ecar/msu study of faculty and information technology explorations in instructional technology...

ECAR/MSU STUDY OF FACULTY AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Explorations in Instructional Technology

November 21, 2014

INTRODUCTION

In February of 2014, IT Services Teaching and Learning partnered with the Educause Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) to distribute a survey to all instructors of record at Michigan State University, gauging their attitudes regarding the use of campus technology in their academic work. The optional survey was distributed via e-mail, and no reminder or follow-up messages were sent.

TIMELINE

February 24, 2014 – Surveys distributed to all instructors of record

March 16, 2014 – Survey closed

May 1, 2014 – Data files received from ECAR

August 18, 2014 – ECAR study published

September, 2014 – MSU report published

SAMPLE - MSU

Distributed to all instructors of record for FS12, SS13, US13

157 responses

5% response rate

8% margin of error

National response rate – 15%

TECHNOLOGY INTERESTS - MSU 93.6% identified that they were interested in technology for teaching and learning

51.6% identified they were interested in technology for research and scholarship

49% work mostly with undergraduates

38.2% work mostly with graduate students

12.1% work mostly with professional students

.6% do not typically work with students

RANK AND TENURE

95.5% identified as full-time faculty members, 4.5% as part-time Peer institutions: 54.7% full-time, 16.9% part-time Nationally: 68.9% full-time, 31.1% part-time

81% tenured, 7.4% not tenured but tenure track, 37.8% non-tenured Peer institutions: 48.8% tenured, 18% not tenured but tenure track, 33.2% non-tenured

Nationally: 50.1% tenured, 18.7% not tenured but tenure track, 32.1% non-tenured

ONLINE TEACHING - MSU

74.1% did not teach a fully online course in the past academic year

13.8% said that less than half their load was online

12.1% taught at least half their teaching load online

USE AND SATISFACTION

MSU faculty are connected:

80.7 out of 100

MSU faculty are relatively satisfied with their campus tech experiences:

67.7 out of 100

MSU faculty are not technophobic:

67.7 out of 100

MSU faculty are relatively conservative in their approach to technology:

54.9 out of 100

INSTITUTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

MSU, peer doctoral institutions, and the national picture

ANALYSIS #1

“Faculty recognize that online learning opportunities can promote access to higher education but are more reserved in their expectations for online courses to improve outcomes (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

ACCESS

73.7% of MSU faculty agree or strongly agree that online courses will expand the availability of higher education to more populations and increase student access

73.3% at peer research institutions77.3% nationally

OUTCOMES

49% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that the institution was improving student outcomes through technology

52.6% at peer research institutions60.1% nationally

ONLINE LEARNING POTENTIAL

25.5% of MSU faculty agreed or strongly agreed that online learning has the potential to help students learn more effectively

33.1% at peer research institutions40.8% nationally

ANALYSIS #2

“Faculty interest in early-alert systems and intervention notifications is strong (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

INSTITUTIONAL ALERTSTable 1: Faculty responding that they are “very interested” or “extremely interested” to the question “How interested are you in your institution providing your students with the following early-alert or intervention notifications, even if it means additional input on your part?”

  MSU Other DR Institutions All US InstitutionsGuidance about courses they may consider taking in the future, such as “you may also like” or “we recommend” suggestions

21.6% 23.1% 28.5%

Alerts if it appears a student’s progress in a course is declining

39.5% 43.4% 51.7%

Suggestions for how to improve performance in a course if a student’s progress is substandard

44.1% 42.2% 49.8%

Suggestions about new or different academic resources for your students (e.g., tutoring, skills-building opportunities, etc.)

53.5% 55.8% 60.4%

Automated tracking of your students’ course attendance via college ID card scanners or other automated means

26.3% 36.2% 40.1%

ANALYSIS #3

“The majority of faculty are using basic features and functions of LMSs but recognize that these systems have much more potential to enhance teaching and learning (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

LMS USETable 2Please indicate how you use the learning management system:

  MSU Other DR Institutions All US InstitutionsI don’t use the LMS at all 10.9% 15.5% 14.2%

To push out information, such as posting a syllabus or other handouts

62.6% 63.9% 57.5%

To promote interaction outside of the classroom by using discussion boards, assignments, assessments, etc.

42.9% 40.8% 40.9%

To teach partially online courses (or competency-based programs)

20.4% 17.3% 19.1%

To teach completely online courses (or competency-based programs)

22.4% 19.9% 28.4%

TECHNICAL AND TRAININGTable 3Faculty reporting that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” in regard to technical and training aspects of the campus LMS:

  MSU Other DR Institutions All US Institutions

System availability 77.1% 74.4% 75.2%

System response time 50% 58.5% 62.6%

Ease of use 45% 48% 57.2%

Initial use training 39.3% 35.5% 45.6%

Ongoing training/professional development

37.5% 29.1% 37.5%

Overall satisfaction 40.8% 51.1% 60.5%

ANALYSIS #4

“Faculty think they could be more effective instructors if they were better skilled at integrating various kinds of technology into their courses (Dahlstrom & Brooks, 2014, p. 4).”

VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESSTable 4 Faculty who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they could be a more effective faculty member if they were better skilled at integrating technologies:

  MSU Other DR Institutions All US Institutions

Learning Management System 63% 55.4% 53.6%

Online Collaboration Tools 51.3% 53.8% 55.1%

ePortfolios 27.4% 32.7% 35.4%

eTexts 41.7% 48.4% 48.7%

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Student preparedness, equipment availability, and managing technology

VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESSTable 7 Faculty who agree or strongly agree regarding student preparedness for teaching and learning activities:

  MSU Other DR Institutions All US InstitutionsI wish students were better prepared to use institution-specific technologies

37.9% 46.5% 53.3%

I wish students were better prepared to use basic software programs and apps

36.2% 40.5% 46.8%

Most of my students have adequate technology skills

70.1% 66.6% 65.7%

Too many of my students look to me or my TAs for tech support

27.2% 27.3% 29.6%

FACULTY MOTIVATIONS FOR USING TECHNOLOGY1. Clear indication/evidence that students would benefit

2. Release time to design/redesign my course

3. Direct assistance from an instructional design expert

4. A better understanding of the relevant types of technologies

5. Direct assistance from IT staff

6. A teaching assistant to assist with technology implementation

7. Working in a faculty cohort or community

8. More/better technology-oriented professional development opportunities

9. Tenure decisions and other professional advancement considerations

10. A monetary or other value-oriented incentive

11. Increased student expectations of technology integration

12. Support/encouragement from peers

QUESTIONS/CONTACT

Jessica Knott

IT Services Teaching and Learning

(517)884-0674

jlknott@msu.edu

Twitter - @jlknott