How do students use ICTs (in higher education)?

How do students use ICTs (in higher education)? Date June 21, 2012 ynke Bos, MSc - Faculty of Humanities ynke Kruiderink, MSc - Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. With thanks to: Paul Lodder (FMG), Myrthe Bil (Humanities), Caspar Groeneveld (FMG), Elgin Blankwater (FMG), Maarten Remijn, Marcel Slaman, Titus Kretzschmar, Pepin Uitterhoeve (FMG)

Introduction Since 2008 the Faculty of Medicine has conducted an annual 'ICT in Education survey amongst its students. This year the survey was distributed amongst all students and seven faculties of the University of Amsterdam. The survey explores several topics. First, it investigates PC and smartphone ownership amongst students. This to determine which assumptions are valid when drafting policy. Is it useful to invest in the development of apps or target specific operating systems? Second, the survey also tries to bring into scope the use of social media among students. The use of Social Media can be an indication for the 'soft skills' in ICT of students. It also gives insight into the use of ICT applications in daily life, which can be an indication of the willingness of students to use these applications in their educational programmes. The last part of the survey provides insight into the needs of students with regards to ICT in education. What do students regard as important when it comes to their education and what is their stance towards several statements? Method The survey was distributed among all students of the University of Amsterdam. The first invitation email included an explanation of the objectives of the survey and a link. After two weeks a reminder was sent. The results of the survey are anonymous. Results The survey was released in May 2012 and completed by 2167 students. Of these, 35% were male and 65% female. This distribution is similar to that of previous years so we can assume that comparisons across the years will not be influenced by the gender balance. Of these students 64% are bachelor students, and 31% are master students. 5% are in a transition trajectory or a pre-master. The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) (n = 792) is best represented, followed by the Faculty of Humanities (Humanities) (n = 486), the Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science (Science) (n = 329 ), the Faculty of Law (FL) (n = 255), the Faculty of Medicine (GE / AMC) (n = 233; 2011: n = 149), ACTA (n = 11) and the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) (n = 10). Given the low number of respondents within the FEB and ACTA, they are not included in the total listings, which are discussed in the following paragraphs. Page 2

Computers & Tablets The vast majority of students have a computer with a Windows operating system: 64%, the bulk owning a laptop (48%) and a smaller part a Windows desktop (16%). Approximately 18% work on a Mac, 15% of which on a laptop, and 3% on a Mac desktop. Linux remains the lowest percentage: only 5% of the students work with Linux. Almost 16% of students have a tablet computer (including e-readers). Of these, 57% have an ipad and 16% have another tablet, such as Android. 27% have an e-reader. Remarkable is the high density of ipads amongst dentistry students, 56% own an ipad. Maybe most surprising is the statistic that 2% of students do not own a computer, laptop or tablet at all. It is a given that a student can have multiple devices. A further breakdown of ownership per faculty can be found in the annexes. Mobile phones Android clearly wins over Apple: 22% of students have an iphone while 29% have an Android phone. 8% have a Blackberry and 5 % have another smartphone with an operating system like Symbian or Windows Mobile. The total number of smartphone owners is 64%, an increase from last year s 54%, 50% in 2010 and 28% in 2009. 15% of all students still do not own a mobile phone. The Android density is greatest in the Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science. If a student at this faculty has a smartphone, there is a 60% chance that it is operated by Android. The absolute number of smartphone owners in this faculty is however the lowest, at a mere 54%, and the highest amongst Law students, where 74% of the students have a smartphone. Social Media use among students Facebook remains the leader in the Social Media landscape. 85% of students have a profile. This means that 15% of students do not have a Facebook profile. Over 68% check their profile at least once a day, and nearly 60% do so several times a day (versus 50% last year). Hyves is clearly well past its peak, 91% of the students do not have a profile (last year 76%) and those with a profile check the site less than once a week. Interestingly, the longer a student has been studying, the less likely they are to have a Facebook profile. So the higher concentration of Facebook users is amongst the newcomers. Women check their profile more often than men do. Page 3

Students are not using Twitter very much. Of the 30% who do have a twitter account, only 13% use it daily. However, we can detect a rising trend in Twitter use, as in 2010 15% had an account, in 2011 22% did, and now 30% do. Apparently students have not yet widely discovered Twitter as a useful tool to stay abreast of developments in the field. Professional networking does not seem to be a high priority since only 35% have a LinkedIn profile. Students who do have a LinkedIn profile, do not make intensive use of it. 27% check their account once a week or less. Last year, however, only 13% of students had a LinkedIn account, so its use is increasing. More master students tend to have a LinkedIn profile than their bachelor counterparts, which makes future career sense. Google + is used by 13% of the students several times a week, by 8% of students less frequently, and 67% have no profile. A detailed overview of the use of social media among students can be found in Annex 2. What do students want with ICTs in Education? Based on a ranking question with predefined topics, students could indicate their priorities regarding uses of ICTs in education. The highest demand is for more video lectures, especially in the larger faculties such as Social and Behavioural Sciences, Law and Medicine. In second place students desire more digital practice tests. Although this desire is visible across the board, it is most popular in the faculties with the smaller study programmes such as the Humanities Faculty and the Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science. The option to have more interaction with teachers via ICTs outside of the classroom is ranked second to last. Ranked third was the option to have mobile access to UvA services via an app. Further questioning shows that students primarily want access to their Blackboard announcements via an app, not so much their educational materials such as PowerPoints presentations or syllabi. Besides mobile access to Blackboard announcements, students would like to access their rosters using a mobile app, as well as the various announcements published on the student websites. This is supported by the general satisfaction/dissatisfaction sentiment with regards to the various UvA information services. The mobile roster website is currently being worked on and is planned to be launched at the start of the 2012-2013 academic year. Interestingly, among Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science students, "more interaction with the instructor during class" is ranked in third place and the app seems less urgent. Medical students indicate they want more insight into their learning paths. And here again the app seems less urgent (in Page 4

6th place). In the remaining topics to rank, there is no clear hierarchy to be discerned. The ranking topics can be found in Annexes 4 to 9 and are distinguished per faculty. Of lesser priority amongst students, but an important issue among policy makers and ICT in education consultants, is the deployment of summative digital tests and the use of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Statements Where students could agree or disagree in varying degrees with particular statements, 65% indicated that the availability of web lectures would save them time in their studies. 18% of students had no opinion. This is of course an indication of their sentiment, not of a fact. When questioned whether they experienced a higher grade in courses that provided web lectures, 56% answered affirmatively. 27% had no opinion in this regard. When asked whether students would attend lectures less often if web lectures would be available, 47% answered affirmatively. The frequency with which students would not attend was not asked. Therefore answering affirmatively could be in regard to a single lecture scheduled early friday morning, or the entire cycle of lectures. Approximately 15% have no opinion and 38% do not agree with this statement. When given the opportunity to express their preference for face-to-face classes versus web lectures, a majority (61%) indicate a preference for live lectures or seminars. early 18% of students have no opinion and 21% prefer a web lecture to a live lecture or seminar. If the UvA would rent ipads or other tablets for a reasonable price, 26% would make use of this service. These tablets would presumably not be used to read mandatory literature as 71% prefer hard copy books to digital versions. Discussion and Conclusion The widespread adoption of Social Media in the lives of students today seems to be less than often assumed when policies target the special needs of today s students, connecting with the perspectives of students and student 2.0. Social Media use is mostly restricted to Facebook. Among 68% of students Facebook is commonplace, roughly every 2 of 3 students. The use of other Social Media tools still seems to play a lesser role in the lives of students. Students indicate a particular request for more web lectures and the use of digital practice tests. These two main desires of students are similar to those of last year s Faculty of Medicine students. oteworthy is that amongst those faculties where many lectures are already recorded and offered online, students want even more web lectures. One explanation is that these students are already used to using web lectures to prepare for their exams. Therefore it may be experienced as a hindrance for these students, when there are no web lectures available for studying. Among groups of students where web lectures are not provided structurally, the desire for web lectures seems to be less. Yet it remains remarkable that students ask for more web lectures when many lectures have been increasingly provided online in recent years: 936 lectures in 2008, 2572 in 2009, 4056 in 2010 and 6242 in 2011. The two main desires of students can be categorized as means to facilitate self study; the opportunity to revisit a lecture and measuring their own progress via a digital self test. Upon reflection these are logical requests by students as they are supportive and non-mandatory means for studying at one s own pace. Students can pick and choose if they want to use the digital tests and/or web lectures. Within the UvA Page 5

or Higher Education in general there is no consensus whether web lectures help students prepare for exams or rather, if they are an incentive for procrastinating studying and not attending lectures. The request for more digital (practice) tests is also a recurring one. In a limited amount but ever increasing, such tests are being offered to students. Both as diagnostic tests as for bonus points. Experience shows that particularly highly scoring students use these tests seriously. Students who score less, and who would benefit most, do not make use of these tests added-value, especially when they are offered voluntarily. The statement that web lectures lead to higher scores is based purely on the personal perspective of students. Of course they do facilitate the process of revisiting a topic covered in class, but whether this actually leads to a higher score is something still to be determined. The same goes for time saved studying. Is it time spent more efficiently in looking something up, or is it time saved because students can choose not to travel to class, saving them travelling time. In follow up research this question could be better formulated as having web lectures available when preparing for an exam saves me time. Interestingly, the perception of time saved is greatest at the Faculty of Medicine. At this faculty almost all lectures are filmed. So students have this service available to them when preparing for exams, for practically every lecture series given. Their ability to compare is therefore limited. The use of web lectures in education almost always leads to the discussion of attendance. Over 47% of students admit that they go to lectures less often if web lectures are available. More than half of the students (53%) said the availability of web lectures does not influence their behaviour regarding attending a lecture, or has no opinion in this regard. Finally, 61% of the students expresses a preference for face-to-face teaching. Slightly less than 40% do not. This is remarkable, because web lectures do not allow for interaction with the teacher and/or other students. Deployment of digital summative tests and computer supported collaborative learning seem more to be policy themes than themes that play a role in students lives. One explanation may be that such topics require more in depth knowledge to understand the advantages they can offer in education, such as improved feedback on tests, quicker results after completing a test, tailor made teaching and varied forms of testing and teaching. Students seem to want more of what they are familiar with and what it can offer them, and avoid the unfamiliar. At this moment it may be a bridge too far for current students to start structurally implementing mobile learning technologies. Besides, students do not expect much from tablet use within education, although the University of Utrecht has shown within its Pedagogy study programme that successful implementation is possible. One must take good care, however, to ensure the added value of using tablets makes good educational sense. For example by making use of the interactive possibilities it offers. (Janssen, 13 juni 2011: ipads en Social Media in het Onderwijs, VSU congres). At present, the added value of of mobile technology in education lies mainly in the disclosure of information on a study programme. In this context we should consider making the announcements from Blackboard accessible via a mobile platform. Student satisfaction with regard to Blackboard, and other UvA services, is generally quite high. Students expect that ICTs in education help them by supplementing the core educational materials, and that they can pick and choose how and when they can use them (web lectures, digital tests). Essential for students is that ICTs in education are embedded in the study programme, such as the use of tablets or other digital materials. They do not tend towards simple technology driven activities, it has to have a clear educational added value. Page 6

Annex 1: General data Gender Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid Male 736 34.0 34.8 34.8 Female 1378 63.6 65.2 100.0 Total 2114 97.6 100.0 Missing System 53 2.4 Bachelor/ Master/ Other Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid Bachelor 1355 62.5 64.1 64.1 Master 656 30.3 31.0 95.1 Other (schakel/pre 103 4.8 4.9 100.0 master/etc) Total 2114 97.6 100.0 Missing System 53 2.4 Response per Faculty Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid Faculty of Humanities 486 22.4 23.0 23.0 Faculty of Behavioral 792 36.5 37.5 60.5 and Social Sciences Medicine 233 10.8 11.0 71.5 Faculty of Economics 10.5.5 71.9 and Business Dentistry 9.4.4 72.4 Faculty of Physics, 329 15.2 15.6 87.9 Mathematics and Computer Science Law Faculty 255 11.8 12.1 100.0 Total 2114 97.6 100.0 Missing System 53 2.4 Page 7

Satisfaction Wi Fi facilities per faculty Yes o Faculty of Humanities 328 110 Faculty of Behavioral and Social Studies 577 159 Medicine 94 105 Law Faculty 153 62 Total 1159 437 Page 8

Annex 2: Social Media use Use Facebook Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 1212 55.9 58.9 58.9 About once a day 254 11.7 12.3 71.2 Several times a week 151 7.0 7.3 78.6 About once a week 51 2.4 2.5 81.0 Less than once a week 78 3.6 3.8 84.8 ever 312 14.4 15.2 100.0 Total 2058 95.0 100.0 Unanswered 109 5.0 Use Twitter Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 188 8.7 9.1 9.1 About once a day 87 4.0 4.2 13.4 Several times a week 81 3.7 3.9 17.3 About once a week 56 2.6 2.7 20.0 Less than once a week 199 9.2 9.7 29.7 ever 1446 66.7 70.3 100.0 Total 2057 94.9 100.0 Unanswered 110 5.1 Use Hyves Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 5.2.2.2 About once a day 8.4.4.6 Several times a week 6.3.3.9 About once a week 12.6.6 1.5 Less than once a week 153 7.1 7.4 8.9 ever 1873 86.4 91.1 100.0 Total 2057 94.9 100.0 Unanswered 110 5.1 Page 9

Use LinkedIn Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 16,7.9.9 About once a day 28 1.3 1.6 2.6 Several times a week 77 3.6 4.5 7.0 About once a week 140 6.5 8.1 15.2 Less than once a week 340 15.7 19.8 34.9 ever 1119 51.6 65.1 100.0 Total 1720 79.4 100.0 Unanswered 447 20.6 Use Google+ Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 149 6.9 8.7 8.7 About once a day 64 3.0 3.7 12.4 Several times a week 75 3.5 4.4 16.7 About once a week 59 2.7 3.4 20.2 Less than once a week 217 10.0 12.6 32.8 ever 1156 53.3 67.2 100.0 Total 1720 79.4 100.0 Unanswered 447 20.6 Use Wiki s Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 168 7.8 9.8 9.8 About once a day 184 8.5 10.7 20.5 Several times a week 335 15.5 19.5 39.9 About once a week 205 9.5 11.9 51.9 Less than once a week 257 11.9 14.9 66.8 ever 571 26.3 33.2 100.0 Total 1720 79.4 100.0 Unanswered 447 20.6 Page 10

Use Blogs Frequency Valid Cumulative Several times a day 75 3.5 4.4 4.4 About once a day 99 4.6 5.8 10.1 Several times a week 133 6.1 7.7 17.8 About once a week 115 5.3 6.7 24.5 Less than once a week 273 12.6 15.9 40.4 ever 1025 47.3 59.6 100.0 Total 1720 79.4 100.0 Unanswered 447 20.6 Use YouTube Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid Several times a day 330 15.2 19.2 19.2 About once a day 286 13.2 16.6 35.8 Several times a week 523 24.1 30.4 66.2 About once a week 237 10.9 13.8 80.0 Less than once a week 272 12.6 15.8 95.8 ever 73 3.4 4.2 100.0 Total 1721 79.4 100.0 Unanswered 446 20.6 Page 11

Annex 3: UvA Services Indicate how satisfied you are with: UvA Serviceplaza (http://www.student.uva.nl/az) Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 36 1.7 1.9 1.9 satisfied 876 40.4 45.8 47.6 dissatisfied 297 13.7 15.5 63.2 very dissatisfied 103 4.8 5.4 68.5 no opinion 602 27.8 31.5 100.0 Total 1914 88.3 100.0 Unanswered 253 11.7 Indicate how satisfied you are with: My UvA ( www.mijnuva.nl ) Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 177 8.2 9.2 9.2 satisfied 1242 57.3 64.9 74.1 dissatisfied 201 9.3 10.5 84.6 very dissatisfied 55 2.5 2.9 87.5 no opinion 239 11.0 12.5 100.0 Total 1914 88.3 100.0 Unanswered 253 11.7 Indicate how satisfied you are with: UvA Roster (rooster.uva.nl ) Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 163 7.5 8.5 8.5 satisfied 1019 47.0 53.2 61.8 dissatisfied 450 20.8 23.5 85.3 very dissatisfied 172 7.9 9.0 94.3 no opinion 110 5.1 5.7 100.0 Total 1914 88.3 100.0 Unanswered 253 11.7 Page 12

Indicate how satisfied you are with: student website (www.student.uva.nl/*program*) Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 47 2.2 2.5 2.5 satisfied 970 44.8 50.7 53.2 dissatisfied 341 15.7 17.8 71.0 very dissatisfied 81 3.7 4.2 75.2 no opinion 474 21.9 24.8 100.0 Total 1913 88.3 100.0 Unanswered 254 11.7 Indicate how satisfied you are with: announcements on the student website Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 44 2.0 2.3 2.3 satisfied 912 42.1 47.7 50.0 dissatisfied 377 17.4 19.7 69.7 very dissatisfied 110 5.1 5.8 75.5 no opinion 469 21.6 24.5 100.0 Total 1912 88.2 100.0 Unanswered 255 11.8 Indicate how satisfied you are with: student email ( mail.student.uva.nl) Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 230 10.6 12.0 12.0 satisfied 1115 51.5 58.3 70.3 dissatisfied 283 13.1 14.8 85.1 very dissatisfied 153 7.1 8.0 93.1 no opinion 132 6.1 6.9 100.0 Total 1913 88.3 100.0 Unanswered 254 11.7 Page 13

Annex 4: Faculty of Humanities Responses per study programme Frequency Culture studies 22 1.0 Arab language and culture 3.1 Archeology and prehistory 9.4 Cultural Information science 5.2 German language and culture 9.4 English language and culture 22 1.0 European studies 39 1.8 French language and culture 6.3 History 70 3.2 Greek and Latin language and culture 8.4 Hebrew language and culture 1.0 Italian language and culture 11.5 Art history 33 1.5 Literature science 13.6 Media and culture 67 3.1 Musicology 15.7 Dutch language and culture 32 1.5 Modern Greek language and culture 1.0 Religious Studies 8.4 Scandinavian languages and cultures 10.5 Slavic Languages and Cultures 5.2 Spanish Language and Culture 4.2 Language and communication (Dutch) 14.6 Linguistics 21 1.0 Linguistics. Sign Language Studies program 6.3 Theatre Studies 11.5 Philosophy 36 1.7 Total 481 22.2 Other Faculties UvA 1686 77.8 Page 14

Desktop/ Laptop/ Tablet ownership* * Students can own more than one item I have a: Windows laptop 300 I have an: Apple laptop 115 I have a: Linux laptop 10 I have a: Windows desktop 102 I have an: Apple desktop 19 I have a: Linux desktop 8 I have an: ipad 42 I have a: Other tablet 11 I have an: E-Reader 30 one of the above 18 Ownership mobile phones * *Students can own more than one phone I have an: iphone 109 I have an: Android smartphone 121 I have a: Blackberry smartphone 43 I have a: other smartphone (mostly okia) 25 I have a: ordinary mobile phone 189 I have a: I have no mobile phone 6 62 % has a smartphone I think ICT in Education should commit to: Mean* More digital practice tests (eg. digitalized old exams) 456 3.1140 Offer more videolectures online 456 3.3706 Mobile access to online services via an app 456 4.7127 Exploring new opportunities in education, such as the use of apps, e-readers, Twitter and Facebook 456 5.0022 More interaction with the instructor outside of the classroom 456 5.0088 More digital assessments instead of handwritten assessments 456 5.4320 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 455 6.0330 Other 456 7.9649 * the closer to 1, the higher the priority given by students Page 15

Satisfaction Blackboard Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 45 9.3 10.3 10.3 satisfied 310 63.8 70.6 80.9 dissatisfied 58 11.9 13.2 94.1 very dissatisfied 19 3.9 4.3 98.4 no opinion 7 1.4 1.6 100.0 Total 439 90.3 100.0 Unanswered 47 9.7 Total 486 100.0 Page 16

Annex 5: Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science Responses per study programme Frequency Earth Sciences 16.7 Beta-gamma 3.1 Bio-medical sciences 51 2.4 Biology 28 1.3 Future Planet Studies / Beta-Gammay 2.1 Computer science 31 1.4 Information studies 12.6 Artificial intelligence 27 1.2 Physics (Physics and Astronomy) 34 1.6 Psychobiology 64 3.0 Chemistry 26 1.2 Astronomy (Physics and Astronomy) 4.2 Mathematics 26 1.2 Total 324 15.0 Other Faculties UvA 1843 85.0 Desktop/ Laptop/ Tablet ownership* * Students can own more than one item I have a:-windows laptop 222 I have an:-apple laptop 43 I have a:-linux laptop 50 I have a:-windows desktop 110 I have an:-apple desktop 6 I have a:-linux desktop 31 I have an:-ipad 20 I have a:-other tablet 16 I have an:-e-reader 16 I have a:-one of the above 5 Page 17

Ownership mobile phones * *Students can own more than one phone I have an:-iphone 44 I have an:-android smartphone 107 I have a:-blackberry smartphone 13 I have a:-other smartphone, namely (Voornamelijk okia) 17 I have a:-ordinary mobile phone 155 I have a:-i have no mobile phone 2 54 % has a smartphone I think ICT in education should commit to: Mean* More digital practice tests (e.g. digitalized old exams) 307 2.7068 Offer more web lectures online 307 2.9479 More interaction with the instructor during class 303 4.9076 More interaction with the instructor outside of the classroom 307 5.1336 Mobile access to online services via an app 307 5.2704 Exploring new opportunities in education, such as the use of apps, e-readers, Twitter and Facebook 307 5.3779 More digital assessments instead of handwritten assessments 307 5.8990 Other * 306 7.9673 * the closer to 1, the higher the priority given by students Satisfaction Blackboard Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid very satisfied 36 10.9 11.8 11.8 satisfied 207 62.9 67.9 79.7 dissatisfied 45 13.7 14.8 94.4 very dissatisfied 15 4.6 4.9 99.3 no opinion 2.6.7 100.0 Total 305 92.7 100.0 Missing System 24 7.3 Total 329 100.0 Do you use the Eduroam network? Frequency Valid Cumulative Valid Yes 220 10.2 69.2 69.2 o 98 4.5 30.8 100.0 Total 318 14.7 100.0 Page 18

Annex 6: Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Responses per study programme Frequency Valid Cumulative Psychology 174 8.0 22.1 22.1 Cultural Anthropology 36 1.7 4.6 26.6 Political Sciences 73 3.4 9.3 35.9 Sociology 60 2.8 7.6 43.5 Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 50 2.3 6.3 49.9 Social Geography 42 1.9 5.3 55.2 Planning 28 1.3 3.6 58.8 International Development 9.4 1.1 59.9 Studies Communication Sciences 186 8.6 23.6 83.5 Educational sciences 29 1.3 3.7 87.2 Pedagogical Sciences 92 4.2 11.7 98.9 (RM) Educational Sciences 9.4 1.1 100.0 Total 788 36.4 100.0 Other Faculties UvA 1379 63.6 Desktop/ Laptop/ Tablet ownership* * Students can own more than one item I have a: Windows laptop 546 I have an: Apple laptop 160 I have a: Linux laptop 25 I have a: Windows desktop 157 I have an: Apple desktop 24 I have a: Linux desktop 12 I have an: ipad 68 I have a: Other tablet 14 I have an: E-Reader 25 I have a: one of the above 19 Page 19

Ownership mobile phones * *Students can own more than one phone I have an: iphone 190 I have a: Android smartphone 241 I have a: Blackberry smartphone 58 I have a: other smartphone, namely... 41 I have a:-ordinary mobile phone 258 I have a:-i have no mobile phone 4 67% has a smartphone I think ICT in education should commit to: Mean Offer more videolectures online 758 3.0277 More digital practice tests (eg. digitalized old exams) 758 3.0752 Mobile access to online services via an app 758 4.9182 More interaction with the instructor outside of the classroom 758 5.1214 Exploring new opportunities in education, such as the use of apps, e-readers, Twitter and Facebook 758 5.1649 More digital assessments instead of handwritten assessments 758 5.4011 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 754 5.6897 Other 758 8.2942 * the closer to 1, the higher the priority given by students Satisfaction Blackboard Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 111 14.0 15.0 15.0 satisfied 491 62.0 66.4 81.4 dissatisfied 93 11.7 12.6 93.9 very dissatisfied 38 4.8 5.1 99.1 no opinion 7.9.9 100.0 Total 740 93.4 100.0 Unanswered 52 6.6 Total 792 100.0 Page 20

Annex 7: Faculty of Medicine Responses per study programme Frequency Geneeskunde 224 10.3 Medical Informatics 5.2 Total 229 10.6 Overige Faculteiten UvA 1938 89.4 Desktop/ Laptop/ Tablet ownership* * Students can own more than one item I have a: Windows laptop 156 I have an: Apple laptop 57 I have a: Linux laptop 3 I have a: Windows desktop 39 I have an: Apple desktop 12 I have a: Linux desktop 5 I have an: ipad 23 I have a: Other tablet 4 I have an: E-Reader 9 I have a: one of the above 4 Ownership mobile phones * *Students can own more than one phone I have a:-iphone 67 I have a:-android smartphone 64 I have a:-blackberry smartphone 18 I have a:-other smartphone, namely... 12 I have a:-ordinary mobile phone 72 I have a:-i have no mobile phone 1 69% has a smartphone Page 21

I think ICT in education should commit to: Mean Offer more videolectures online 211 2.9289 More digital practice tests (eg. digitalized old exams) 211 3.8294 Transparency (own) study 211 5.0427 Communication between teacher and student 211 5.5024 Exploring new opportunities in education, such as the use of apps, e-readers, 211 6.0900 Twitter and Facebook Mobile access to online services via an app 211 6.2654 Supervising students 211 6.8294 More interaction with the instructor outside of the classroom 211 7.5545 More digital assessments instead of handwritten assessments 211 8.0806 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 210 8.6667 Other 211 11.5403 * the closer to 1, the higher the priority given by students Satisfaction Blackboard Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 27 11.6 13.6 13.6 satisfied 144 61.8 72.4 85.9 dissatisfied 23 9.9 11.6 97.5 very dissatisfied 3 1.3 1.5 99.0 no opinion 2.9 1.0 100.0 Total 199 85.4 100.0 Unanswered 34 14.6 Total 233 100.0 Page 22

Annex 8: Faculty of Law Responses per study programme Frequency Labour Law 12.6 Tax Law, curriculum International and European Tax Law 5.2 Tax Law, curriculum Dutch Tax Law 6.3 Information Law 9.4 otary Law 1.0 Research Master: Information Law 1.0 Privaatrecht: Commerciële rechtspraktijk 2.1 Private Law, curriculum Dutch Legal Practice 16.7 Public Law, curriculum Health Law 5.2 Public Law, curriculum Military Law 7.3 Public Law, curriculum Constitutional and Administrative Law 16.7 Public Law, curriculum Criminal Law 20.9 Tax law 7.3 otarial law 4.2 Law 130 6.0 Other (schakelprogramma etc.) 1.0 Total 242 11.2 Overige Faculteiten UvA 1923 88.8 Total 2165 100.0 Desktop/ Laptop/ Tablet ownership* * Students can own more than one item I have a: Windows laptop 147 I have an: Apple laptop 58 I have a: Linux laptop 5 I have a: Windows desktop 53 I have an: Apple desktop 16 I have a: Linux desktop 3 I have an: ipad 30 I have a: Other tablet 5 I have an: E-Reader 6 I have a: one of the above 5 Page 23

Ownership mobile phones * *Students can own more than one phone I have an: iphone 60 I have a: Android smartphone 68 I have a: Blackberry smartphone 31 I have a: other smartphone, namely... 18 I have a: ordinary mobile phone 55 I have a: I have no mobile phone 2 * 76% has a smartphone I think ICT in education should commit to: Mean Offer more videolectures online 226 2.8982 More digital practice tests (eg. digitalized old exams) 226 3.2434 Mobile access to online services via an app 226 4.4159 More digital assessments instead of handwritten assessments 226 4.7788 Exploring new opportunities in education, such as the use of apps, e-readers, Twitter and Facebook 226 5.2566 More interaction with the instructor outside of the classroom 226 5.3142 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 226 6.5442 Other 226 8.4425 Satisfaction Blackboard Frequency Valid Cumulative very satisfied 28 11.0 13.0 13.0 satisfied 151 59.2 70.2 83.3 dissatisfied 26 10.2 12.1 95.3 very dissatisfied 10 3.9 4.7 100.0 Total 215 84.3 100.0 Unanswered 40 15.7 Total 255 100.0 Page 24