into how student access to technology impacts their ability to perform academically, how they apply their technology skills to classroom settings, and their ability to adapt to next generation learning classrooms. Three guiding research questions provided a framework for the survey development and analysis: 1. How do under-served students access technology? (What technology skills do they have and what devices/platforms do they access?) 2. What implications does student access to technology have for technology-supported education and/or courses that rely on online curricula? (Student attitudes and experience with use of technology for courses, campus environment/offerings) 3. What is the best way to communicate with students? Methodology Pacific Research & Evaluation partnered with GtCNN staff to design and implement the GtC student technology survey. Prior to developing the survey instrument, Pacific Research & Evaluation conducted a literature review to investigate how non-traditional students access technology both among teens and under-represented students, with a focus on identifying key learnings and practical implications for increasing post-secondary access and success. The information from this literature review was used to develop the student technology survey described in this report. The complete literature review is included in Appendix A 1. The GtC student technology survey consisted of two different survey populations. Incoming Student Survey: The incoming student survey was distributed to students entering a GtC program in the Fall 2014 term. This survey targeted students who had not had any GtC coursework. The focus of the incoming survey was past use of technology and expectations for post-secondary education and use of technology. Specifically, this survey asked students to respond to questions about: Technology access and use, including hardware, software, and web-based media Technology training and preparedness Attitudes toward online and hybrid courses Sense of school membership Each GtC site was responsible for informing their incoming student population about the survey effort and then distributing a link to the online survey to these incoming students. A copy of the incoming student technology survey is included in Appendix B. Returning Student Survey: The returning student survey targeted students who had already taken courses at a GtC community college. The focus of this survey was to explore how returning students used information technology and online courses since enrolling in GtC and what their experiences were. The content of the returning student survey focused on: Device ownership and academic use of devices Academic use of software and web-based media 1 Appendices are available from the GtCNN National Office. 2 P a g e

5 Technology preferences In-class use of information technology devices Attitudes toward online and hybrid (part online and part face-to-face) courses Technology training and preparedness Communication preferences Pacific Research & Evaluation distributed and administered the online returning student survey, using a list of addresses for existing students provided by GtCNN. A copy of the returning student technology survey is included in Appendix C. It was estimated that completion of both of the online surveys would take approximately 15 minutes. Both surveys were distributed in the Fall term of 2014 and completed between October and December, As an incentive to complete the survey, a $50 gift card was provided to randomly selected survey respondents. GTC Survey Respondent Characteristics More than 800 incoming and returning GtC students accessed the link to the electronic survey; approximately 150 of these individuals did not complete the survey 2, resulting in a total of 682 surveys that were used for analysis. As shown in Table 1, the majority of these surveys were from incoming students. It is important to remember that not all respondents answered every question and skip logic is used for some survey items. For this reason, the number of respondents to individual survey items varies throughout this report and is often less than 508 for incoming student surveys or 174 for returning student surveys. Table 1. Total Survey Responses Incoming Students Returning Students # surveys begun # surveys used in analysis Table 2 provides a breakdown of the number and percentage of surveys completed by incoming and returning students by GtC site. As the table shows, surveys were completed by students from 38 GtC sites. Two sites make up more than 10 percent of the total surveys completed: Riverside City College makes up 15% of the incoming surveys, and 32% of the respondents to the returning student survey are from Portland Community College. This indicates a need to be cautious in the interpretation of the student survey data, as a relatively large proportion of the responses represent the perspective of students from these two programs. 2 Surveys were excluded from analysis if the respondent declined to participate or completed zero or one of the survey questions. 3 P a g e

6 4 P a g e Table 2. Percentage of Completed Surveys by Site Site Incoming Students % (n=486) Returning Students % (n=126) Bristol Community College 3% (13) 1% (1) Camden County College 6% (31) - City College of San Francisco 1% (5) 2% (3) Community College of Philadelphia 1% (4) - Contra Costa College 2% (12) 1% (1) Cuyahoga Community College - 1% (1) Des Moines Area Community College 1% (3) 2% (3) Donnelly College 3% (17) 1% (1) Durham Technical Community College - 1% (1) El Paso Community College 8% (39) - Essex County College 3% (14) - Front Range Community College - 2% (3) Georgia Perimeter College - 2% (2) Hennepin Technical College 2% (12) - Highline Community College 3% (16) 6% (7) Hinds Community College 1% (3) - Holyoke Community College <1% (1) 1% (1) Lake Washington Institute of Technology 8% (40) 6% (8) Laney College <1% (2) 2% (3) Los Angeles City College <1% (1) 4% (5) Madison Area Technical College 2% (11) 1% (1) Massasoit Community College 1% (4) 3% (4) Metropolitan Community College 2% (12) 1% (1) Montgomery County Community College 4% (18) 2% (2) Mott Community College 3% (16) 1% (1) Mount Wachusett Community College 7% (34) 5% (6) Polk State College - 2% (3) Portland Community College 2% (10) 32% (40) Pueblo Community College 2% (9) - Quinsigamond Community College <1% (1) 2% (2) Riverside City College 15% (72) 7% (9) Santa Rosa Junior College - 4% (5) Shasta College 6% (29) 2% (2)

7 Table 2. Percentage of Completed Surveys by Site Site Incoming Students % (n=486) Returning Students % (n=126) South Texas College 5% (25) - Spokane Falls Community College 4% (19) 6% (8) Springfield Technical Community College - 2% (2) St. Louis Community College <1% (1) - St. Paul College 2% (12) - Total GtC Sites With Ten Or More Survey Responses 20 1 For sites with ten or more respondents, Pacific Research and Evaluation created program-specific reports which include results from these individual GtC programs, compared to the total survey population. If you have questions about these program-specific reports, please contact GtCNN. Table 3 provides the total number of completed incoming and returning surveys, compared to the total number of students enrolled in the 38 GtC sites where surveys were completed. The enrollment figures represent the total number of new students who had enrolled for the Fall term, as well as the total number of returning students enrolled in Fall Based on the number of completed surveys, an overall response rate was calculated. While the overall response rate for the incoming survey was 30%, there was a significant range of response rate by GtC sites, ranging from 0% to 100%. For the incoming survey, the overall survey response rate was 7%, but this rate ranged from 0% to 23% across individual GtC sites. Appendix D provide the response rate by GtC program site. Incoming Surveys Table 3. Survey Response Rates Incoming Incoming Returning Enrollment Response Rate Surveys Returning Enrollment Returning Response Rate Total 486 1,628 30% 126 1,733 7% Table 4 provides an overview of the distribution of survey responses by regional groupings. Appendix E provides a list of which sites are included in each of these regional groupings. The Northwest region for returning respondents is heavily influenced by Portland Community College, making up 40 of the 63 returning student surveys (63%) in the Northwest. 5 P a g e

8 Table 4. Responses by Region Region Incoming Students % (n=486) Returning Students % (n=126) California 25% (122) 22% (28) Central 19% (92) 9% (11) Massachusetts 11% (53) 13% (16) Northeast 14% (67) 2% (2) Northwest 17% (85) 50% (63) South 14% (67) 5% (6) The next set of tables provides a description of several demographic characteristics for the incoming and returning student survey populations. The demographic information reported for the incoming population was not collected on the survey, but rather from GtC databases by matching on several variables (i.e. name, school identification number). Because we were not able to find a match for all incoming surveys, the number of individuals on which we have demographic data is smaller than the number of incoming surveys completed. This distinction is important not only for interpreting the overall survey findings (self-report data for returning surveys versus administrative data from GtC for incoming surveys), but also in understanding the categorizations used in the subgroup analysis (described in the next section). Gender: Table 5 indicates that gender is fairly evenly distributed between males and females, although the returning student survey has a higher proportion of female than male respondents. Data from Table 5 can be compared with overall GtC demographic data which shows 47% female versus 53% male. Table 5. Survey Respondent Gender Incoming Students % (n=399) Returning Students % (n=126) Female 49% (196) 56% (70) Male 51% (203) 43% (54) Transgendered - 1% (2) Age: Table 6 provides a distribution of the age of survey respondents. The age range for incoming respondents is slightly larger than the range for returning respondents (16 to 24 versus 16 to 21 years old) and the average age is slightly lower for incoming respondents compared to returning respondents (17.58 versus 18.25). This is comparable to the overall GtC population average age of slightly over 17 years old. 6 P a g e

9 Table 6. Survey Respondent Age Age Incoming Students % (n=419) Returning Students % (n=126) 15 1% (4) % (72) 5% (6) 17 32% (136) 24% (30) 18 32% (132) 31% (39) 19 12% (50) 29% (36) 20 4% (16) 6% (8) 21 1% (4) 6% (7) 22 <1% (2) - 23 <1% (2) - 24 <1% (1) - Ethnicity: The ethnicity data appears to be less consistent when comparing incoming survey respondents, returning survey respondents, and overall GtC student characteristics. Because of this variation, a fourth column is included in Table 7 which includes data on the ethnicity of the GtC population as a whole, allowing this comparison to be made more clearly. It is important to remember that for the incoming survey, demographic data was provided by GtCNN, rather than the selfreported data provided in the returning student survey. Table 7. Survey Respondent Ethnicity Incoming Students % (n=362) Returning Students % (n=125) GtC 2013/2014 % (n=3,604) Black/African-American 11% (40) 4% (5) 25% (898) Hispanic/Latino 44% (159) 22% (28) 29% (1,032) White/Caucasian 37% (134) 45% (56) 36% (1,306) Other 3 8% (29) 29% (36) (368) In reviewing subsequent sections of this report, the demographic indicators and variations described in this section need to be taken into consideration when interpreting overall survey findings. Given that the survey population may not be representative of GtC students overall, caution should be taken when applying these results to the broader GtC student population. Subgroups of Interest In addition to exploring the three research questions for the entire GtC population of survey respondents, GtC is also interested in understanding how technology experiences and perceptions vary among subgroups of respondents with characteristics that may influence students experience or attitudes. This information can be used to determine how GtC programs might tailor their use of information technologies to positively impact academic success with particular subgroups of students. 3 Other includes students who identified as Asian, Native American/Alaskan Native, multi-racial, and Other. 7 P a g e

10 Pacific Research & Evaluation created a separate report which analyzes survey data by the subgroups of interest. In the subgroup analyses report, the findings will compare five subgroups of interest. Age: Survey respondents are categorized into 17 and younger and 18 and older. This data is taken directly from a survey question at the very beginning of each survey. Table 8 provides the distribution by survey for this variable 4. Table 8. Age Categories Incoming Student % (n=508) Returning Student % (n=174) 17 and younger 52% (266) 27% (47) 18 and older 48% (242) 73% (127) Gender: See Table 5 for the distribution of respondents by gender. Ethnicity: For the subgroup analysis, survey respondents are categorized as White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Other. Table 7, above, provides the split by race/ethnicity for the incoming and returning survey respondents. Region: GtC programs are categorized into six regions: California, Central, Massachusetts, Northeast, Northwest, and South. See Table 4 for distribution of respondents by region. Community Poverty: To examine if survey findings vary based on economic status of the communities where GtC programs are located, data were used from the GtC report entitled The Importance of Location in Understanding the Academic Success of Gateway to College Students (2015). According to this report, for 19 of the GtC programs, the majority of students attending these programs live in a zip code with a poverty rate greater than 20 %. This information was used to assigned students who attended these 19 programs as living in communities of high poverty, while students from the remainder of GtC programs a living in communities of low poverty. This is simply a proxy measure for poverty, but it provides a method to explore the impact of poverty on responses about technology. Among incoming survey respondents, 64% are from a program identified in this way as low poverty, while 36% of respondents are from programs in high poverty communities. The GtC Student Technology Survey: Subgroup Analysis is available at 4 It should be noted that the data in Table 8 varies slightly from the age data included in Table 6. This is because the Table 6 data is created based on self-report of age on the returning survey and a calculation of age at date survey was completed (based on respondent birthdate) on the incoming survey. Table 8 is simply survey respondents reply to the question: Please indicate your age: 17 or younger or 18 or older. 8 P a g e

11 9 P a g e Research Question #1: How do under-served students access technology? In order to explore the first research question posed for this project, the GtC student technology survey included a series of questions to explore what tools GtC students use to access technology and what technology skills they possess. This section of the report describes GtC students device ownership and usage, comfort with various software and other web-based media, training and skill level around information technology, and perceptions of school belonging. This information may be helpful in understanding what experiences and skills students bring with them that can be used in the development of course programing using information technologies. Even with extensive access to various technological devices, there can be disparities in students access to technology as it pertains to academics. A review of existing literature found that technologysupported courses can have additional enrollment fees as well as limited financial aid available making these course less feasible for some students. Furthermore, access to up-to-date computers and highspeed internet can be prohibitively expensive to low-income students (Jaggers, 2011). Non-traditional students whose primary internet access is through their phones would like more opportunities to utilize their mobile devices in academics through mobile-friendly apps and websites. Students in general would like to have more opportunities to use their smartphones as an academic tool in class (Dahlstrom et al., 2013). Currently, laptops are the most useful device in learning environments, according to a 2013 Educause Center for Analysis Research (ECAR) study. Student preference for in-class use of technology includes audio recordings, videos, internet searches, and digital access to course materials such as problem sets and instructor slides. Students also commonly use the institution s main website and the institution s library website (Dahlstrom et al., 2013). The GtC student technology survey explores if similar factors are relevant for the GtC population. 1a. Information Technology Device Ownership and Use The first area of inquiry around students access to technology starts with the types of electronic devices GtC students own and how they use these devices. In order to put survey findings in perspective, we explored the existing literature to understand broader trends of technology usage by youth across the country. According to the Pew Research Center s Teens, Social Media and Technology Overview 2015 Report, family income plays a role in whether teens have access to various technological devices, with students from families earning less than $50,000 a year being less likely to have access to a desktop computer, laptop computer, or tablet. However, the 2015 Pew study also found that despite this variation in access to devices by family income, only about 1% of teens own no devices and just 4% have one device. In fact, 88% of teens have access to a mobile phone, 73% have access to a smartphone, 87% have access to a desktop or laptop computer, and 58% have access to a tablet (Lenhart, 2015). While not directly comparable, the GtC technology survey data indicates similar trends within the GtC populations. As Figure 1 indicates, over 80% of respondents have a smartphone, while less than of respondents have a cell phone that is not a smartphone: overall, 95% of both incoming and returning respondents have either a smartphone or a cellphone. In terms of owning a computer, 64% of incoming and 70% of returning GtC survey respondents have a laptop computer, while approximately half of survey respondents have a desktop computer. When combined, 81% (incoming) and 84% (returning) of

12 GtC survey respondents have either a desktop or a laptop, quite comparable to the findings from the 2015 Pew report. Finally, fewer GtC respondents report owning a tablet (43% and 30%) or an e-reader (13% and 12%), with 48% and 35% of GtC respondents owning one or the other; youth in the 2015 Pew study report higher rates of e-reader or tablet ownership, compared to GtC Students. Finally, just over half of the GtC survey respondents report owning a printer. Figure 1: Percent of students owning various electronic devices 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 87% 82% Smartphone 70% 64% Laptop computer 56% 59% Printer 52% 46% 43% Desktop computer 30% 13% 13% 12% Tablet Cell phone E-reader Incoming Students (n=508) Returning Students (n=174) Both incoming and returning students were asked to report the frequency of use for devices they previously indicated they owned. Figure 2 shows the frequency with which GtC survey respondents use their various devices. The vast majority of respondents in the survey reported using their smartphones daily (99% and 98%) with almost all survey respondents (greater than 95%) reporting using these devices several times a day. This is similar to findings from the 2015 Pew study which found that 92% of teens reported going online daily. Desktop and laptops fall in the middle of the range in terms of usage, with the least frequent device used being e-readers, followed by the printer. 10 P a g e

13 Returning Students Incoming Students Gateway to College Technology Survey: Final Report Figure 2: Frequency of device use by owners of technology Smartphone (508) Laptop computer (260) Cell phone (54) Tablet (171) Desktop computer (185) E-reader (54) Printer (231) Smartphone (129) Cell phone (30) Laptop computer (108) Tablet (45) Desktop computer (82) E-reader (19) Printer (91) 1% 16% 25% 28% 19% 29% 21% 24% 29% 50% 38% 2% 23% 3% 9% 23% 22% 31% 23% 47% 45% 99% 98% 59% 54% 50% 48% 24% 45% 73% 68% 58% 46% 26% 33% 26% 18% 26% 22% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less Often/Not at all Few times a week Daily or more In addition to exploring device ownership and usage, incoming students were asked about the types of activities they conduct on their various devices. Incoming respondents who reported they own a smartphone were asked how often they access the internet from their smartphones. It appears that smartphones are used to access the internet on an almost daily basis, with 94% of incoming respondents accessing the internet via their smartphone at least several times a week (Table 8). This indicates that respondents who have smartphones appear to have regular access to the internet through these devices. Table 8. How often do you use the internet from your smartphone? Daily Several times/week Weekly Monthly or less Incoming, n=437 81% 13% 3% 3% When asked what types of activities they do when using the internet from their smartphones, the vast majority of incoming respondents indicated using the internet for entertainment purposes and to connect socially and communicate with their peers (Figure 3). 11 P a g e

14 100% 80% 84% Figure 3: Internet activities from smartphone (Incoming, n=433) 79% 76% 73% 72% 60% 40% 46% 43% 30% 9% 0% In a similar line of questioning, returning survey respondents were asked about the types of activities for which they use electronic devices. Almost every respondent reported running internet searches (95%), listing to audio or watching video (92%), or engaging in text based conversation (88%) such as , instant-messaging, and text messaging. It is also interesting to note that the two categories which capture production, rather than consumption, are two of the three least frequent activities. Figure 4: I have participated in the following for school, work, or recreation (Returning, n=153) Running internet searches Listening to audio or watching video content Text based conversations over , instant messaging, and text messaging 88% 95% 92% Contributing to websites, blogs, wikis, etc. Programs I can control, such as video games, simulations, etc. 49% 59% Creating audio or video content 39% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In the next few sections, we describe how GtC survey respondents use other information technologies from their electronic devices. The 2015 Pew study found that teens from various backgrounds use technology to text, utilize social media, and play video games (Lenhart, 2015). The following sections explore how incoming survey respondents describe their use of these technologies. 12 P a g e

15 1b. Social Media Websites The incoming student survey explored how GtC respondents are using social media websites. As Figure 5 indicates, the majority of incoming survey respondents use social media to communicate with their peers and share their everyday experiences, while fewer students use these sites to expand their existing networks or in a professional capacity. Figure 5: How do incoming students use social media websites? (Incoming, n=451) Stay in touch with friends 92% Share photos, music, videos, or other work 78% As a forum to express my opinions and views 43% Find out more about people 42% Play games 36% Make new friends I have never met in person 36% Plan or invite people to events 35% For professional activities (networking, etc.) 27% Participate in special-interest groups 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 6 presents the most common types of social media platforms used by incoming survey respondents. YouTube is the social media platform most commonly used by incoming survey respondents, followed by Facebook and Instagram. Figure 6: Frequency of social media for school, work, or recreation (Incoming, n=508) YouTube 16% 6% 16% 18% 44% Facebook 32% 9% 40% Instagram 46% 5% 6% 33% Vine 62% 11% 6% 7% 14% Twitter 63% 8% 5% 6% 18% GooglePlus 69% 6% 6% 8% Tumblr 72% 7% 2% 5% 14% Pinterest 79% 5% 3% 4% 9% Reddit 85% 6% 2% 2% 6% LinkedIn 92% 5% 1% 1% 2% Social Bookmarking 92% 3% 1% 1% 4%) 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Never Once a month or less Weekly Several times per week Daily 13 P a g e

16 Table 9 presents data regarding how much the incoming survey recipients restrict access to their social media profiles. Nearly one-fifth (19%) of respondents do not restrict access to profiles on social media. However, approximately three-fourths (73%) put on some level of restriction. A handful of respondents (7%) responded that they didn t know. Table 9: Do you limit or restrict who has access to your profiles on social media? I don t restrict access I put some restrictions on access I put a lot of restrictions on access I don t know Incoming, n=447 19% 43% 30% 7% 1c. Software Applications While the GtC incoming survey respondents appear to use their devices primarily for social communication and entertainment, many of them do have access to various software programs on at least one device. It is not surprising that the most common software application available on student owned devices is word processing software, followed by other common office software applications (Figure 7). Less frequently owned are some of the more specialized software programs that may be more common in a professional setting. Figure 7: For the following software applications, at least one device is equipped with the following software applications. (Incoming, n=488) Word Processing software Presentation software Spreadsheet software Graphic software Video software Audio software 21% 35% 38% 46% 55% 71% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 8 provides further information about incoming survey respondents use the software included in Figure 7, regardless of whether or not these software programs are available on their devices. Not surprisingly, the frequency of use appears to be parallel to the availability of these types of software on a device (Figure 8). 14 P a g e

17 Figure 8: Frequency of use of software (Incoming, n=508) Word processing software 13% 21% 66% Presentation software 30% 44% 26% Graphics software 53% 25% 22% Spreadsheet software 48% 36% 16% Audio-creation software 68% 17% 16% Video-creation software 64% 21% 15% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Don't use Less often A few times a week or more These findings have implications for the type of work students can be expected to do on their own devices outside of the classroom. 1d. Academic Use of Software and Web-Based Media Returning survey respondents were asked about their use of laptops and smartphones in their classes. While respondents experiences seem to vary, over half of returning survey respondents report that they rarely use these devices in a classroom setting, with little difference between the two types of devices. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Figure 9: How often do you use the following devices in class? (Returning, n=151) 50% 40% 30% 38% 29% 29% 30% 31% 21% 12% 0% Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Often Laptop Smartphone 15 P a g e

18 While smartphones and laptops are not utilized much in respondents class settings, Figure 10 indicates that returning survey respondents believe laptops, along with printers, desktop computers, and even smartphones are considered useful for academic purposes. Tablets and E-readers were viewed as less academically useful, and cell phones were overwhelmingly reported to be not very useful for academic purposes. Figure 10: Usefulness of information technology devices for academic purposes (Returning, n=174) Printer Laptop computer 5% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3% 90% 89% Desktop computer 5% 7% 7% 82% Smartphone 5% 18% 21% 56% Tablet 21% 15% 13% 51% E-reader 37% 28% 13% 22% Cell phone 18% 69% 6% 6% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Don't Know Not very useful Somehwat useful Very useful When asked how their devices are used for academic purposes, returning survey recipients indicated that the most common use of their personal devices is to conduct internet searches, followed closely by access to digital resources and as a dictionary (Figure 11). It is interesting that very few devices were identified as useful by more than half of the survey respondents. This may be an indication that GtC survey respondents do not see a clear use for their devices in an academic setting. 16 P a g e

19 Conduct internet searches Access to digital resources Dictionary Calculator Calendar Thesaurus View videos Take notes Photograph information presented Translator Listen to audio recordings Other Clicker Figure 11: Use of IT device for academic purposes (Returning, n=174) 9% 5% 31% 28% 22% 52% 51% 51% 45% 40% 40% 40% 38% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Returning respondents were also asked what challenges they saw with using internet technologies for academic purposes. It is encouraging to see that a relatively small proportion of respondents indicate any particular type of challenge, with internet connectivity being the most frequently cited challenge (Figure 12) Fifty-three percent of survey respondents either indicated they had experienced no challenges with using information technology devices or did not check any of the challenges listed in the survey. Figure 12: Challenges with using IT device(s) for academic purposes (Returning, n=174) Poor internet connectivity on-campus 33% Poor mobile connection on campus Lack of opportunities to use digital devices during class Poor internet connectivity off-campus Lack of mobile-friendly websites Lack of mobile-friendly apps Lack of understanding about how to use devices for academic purposes Other 23% 19% 18% 11% 5% 3% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The challenge identified the most by returning survey respondents (33%), poor internet connectivity oncampus, is echoed by a question about respondents agreement with a statement that their college offers a mobile friendly environment. While 60% of respondents agree that their campus is mobile- 17 P a g e

20 friendly (Figure 13), the remaining respondents were some of the individuals who disagreed and identified internet-connectivity as a challenge in Figure 12. Figure 13: My college is a mobile-friendly environment. (Returning, n=174) Strongly Agree 22% Agree 39% Neutral 29% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 3% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figures 14 and 15 provide an overview of the most common types of software and web-based platforms that were used by returning respondents in this quarter or semester. Figure 14: Software and web-based media use this quarter/semester (Returning, n=174) Word processing software College main website College library website Presentation software Wikis Instant Messaging E-books or e-textbooks Spreadsheet software Course lecture podcasts or videos Blogs Simulations or educational games Graphic software Discipline-specific technologies Other E-portfolios Video-creation software Programming languages Audio-creation software Clickers 26% 22% 16% 14% 13% 7% 6% 6% 5% 3% 3% 34% 48% 43% 62% 82% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 18 P a g e

21 Figure 15: Web-based tools use this quarter/semester (Returning, n=174) Web-based word processor, spreadsheet, Video-sharing websites College-related review/opinion sites Textbook publisher resource websites Web-based citation/bibliography tools Web-based calendars College study support Photo-sharing websites Other Micro-blogs (Twitter, etc.) Social bookmarking 5% 5% 4% 22% 18% 18% 13% 11% 30% 44% 63% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% These two figures are interesting to compare to Figure 7, which describes incoming student frequency of use of common software packages accessible on students devices. Finally, in terms of use of information technologies in an academic setting, returning respondents were asked to describe the types of software and web-based media they use to collaborate with other respondents (Figure 16). Nearly half of respondents reported collaboration with other respondents during the current term using a web-based word processor (e.g. Google Docs), spreadsheet, presentation, or form application. The other technologies for collaborating with students were used considerably less often. Figure 16: Collaborating with other students using technology this quarter/semester (Returning, n=174) Web-based word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, Video-sharing websites Wikis Other Photo-sharing websites Textbook publisher resource websites Blogs Web Citation & bibliography tools Micro-blogs (Twitter, etc.) Social bookmarking 24% 18% 16% 14% 9% 9% 7% 4% 49% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 19 P a g e

22 1e. Technology and Training Preparedness Thus far, the GtC survey results have described device ownership and the types of web-based platforms and software that GtC students use most frequently. Another aspect of student access to technology is their perception of their skill in using information technology. With an increasing prevalence of technology in academics, student readiness to use technology in their education is of interest as well. According to existing research, students who own a greater number of technology devices are more willing to take courses that use technology and feel more prepared to use technology in college courses (Dahlstrom et al., 2013). With lower income students being less likely to have access to certain devices, these underserved students may face some challenges, and as a result, preparation for technology use in academics may be useful. In previous studies, many students indicated a need for more information technology training for students and instructors (Dahlstrom et al., 2013). Specifically, students should receive training in how to utilize technology resources and how to overcome technical difficulties (Compora, 2003 as cited by Jaggars, 2011; Kinser, 2002 as cited in Jaggars, 2011). The next series of figures describe how survey respondents describe their comfort and skill level with a variety of information technologies. Respondents were asked to select one of a series of statements about their comfort with new technologies. Figure 17 shows incoming student survey responses, ordered from least to most comfort. Respondents comfort level regarding adopting new technologies seemed to be varied and generally fell in line with a normal distribution. Figure 17: Comfort with new technologies (Incoming, n=508) I love new technologies and am among the first to experiement with and use them. I like new technologies and use them before most people I know. 18% 21% I usually use new technologies when most people I know do. 34% I am usually one fo the last people I know to use new technologies. I am skeptical of new technologies and use them only when I have to. 11% 17% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Both sets of survey respondents were asked if they had received training in a variety of technology areas. Figure 18 indicates that nearly half of both incoming and returning students have had no courses or training in any type of information technology, and when training has been received, it is most often regarding use of software or other applications. It is also interesting to note that incoming students appear to be more likely to have taken multiple types of courses or training, as indicated by their higher percentages across multiple training categories (Respondents could select more than one item). 20 P a g e

23 Figure 18: I have had courses or training in... No technology 47% 49% Software or applications 24% 45% Using the internet 33% Computer maintenance 5% 21% Other 5% 2% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Incoming (n=501) Returning (n=174) Finally, both incoming and returning survey respondents were asked to describe their skill level on a variety of types of software and other computer applications. Figures 19 and 20 indicate survey respondents self-described skill level for a range of software applications. Consistent with other survey findings, these data show that respondents are most comfortable with word processing and presentation software, but feel they are less skilled in more specialized and less commonly utilized software such as spreadsheet, graphic, video, and audio software. These figures also indicate a large gap in comfort with some types of software, potentially affecting classroom success. Figure 19: Skill Level for Information Technologies (Incoming, n=501) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 17% 28% 49% 42% 34% 31% 59% 64% 59% 74% 26% 22% 29% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11% 15% 65% 56% 29% 15% High Skill Medium Skill Low Skill Similar, though somewhat higher, skill levels are reported for using the internet, while very low skills are reported for computer maintenance and use of the college library website. 21 P a g e

24 Figure 20: Skill Level for Information Technologies (Returning, n=139) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 6% 39% 55% Word Processing 19% 40% 41% 58% 57% 25% 28% 46% 36% 17% 16% 18% Presentation Graphics Video Creation Spreadsheet 72% 17% 12% Audio Creation 6% 21% 73% Internet Searches 43% 33% 19% 60% 24% 21% Computer Maintenance College Library Website High Skill Medium Skill Low Skill 1f. Psychological Sense of School Membership The final set of survey items included under the access to technology research question is about students perceptions of how comfortable they feel as a part of their college campus. GtCNN is interested in understanding incoming students sense of belonging to help inform how receptive students might be to the development of new learning technologies. It is important to remember that this analysis is based on responses from incoming GtC students who were relatively new to the GtC campus experience. One set of statements explored students perception of social acceptance on campus. The other set of statements explored students sense of campus belonging. Students could respond to statements with one of five options: Not at all true, Somewhat untrue, Neutral, Somewhat true, or Completely true. On average, incoming students responded positively to statements of social acceptance on campus, indicating that the statements regarding social acceptance were most often Somewhat true or Completely true. Similarly, students responded mostly positively to statements concerning campus belonging, with the average response as more positive than Neutral and slightly less positive than Somewhat true. 22 P a g e

25 Below are the statements that incoming students were asked to respond to concerning belonging on campus and social acceptance on campus. Belonging on campus, phrased positively: People at this college notice when I m good at something I am included in lots of activities at this college I feel like a real part of this college Other students in this college take my opinions seriously Belonging on campus, phrased negatively: It is hard for people like me to be accepted at this college I feel very different from most other students at this college Sometimes I feel as if I don t belong at this college I wish I were in a different college Social acceptance on campus: I am treated with as much respect as other students at this college People at this college are friendly to me Other students here like me the way I am I can really be myself at this college I feel proud of belonging to this college To get an overall sense of belonging and social acceptance on GtC campuses, student responses were assigned a numerical value from 1 (Not at all true) to 5 (Completely true). In order to account for negatively phrased statements, student responses were reversed coded for these statements. Then, responses were averaged across all surveys; a lower numbers represent more negative attitudes toward campus and higher numbers represent more positive attitudes toward campus. The average for each set of questions is displayed in Figure 21 below. Figure 21: Belonging and Social Acceptance on Campus (Incoming, n=490) Social Acceptance on Campus 4.29 Belonging on Campus =Not at all 2=Somewhat untrue 3= Neutral 4=Somewhat true 5=Completely true 23 P a g e

26 Summary of Research Question #1: How do under-served students access technology? Both the incoming and returning student technology surveys explored how GtC students access and utilize technology. This information can help inform GtC sites in understanding what technology-related experiences and skills students bring with them, and also can be used to inform decisions regarding the utility of developing more course-related information technologies for GtC students, a decision which ultimately may impact students ability to perform academically. Incoming and returning survey respondents indicated high rates of ownership and usage of mobile phones, especially smartphones, followed by laptops and desktop computers, with less usage of tablet devices. Smartphones are regularly used to access the internet. Social media is primarily being used to stay socially connected and share everyday experiences, but is generally not used for academic purposes. Students do have access to many traditional software applications on their devices: most often, respondents have word processing and presentation software, with less access to software for spreadsheets, audio, video, and graphics. This has implications for what GtC faculty can expect students to do outside of the classroom. This research question also explored what information technologies are being used by respondents in an academic setting. Survey results indicate that fewer than half of respondents are using common devices such as laptops or smartphones in the classroom. At the same time, respondents indicated that they see how devices such as computers, smartphones and printers could be useful in an academic setting, while they are less sure about how to use these devices for academic purposes. Furthermore, only a small proportion of respondents indicated that they experienced challenges with using information technology devices and 60% of respondents indicated that their campus is a mobile-friendly environment. When asked about training and skill level in various information technologies, respondents had varying perceptions regarding their comfort with new technologies, with most respondents indicating they usually start using new technologies around when everyone else does. About half of both incoming and returning students have participated in some sort of technology course or training, although incoming students were more likely to indicate having taken more than one type of technology training. Furthermore, returning students reported that they had higher levels of skills with information technology. Overall, the majority of respondents reported that they have skills that are in the middle of the spectrum and that they are most comfortable with word processing and presentation software, as well as use of the internet. Students feel they are less skilled in more specialized and less commonly utilized software such as spreadsheet, graphic, video, and audio software. Overall, it appears that GtC respondents own devices that enable them to use information technologies. At the same time, they are not using information technologies much in the classroom, but see that these tools could be used in academic learning. Finally, the proportion of respondents who feel highly skilled or trained in information technologies is relatively low. This, along with a generally positive sense of belonging to their college community, might create a fertile environment for introducing more information technologies into the academic learning process at GtC sites. 24 P a g e

27 Research Question #2: What implications does students access to technology have for technology-supported education and/or courses that rely on online curricula? The second research question posed by this project suggests a series of survey questions regarding respondents opinions about how technology could or should be integrated into their educational career. These questions pertain to how technology is currently being used by faculty and in the classroom and what respondents preferences are regarding the use of technology in the classroom. This is followed by a series of questions specifically about online and hybrid courses. 2a. Academic Use of Software and Web-Based Media The returning student survey addressed topics related to the use of technology both in the classroom and as an alternative to traditional in-person curricula. When asked about their instructors use of information technology (IT), there were mixed perceptions from returning student respondents regarding how well their instructors are able to integrate information technology into their teaching (Figure 22). Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that most or almost all of their professors have adequate information technology skills for the curriculum, and 48% indicated that most or almost all integrate the technology effectively in the course. It is important to note the converse of this: approximately half of the respondents indicated that half or less of their instructors adequately integrated information technologies into their teaching methods. Figure 22: How many of your instructors... (Returning, n=174)...have adequate IT skills for carrying out course instruction? 11% 22% 12% 33% 22%...provide students with adequate training for the IT the instructor uses in his or her course? 21% 22% 25% 21%...use information technology (IT) effectively in courses? 15% 23% 13% 23% 25% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Almost None Some About Half Most Almost All Returning survey respondents were also asked to indicate their course-type preference with options ranging from the use of no information technology to courses taught exclusively using information technology. As shown in Figure 23 below, a majority of respondents (57%) reported a preference for courses taught using a moderate amount of information technology, followed by 21% preferring limited information technology use and 12% preferring extensive information technology use. 25 P a g e