ecar study of faculty and technology report › docs › research_ir... ·...

Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research (DAIR) – June 24,2014 1

ECAR Study of Faculty and Technology, Spring 2014 INTRODUCTION In Spring 2014, AUC was invited by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) to participate in a study of Faculty and Technology. ECAR provides research and analysis about information technology in higher education for IT professionals and higher education leaders. The Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research (DAIR) coordinated the process for AUC. Participation in the survey was approved by AUC’s Institutional Review Board. The purpose of the survey was to explore technology ownership, use patterns, and expectations as they relate to the faculty role, and to use the results to improve IT services, increase technology-‐enabled productivity, prioritize strategic contributions of information technology to higher education, plan for technology shifts that impact faculty, and become more technologically competitive among peer institutions. (EDUCAUSE) On February 10, 2014, President Lisa Anderson sent the population of 787 full-‐time and part-‐time faculty an invitation to participate in the ECAR Study of Faculty and Technology, and the invitation was follow-‐up with reminders from Provost Shaarawy. Faculty members were given the option to take either a 10-‐minute version with the core survey questions or the 20-‐minute version that included supplemental questions related to technology interests and needs. Participation in the study was voluntary, and EDUCAUSE provided participants with an incentive of eligibility to receive either a $100 or $200 gift certificate to Amazon.com. The survey closed on March 16, 2014. Out of the population of 787 faculty members, 132 responded, for a participation rate of 16.8% and a margin of error of 8%. EDUCAUSE compiled the results of this survey and sent AUC detailed reports, along with benchmarking data for comparison with peer universities, which form the basis of this report. The American University in Cairo Benchmarking Report CONTENTS Summary of Findings About This Survey Section 1: About You Section 2: Technology Adoption And Use Section 3: Technology For Teaching And Learning (Teaching Faculty Only) Section 4: Learning Environments (Teaching Faculty Only) Section 5: Technology For Research And Scholarship (Research Faculty Only) Section 6: Demographic And Informational Questions SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The majority of respondents (61%) took the 10-‐minute version of the survey. Sixty-‐eight percent said that they typically work with undergraduate students. Nearly 50% of respondents reported that they were not on the tenure track, and 27% reported a rank of assistant professor, with the remainder fairly evenly split between professor, associate professor, and instructor. Technology Resources The majority of respondents reported positive experiences with classroom-‐based technology resources, lab or research-‐based technology resources, physical and online collaborative spaces, the resources and ability to get work done away from home, reliable access to wi-‐fi networks, communication technologies, technology support, and professional development and integrated use of technology. Respondents reported little experience with high-‐performance/research computing services, cloud-‐based high performance/research computing systems, data management services, digital repositories, digital preservation, and self-‐publishing. The majority of respondents agreed that AUC improves student outcomes through technology, assists faculty with integration of technology, supports the trend toward IT consumerization and BYOD, and facilitates a better understanding of information privacy and security. Respondents were largely uncertain (35% don’t know) if AUC uses analytics to support critical institutional outcomes and neutral (32%) about whether or not AUC has a clear strategy for online learning. Information Security Respondents agreed that AUC facilitates a better understanding of information privacy and security and disagreed that privacy and security policies impede productivity. Forty-‐one percent reported confidence in AUC’s ability to safeguard their personal information, and thirty-‐nine percent agreed that they had access to resources to keep his/her data secure. Seventy-‐four percent


of respondents agreed that they take sufficient measures to keep their research and scholarly data secure, and 73% agreed that they take sufficient measures to keep data about their students secure. Online Learning Fifty-‐one percent of respondents agreed that online learning helps students learn more effectively, and 54% agreed that online learning will lead to pedagogical breakthroughs. Nearly 80% agreed that online learning will make higher education available to more students. Respondents added suggestions for how AUC can help facilitate their use of technology, with most suggestions relating to time, training, and technical support. Technical Support/Help Desk Respondents reported relying on the Help Desk (55%) peers or colleagues (53%), the Internet (42%) for tech support. A number of questions queried respondents about their satisfaction with the Help Desk. Many reported not making use of the service. Phone and email access were rated well, with respondents reporting not using the web form, chat/instant messaging, remote assistance, and self-‐service/FAQ. Technology for Teaching and Learning Respondents were divided about students’ preparation to use institution-‐specific technology. Ninety-‐six percent of respondents agreed that students have adequate technology skills. Faculty suggested students could use more preparation in research skills beyond simple Google searches. Respondents reported interest in AUC providing students with alerts about guidance on courses they might consider taking, if a student’s progress was declining, suggestions for how to improve performance in a course, and new or different academic resources. Faculty were more divided in their interest in automated tracking of attendance. Faculty respondents reported that their teaching effectiveness would improve with improved skill in integrating the LMS (62%), online collaboration tools (68%), e-‐portfolios (53%), e-‐books (72%), free e-‐content (68%), simulations (61%), and lecture capture (64%). There was less enthusiasm for integrating students’ tablets, smart phones, laptops, and social media. Respondents also requested training in many of these areas, including suggestions for online training, awareness seminars at the start of each year, and workshops. Faculty respondents that the primary motivating factors for technology integration were release time, evidence that students would benefit, greater confidence, and direct assistance. Learning Environments 94% of respondents reported that they had not taught a completely online course in the past year, and 67% reported that they had not taught a MOOC in the past (half of those respondents report not knowing what a MOOC is). Forty-‐four percent of respondents were supportive of the idea of MOOCs. There was general satisfaction with the availability of classrooms with multimedia equipment and with the variety of equipment available, however 43% of respondents were dissatisfied with the reliability of that equipment. Overall satisfaction with classroom technology was neutral (44%). Only 7% of respondents reported not using the Learning Management System (LMS) at all, while 43% reported using it to promote interaction outside the classroom. Eighteen percent reported using it to teach partially or completely online courses. The typical use is weekly (53%), and 89% report using Blackboard. There was widespread satisfaction with system availability, response time, and ease of use, with less satisfaction about ongoing training and professional development. Overall, 69% of respondents were satisfied with AUC’s LMS. The majority of respondents want to ban or discourage smart phone use in class, but not tablets or laptops. Faculty respondents were divided about whether or not mobile devices enhance in-‐class learning, but 74% agreed that they were distracting. Teaching for Research and Scholarship Faculty respondents were divided about AUC’s support for research. Only 40% reported general satisfaction with research support. Seventy-‐five percent said that they did not conduct data-‐intensive research. Forty-‐four percent were neutral about whether or not communication with IT was adequate and appropriate, and 30% disagreed that IT plays an integral part. Fifty-‐six percent expressed dissatisfaction with research computing. Disposition Towards IT/Demographics Faculty dispositions toward IT seem generally positive, with large variations. 51% of respondents were male, and 47% were female.


ABOUT THIS SURVEY

Survey areas of interest AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Technology for teaching and learning 127 2950 16106

96.2% 98.0% 92.3%

Technology for research and scholarship 64 809 7405

48.5% 26.9% 42.4%

Total respondent count 132 3011 17451

Currently full-‐ or part-‐ time AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Full-‐time faculty member 111 1130 12355

84.1% 37.5% 70.8%

Part-‐time faculty member 21 1881 5096

15.9% 62.5% 29.2%

Total respondent count (Percentages sum to 100%.)

132 3011 17451

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Survey version AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Take the 10-‐minute version of the survey 80 1849 10711

60.6% 61.4% 61.4%

Take the 20-‐minute version of the survey 52 1162 6739

39.4% 38.6% 38.6%


132 3011 17450

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SECTION 1: ABOUT YOU

1.1. Years of faculty experience AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Years in a full-‐time faculty position

Mean 12.1 9.6 12.5

SD 10.8 10.0 10.6

N 120 1858 14183

Years in a part-‐time faculty position

Mean 6.2 6.7 5.8

SD 6.8 6.4 6.2

N 60 2370 9900

1.2. Students typically worked with AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Undergraduate students 88 2027 12522

68.2% 67.6% 72.1%

Graduate students 32 878 3680

24.8% 29.3% 21.2%

Professional students 3 92 767

2.3% 3.1% 4.4%

I don't typically work directly with students. 6 3 396

4.7% 0.1% 2.3%


129 3000 17365

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.3. Tenure status AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Tenured 25 387 6078

22.9% 34.8% 49.7%

Not tenured, but on a tenure track 31 254 2224

28.4% 22.8% 18.2%


1.3. Tenure status AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Not on a tenure track 53 472 3922

48.6% 42.4% 32.1%


109 1113 12224

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.4. Academic rank AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Professor 20 322 3445

18.2% 28.7% 28.1%

Associate professor 17 329 3004

15.5% 29.3% 24.5%

Assistant professor 30 299 2673

27.3% 26.6% 21.8%

Clinical professor 0 11 97

0.0% 1.0% 0.8%

Instructor 20 110 1245

18.2% 9.8% 10.1%

Senior lecturer 12 0 153

10.9% 0.0% 1.2%

Qualifying post 0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Lecturer 1 13 624

0.9% 1.2% 5.1%

Research associate 0 0 76

0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

Research professor 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other; please specify 10 29 775

9.1% 2.6% 6.3%

No academic rank 0 10 184

0.0% 0.9% 1.5%


110 1123 12280

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.4 Academic Rank (Other):

• Assoc. Prof of Practice (x3) • Librarian • 30 years as Middle and High school International Baccalaureat (IB) teacher • Senior Instructor

SECTION 2: TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND USE

2.1. Experience with: Classroom-‐based technology resources AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 7 68 874

5.3% 2.3% 5.1%

Fair 16 223 2220

12.2% 7.5% 12.8%

Neutral 14 219 1794

10.7% 7.3% 10.4%

Good 51 1092 7667

38.9% 36.6% 44.3%

Excellent 42 601 3330


2.1. Experience with: Classroom-‐based technology resources AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

32.1% 20.1% 19.2%

N/A 1 781 1418

0.8% 26.2% 8.2%


131 2984 17303

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Laboratory or research-‐based technology resources AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 0 73 719

0.0% 2.5% 4.3%

Fair 7 141 1515

5.6% 4.9% 9.0%

Neutral 14 266 1998

11.1% 9.2% 11.9%

Good 50 705 5355

39.7% 24.4% 31.9%


19.0% 14.4% 13.2%

N/A 31 1291 4999

24.6% 44.6% 29.8%


126 2894 16801

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Physical collaborative spaces AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 2 52 464

3.8% 4.5% 6.9%

Fair 3 86 862

5.8% 7.5% 12.9%

Neutral 4 124 941

7.7% 10.7% 14.1%

Good 18 269 2022

34.6% 23.3% 30.2%


30.8% 11.4% 11.9%

N/A 9 491 1606

17.3% 42.5% 24.0%


52 1154 6690

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Online collaborative spaces AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 2 49 505

3.9% 4.2% 7.5%

Fair 4 97 840

7.8% 8.4% 12.5%

Neutral 6 127 1102

11.8% 10.9% 16.4%

Good 24 467 2259

47.1% 40.3% 33.6%


19.6% 25.8% 13.7%


2.1. Experience with: Online collaborative spaces AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 5 121 1088

9.8% 10.4% 16.2%


51 1160 6714

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Resources and ability to get work done away from home AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 1 33 317

1.9% 2.8% 4.7%

Fair 4 69 674

7.7% 5.9% 10.0%

Neutral 6 79 732

11.5% 6.8% 10.9%

Good 14 417 2570

26.9% 35.9% 38.2%


38.5% 37.4% 23.9%

N/A 7 129 828

13.5% 11.1% 12.3%


52 1161 6728

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Reliable access to Wi-‐Fi networks AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 8 70 1130

6.1% 2.4% 6.5%

Fair 13 171 2070

9.8% 5.7% 12.0%

Neutral 15 178 1480

11.4% 6.0% 8.6%

Good 62 825 6325

47.0% 27.7% 36.6%


25.0% 26.0% 27.0%

N/A 1 957 1609

0.8% 32.2% 9.3%


132 2974 17284

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Communication technologies AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 1 26 253

1.9% 2.3% 3.8%

Fair 2 97 777

3.8% 8.4% 11.6%

Neutral 6 90 814

11.5% 7.8% 12.2%

Good 15 501 2941

28.8% 43.5% 44.0%


51.9% 35.6% 26.1%


2.1. Experience with: Communication technologies AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 1 28 152

1.9% 2.4% 2.3%


52 1153 6684

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Online or virtual technologies AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 2 58 637

4.0% 5.0% 9.5%

Fair 5 104 926

10.0% 9.0% 13.9%

Neutral 7 147 1124

14.0% 12.8% 16.8%

Good 15 437 2184

30.0% 38.0% 32.7%

Excellent 8 281 962

16.0% 24.4% 14.4%

N/A 13 124 839

26.0% 10.8% 12.6%


50 1151 6672

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Technology support AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 4 81 854

3.1% 2.7% 4.9%

Fair 15 202 1920

11.5% 6.8% 11.1%

Neutral 14 239 2056

10.7% 8.0% 11.9%

Good 61 1108 6791

46.6% 37.2% 39.3%


26.0% 40.1% 29.6%

N/A 3 155 559

2.3% 5.2% 3.2%


131 2978 17299

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Professional development around integrated use of technology AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 4 85 780

7.7% 7.4% 11.7%

Fair 5 129 948

9.6% 11.2% 14.2%

Neutral 8 183 1261

15.4% 15.8% 18.8%

Good 19 411 2060

36.5% 35.6% 30.8%


23.1% 26.0% 17.3%


2.1. Experience with: Professional development around integrated use of technology AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 4 47 485

7.7% 4.1% 7.2%


52 1155 6693

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Specialized teaching software AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 1 89 771

2.0% 7.7% 11.6%

Fair 6 118 907

12.0% 10.2% 13.6%

Neutral 9 196 1245

18.0% 17.0% 18.7%

Good 13 341 1585

26.0% 29.6% 23.8%

Excellent 7 158 601

14.0% 13.7% 9.0%

N/A 14 251 1547

28.0% 21.8% 23.2%


50 1153 6656

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: High-‐performance/research computing services AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 9 129 1020

7.0% 4.4% 6.0%

Fair 8 114 1006

6.2% 3.9% 5.9%

Neutral 16 319 2007

12.4% 10.9% 11.7%

Good 25 510 2562

19.4% 17.4% 15.0%


7.0% 9.8% 6.5%

N/A 62 1579 9383

48.1% 53.7% 54.9%


129 2938 17092

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Cloud-‐based high-‐performance/research computing systems AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 10 134 1194

7.7% 4.5% 7.0%

Fair 6 109 943

4.6% 3.7% 5.5%

Neutral 16 348 2159

12.3% 11.8% 12.6%

Good 18 484 1985

13.8% 16.4% 11.6%

Excellent 4 255 711

3.1% 8.6% 4.2%


2.1. Experience with: Cloud-‐based high-‐performance/research computing systems AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 76 1622 10086

58.5% 54.9% 59.1%


130 2952 17078

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Data management services AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 6 70 659

11.8% 6.0% 9.9%

Fair 2 78 611

3.9% 6.7% 9.1%

Neutral 9 166 1109

17.6% 14.3% 16.6%

Good 9 223 1019

17.6% 19.2% 15.2%

Excellent 2 87 321

3.9% 7.5% 4.8%

N/A 23 536 2963

45.1% 46.2% 44.3%


51 1160 6682

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Digital repositories AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 5 72 637

9.8% 6.2% 9.5%

Fair 4 65 563

7.8% 5.6% 8.4%

Neutral 6 163 990

11.8% 14.1% 14.8%

Good 7 201 1122

13.7% 17.3% 16.8%

Excellent 8 112 382

15.7% 9.7% 5.7%

N/A 21 546 2991

41.2% 47.1% 44.7%


51 1159 6685

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Digital preservation AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 5 79 683

9.6% 6.8% 10.2%

Fair 3 48 453

5.8% 4.1% 6.8%

Neutral 7 170 978

13.5% 14.7% 14.6%

Good 8 140 751

15.4% 12.1% 11.2%

Excellent 4 69 248

7.7% 6.0% 3.7%


2.1. Experience with: Digital preservation AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 25 653 3564

48.1% 56.3% 53.4%


52 1159 6677

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1. Experience with: Self-‐publishing AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Poor 5 86 622

10.0% 7.4% 9.3%

Fair 1 50 344

2.0% 4.3% 5.2%

Neutral 3 163 933

6.0% 14.0% 14.0%

Good 7 106 484

14.0% 9.1% 7.2%

Excellent 3 39 135

6.0% 3.4% 2.0%

N/A 31 717 4159

62.0% 61.8% 62.3%


50 1161 6677

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Improves student outcomes through technology AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 7 97 962

5.3% 3.2% 5.5%

Strongly disagree 3 43 467

2.3% 1.4% 2.7%

Disagree 11 143 1775

8.4% 4.8% 10.2%

Neutral 27 442 3954

20.6% 14.8% 22.8%

Agree 63 1660 8485

48.1% 55.4% 48.9%

Strongly agree 20 611 1717

15.3% 20.4% 9.9%


131 2996 17360

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Assists faculty with integration of information technology AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 1 17 103

1.9% 1.5% 1.5%


5.8% 3.3% 6.3%

Disagree 0 92 1008

0.0% 7.9% 15.0%

Neutral 5 153 1246

9.6% 13.2% 18.6%

Agree 26 612 3049

50.0% 52.8% 45.5%



2.2. My institution: Assists faculty with integration of information technology AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

32.7% 21.3% 13.0%


52 1159 6699

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Uses analytics to support critical institutional outcomes AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 18 215 1714

34.6% 18.7% 25.7%


3.8% 4.6% 7.5%

Disagree 6 95 905

11.5% 8.3% 13.6%

Neutral 8 234 1586

15.4% 20.4% 23.8%

Agree 11 395 1582

21.2% 34.4% 23.7%


13.5% 13.5% 5.9%


52 1147 6677

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Supports the trends toward IT consumerization and BYOD

AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 17 423 2243

13.0% 14.2% 13.0%


1.5% 2.6% 4.7%


9.9% 7.3% 12.7%

Neutral 43 526 4209

32.8% 17.6% 24.3%

Agree 46 1271 6423

35.1% 42.6% 37.1%


7.6% 15.7% 8.2%


131 2983 17307

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Has a clear strategy for online learning AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 8 147 1628

6.1% 4.9% 9.4%


9.1% 4.7% 9.7%


22.7% 10.2% 20.7%

Neutral 42 430 3952

31.8% 14.5% 22.9%

Agree 27 1023 4570

20.5% 34.4% 26.4%



2.2. My institution: Has a clear strategy for online learning AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

9.8% 31.2% 11.0%


132 2970 17293

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Facilitates a better understanding of information privacy and security


Don't know 9 230 1413

6.9% 7.7% 8.2%


5.4% 2.7% 5.3%


23.1% 8.6% 13.9%

Neutral 36 654 4892

27.7% 22.0% 28.4%

Agree 36 1223 6143

27.7% 41.2% 35.6%


9.2% 17.8% 8.7%


130 2972 17245

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2. My institution: Has an agile approach to IT infrastructure AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 11 153 815

21.2% 13.2% 12.2%


9.6% 7.9% 16.4%

Disagree 6 137 1359

11.5% 11.8% 20.3%

Neutral 10 237 1506

19.2% 20.5% 22.5%

Agree 12 405 1515

23.1% 35.0% 22.7%


15.4% 11.6% 5.9%


52 1158 6685

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3. Privacy and security: Privacy and security policies impede productivity AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 6 67 315

11.5% 5.8% 4.7%


21.2% 21.6% 14.6%


36.5% 43.6% 43.8%

Neutral 9 154 1264

17.3% 13.3% 18.8%

Agree 7 123 874

13.5% 10.6% 13.0%



2.3. Privacy and security: Privacy and security policies impede productivity AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

0.0% 5.2% 5.0%


52 1162 6714

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3. Privacy and security: Confidence in my institution's ability to safeguard my personal info


Don't know 1 57 278

1.9% 4.9% 4.1%


9.6% 3.1% 7.9%

Disagree 8 79 882

15.4% 6.8% 13.1%

Neutral 16 217 1633

30.8% 18.7% 24.3%

Agree 18 569 2796

34.6% 49.1% 41.7%


7.7% 17.3% 8.9%


52 1159 6713

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3. Privacy and security: Access to resources to keep my data secure AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 7 190 941

13.5% 16.4% 14.0%


3.8% 2.9% 5.1%

Disagree 9 75 770

17.3% 6.5% 11.5%

Neutral 14 270 1699

26.9% 23.3% 25.4%

Agree 15 420 2372

28.8% 36.3% 35.4%


9.6% 14.6% 8.6%


52 1158 6701

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3. Privacy and security: I take sufficient measures to keep my research and scholarly data secure. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 2 252 1066

1.6% 8.4% 6.2%


0.8% 0.5% 0.6%

Disagree 9 83 825

7.0% 2.8% 4.8%

Neutral 22 455 2943

17.1% 15.2% 17.0%

Agree 68 1367 8764

52.7% 45.8% 50.7%



2.3. Privacy and security: I take sufficient measures to keep my research and scholarly data secure. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

20.9% 27.3% 20.8%


129 2986 17303

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3. Privacy and security: I take sufficient measures to keep data about my students secure. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 6 78 572

4.7% 2.6% 3.3%


0.0% 0.4% 0.4%

Disagree 4 32 343

3.1% 1.1% 2.0%

Neutral 13 188 1595

10.1% 6.3% 9.2%

Agree 67 1364 8785

51.9% 45.5% 50.7%


30.2% 44.1% 34.4%


129 2995 17312

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.4. Online learning: Helps students learn more effectively AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 5 52 547

3.8% 1.7% 3.1%


8.3% 5.8% 10.0%


12.9% 15.4% 21.3%

Neutral 32 856 5540

24.2% 28.6% 31.9%

Agree 52 858 4101

39.4% 28.6% 23.6%


11.4% 19.9% 10.1%


132 2995 17377

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.4. Online learning: Will lead to pedagogical breakthroughs AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.8% 3.4% 4.7%


7.6% 3.8% 7.9%


8.4% 11.0% 16.9%

Neutral 34 658 5248

26.0% 22.0% 30.2%

Agree 55 1029 4857

42.0% 34.4% 28.0%



2.4. Online learning: Will lead to pedagogical breakthroughs AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

12.2% 25.4% 12.3%


131 2991 17358

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.4. Online learning: Will make higher ed. available to more students AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 2 25 286

1.5% 0.8% 1.6%


1.5% 1.0% 2.5%

Disagree 4 82 973

3.0% 2.7% 5.6%

Neutral 19 235 2318

14.4% 7.8% 13.3%

Agree 69 1145 8598

52.3% 38.2% 49.5%


27.3% 49.3% 27.4%


132 2996 17375

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.5. One thing your institution can do with technology to better facilitate or support your faculty role:

• Offering a course release to design blended and fully online courses would inspire those of us who are overloaded to be more creative with the available tools. Designing these courses takes time and support.

• Clarify its position on MOOCs and lay parameters and support mechanisms for blended learning. • Provide more periodic workshops to keep us up-‐to-‐date with latest software/programs. They do a good job on the regular workshops but these are

centered around specific topics not a review of new things -‐ would like both. • Better, more reliable, and more abundant computer hardware and software. Problems with |SMART classrooms, computer labs, and office

computers. • Hold our hands. The services are there but they need to be more proactive. Its difficult to ask for help when you don't know what you need. With so

few hours in a day, its difficult to make time to integrate these new technologies. For example, I am successfully using Turnitin to grade papers and provide feedback, however it took at least 15 hours to actually get myself up and running -‐ with help! Now, students prefer other mediums and I am just too scared to switch for fear of having to sink even more time.

• The institution needs better backup systems for things like power outages. • We have CLT that's doing an extraordinary job. They can help us be more proficient &somehow facilitate movie editing so that we can extract key

info from long films • Offer reasonably priced support in terms of programs; improve the classroom technology set-‐up; try to resolve the interruptions or the slowness of

the internet serves; enhance security of confidential databases • More reliable, and faster wifi on campus and in ALL shuttle buses. • Use online exams and automatic grading provide an online repository for sharing of teaching materials develop generic interactive exercises • Provide better resources (including training) to help in developing computer-‐based teaching materials that integrate video and simulations of

technical concepts. • Provide faculty with laptop pcs • I do not need extra to what they are doing. • My institution is giving some training for preparing online teaching material and training for teaching online. However, to me it was very difficult to

take part of those sessions last fall for I teach in Zamalek. This Spring I also teach in Zamalek but I am able to go to New Cairo once a week to attend those sessions.

• Nothing. You are doing fine. • Limit restrictions on websites. They recently installed a filter that stops certain pages from opening. • Train students and faculty to use technology. I find my peers and students often to have less technological aptitude than the average assistant

professor. • Unify a university-‐wide approach to technology use and make it clear and evident to all stakeholders. Continue to have discussions about the values

and limitations of online learning. Decide during our strategic planning phase how much we want to focus on and be valued for our face-‐to-‐face liberal arts approach to learning and how we can best integrate 21st century IT skills and competencies within that framework.

• Campus-‐wide licenses for computer software (as opposed to having every department purchase its own license). • Improve classroom technologies & use Macs there • Offer specialized training for courses rather than generic training. Offer better tools that are relevant to each discipline. • Workshops part of the teaching load • Maintain specific laboratories for each discipline that are fully equipped with technology for that particular field of study and research. • Provide higher quality computing infrastructure. • Get access to online repositories of documentaries, films, etc. that we can use (with appropriate copyright) in the classroom. When I have wanted to

show Hollywood films that are relevant to my class, I have had to resort to illegal downloads, because the library hasn't had the films and can't get them.

• Records Management Services/Software to help with administrative files. • Introduce online language courses.


• Better maintenance. Make sure that the equipment we have actually works. • Annual required training on classroom technology, Blackboard (or course management) updates. Ideally a half day workshop on implementing

technology in the classroom. • Qualified teaching/research assistants. • Bring classroom technology up to date. • AUC provides excellent learning technology training opportunities for faculty, but I feel I could benefit from more web-‐based training opportunities. • More training sessions on Blackboard and its capabilities • The institution already provides personalized assistance through the 'Student Technology Assistants -‐ STA' services. It would be better if the

educational software they provide training for are more varied and better integrated into classroom management platforms. • Set incentives and reward those who start using technology like blended online learning since this takes a lot of time, effort, and a complex process of

re-‐structuring one's experience. These are necessary because you can start the process but once faced with the challenges you give up. Besides it would be nice to know that administration is aware of those who go through the effort because they want their students to learn better :)

• Occasionally, a computer is not working in the classroom. Regular checks to avoid this problem would be useful. • Facilitate Blended Learning • Internet access in all classrooms • Increase number of available computers to faculty members. • Allow instructors and professors to access or use the University's own satellite from home; make it pay-‐for-‐use but at least we would have a more

reliable and especially faster connection than through the current companies nationally-‐registered to offer this service. • My institution needs to focus less on glamorous high-‐tech devices, whether for research or rarely-‐used teaching purposes, and put more effort on the

bread and butter. Make sure that all faculty members, including adjuncts, have regular access to personal computers and printers that are functioning and are not almost as old as the students we're teaching. There is expensive equipment lying around all over campus that is unused, barely used, or not really defensible in terms of cost/benefit ratio for the amount of pedagogical or research improvement it brings, but at the same time too many of us are barely able to take care of routine course management because of antique PCs, unavailable printer cartridges, and other simple issues like that.

• Infrastructural improvement. Many of the services we have access to are not used to their full potential because of poor infrastructure. This includes the terminals in the classrooms which very often break down and are unreliable. Spreading knowledge about what exactly we have access to and what services we are subscribed to. Very often we find things by coincidence.

• With online textbook resources, I think they could make it easier to get access to resources such as Blackboard Connect. I can't seem to get access for my students very easily and this would help their studying a lot.

• We have good support for faculty who need help with teaching technologies. Not aware of support or existence of research technologies. • Provide faculty who are NOT technology-‐savvy with ongoing, realistically-‐paced one on one tutorials • Conduct serious and sustained faculty training to enhance ICT competencies of faculty. • Purchase specialized research software as requested and promised. • The major thing would be to make it easier to have software licenses renewed. This has been a huge problem in my department. • Give us freedom to teach a couple class sessions a year in an online format, to allow experimentation with blended learning options. • Provide remote access to high performance computing resources. • Allow the time and space to try a new program, pedagogy, etc. and then time and space to REFLECT on what worked, what didn't, etc. before

spending a lot of money getting the 'newest fad'. • Training • Purchase access to more online documentary databases. • I. Instructional Technologies for course delivery methods. AUC can support this initiative by creating more opportunities for blended learning course

development. II. Course content. AUC can also help faculty to improve the level of instructional content that is currently delivered is suitable for blended learning. For example, some courses may not be appropriate for lecture capture because of the nature of the content, or for privacy or cultural reasons. III. Technologies. To remain competitive in the expanding marketplace for blended learning, AUC can improve its campus-‐wide course capture and management. Other suggestions include: (1) Minimizes demand on instructors and the IT department for ongoing operation, maintenance and user support of the lecture capture system as well as related tools for publishing and course management. (2) Enables scalability and integration with content management systems to easily accommodate more students, content and courses (i.e. Video on Demand (VOD) resources). (3) Provides simple, PC-‐based personal recording tools for instructors to create short videos and podcasts that integrate with other online content for the course. (4) Allow AUC to apply its branding to content and interfaces and allows students to personalize course content for their needs.

• Available It's when classes are held. They hold be at their offices all the time where classrooms are at use. • Encourage the use of clickers in the classroom • Encourage the use of could-‐based tools by all faculty. • Better integrate social media e.g. twitter feeds on websites -‐ be more flexible about policies related to use of social media on university websites • I would love to have the approval and accreditation to design hybrid courses, especially during the summer or winter sessions. This way, we will meet

with students in person a few times and then perform all the other course operations virtually. • Make sure the technology in the classroom is in working condition • Support Blended learning • On the teaching side, to provide faculty and the students with iPads as means of facilitating communications between the instructors and students

and support online-‐learning. On the research side, provide high computing facilities for modeling and simulation research. • Help faculty use technology to improve learning rather than simply facilitate communication. Much of the way technology is used, is to as a tool to

facilitate submission of work, or facilitate communication between the faculty and their students, but little is done in the way of supporting faculty to change their entire approach to the learning process.

• Online/Blended learning • Have document readers available in all my classrooms. Always be available/reachable whenever I have any technical problems during class. • More computer hardware and software availability. Larger budget to specialized software.

2.6. Tech support or assistance AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Friends or family 30 520 3356

22.7% 17.3% 19.2%

Peers or colleagues 70 1396 9995

53.0% 46.4% 57.3%


2.6. Tech support or assistance AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

TA or RA 27 221 1693

20.5% 7.3% 9.7%

Students 24 362 2963

18.2% 12.0% 17.0%

Internet 55 1127 7883

41.7% 37.4% 45.2%

Company/vendor 8 296 1749

6.1% 9.8% 10.0%

Help Desk 73 2424 12652

55.3% 80.5% 72.5%

Other 28 204 1977

21.2% 6.8% 11.3%


2.6. Tech support or assistance: Other

• Contact CLT • Department IT person • The ALI CALL personnel • Our technical assistant in the department • Computer lab admin or Google it • Department technical staff • Department staff • Computer lab technician • Student Technology Assistants • CLT and CTMS • Contact our university Teaching technologies Support Center • Center for Learning & Teaching • Office staff • Center for Learning and teaching • My personal learning network of ppl on twitter • We have a great IT person in the department who is always helpful. Also, UACT has provided assistance in the past. • Center for Learning and Teaching • Centre for Learning and Teaching at my institution • Engineer in the department

2.7. Help desk: Walk-‐in AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Service not offered 0 64 244

0.0% 7.0% 5.2%

N/A 9 448 1711

33.3% 48.8% 36.4%

Poor 0 15 103

0.0% 1.6% 2.2%

Fair 0 31 212

0.0% 3.4% 4.5%

Neutral 3 61 374

11.1% 6.6% 8.0%

Good 10 139 1066

37.0% 15.1% 22.7%

Excellent 5 160 993

18.5% 17.4% 21.1%


27 918 4703

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Phone AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions



2.7. Help desk: Phone AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

0.0% 0.2% 0.7%

N/A 4 93 436

13.8% 9.9% 9.1%

Poor 3 28 196

10.3% 3.0% 4.1%

Fair 3 51 405

10.3% 5.4% 8.4%

Neutral 3 54 388

10.3% 5.8% 8.1%

Good 12 347 1836

41.4% 37.0% 38.2%


13.8% 38.7% 31.4%


29 938 4807

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: E-‐mail AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


0.0% 1.2% 1.2%

N/A 2 97 415

6.9% 10.5% 8.7%

Poor 1 39 189

3.4% 4.2% 4.0%

Fair 3 67 447

10.3% 7.3% 9.4%

Neutral 6 70 461

20.7% 7.6% 9.7%

Good 11 349 1920

37.9% 37.9% 40.2%


20.7% 31.3% 26.9%


29 922 4775

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Web form AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


7.4% 7.7% 8.0%

N/A 8 352 1635

29.6% 38.3% 34.9%

Poor 0 40 233

0.0% 4.4% 5.0%

Fair 0 41 354

0.0% 4.5% 7.6%

Neutral 8 125 616

29.6% 13.6% 13.2%

Good 7 187 1017

25.9% 20.3% 21.7%

Excellent 2 103 453

7.4% 11.2% 9.7%


2.7. Help desk: Web form AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


27 919 4681

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Chat/instant messaging AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


17.9% 13.1% 18.5%

N/A 15 435 2564

53.6% 47.2% 55.0%

Poor 1 17 85

3.6% 1.8% 1.8%

Fair 2 22 104

7.1% 2.4% 2.2%

Neutral 2 76 394

7.1% 8.2% 8.5%

Good 3 128 376

10.7% 13.9% 8.1%

Excellent 0 123 274

0.0% 13.3% 5.9%


28 922 4660

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Remote assistance/desktop AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


7.4% 6.5% 8.5%

N/A 10 332 1821

37.0% 36.2% 38.9%

Poor 1 18 100

3.7% 2.0% 2.1%

Fair 2 30 226

7.4% 3.3% 4.8%

Neutral 1 64 374

3.7% 7.0% 8.0%

Good 10 215 974

37.0% 23.4% 20.8%

Excellent 1 199 789

3.7% 21.7% 16.9%


27 918 4682

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Self-‐service FAQ AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.8% 6.5% 6.0%

N/A 12 275 1323

46.2% 30.2% 28.3%

Poor 2 55 433

7.7% 6.0% 9.3%

Fair 1 71 504

3.8% 7.8% 10.8%

Neutral 6 146 862


2.7. Help desk: Self-‐service FAQ AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

23.1% 16.0% 18.5%

Good 4 221 981

15.4% 24.2% 21.0%

Excellent 0 85 282

0.0% 9.3% 6.0%


26 912 4667

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7. Help desk: Overall rating of help-‐desk services AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 1 31 95

1.4% 1.3% 0.8%

Poor 3 46 373

4.2% 1.9% 3.0%

Fair 6 152 1105

8.3% 6.3% 8.8%

Neutral 9 152 1149

12.5% 6.3% 9.1%

Good 38 1048 5859

52.8% 43.5% 46.6%


20.8% 40.7% 31.6%


72 2410 12573

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SECTION 3: TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING (Teaching Faculty Only)

3.1. Teaching and learning: I wish students were better prepared to use institution-‐specific tech


Don't know 4 37 226

8.3% 3.2% 3.6%


4.2% 2.9% 4.1%

Somewhat disagree 12 168 1127

25.0% 14.7% 17.9%

Neutral 13 237 1399

27.1% 20.8% 22.2%

Agree 12 416 2229

25.0% 36.5% 35.4%


10.4% 21.9% 16.8%


48 1141 6292

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.1. Teaching and learning: I wish students were better prepared to use basic software programs and apps AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 3 19 188

6.1% 1.7% 3.0%



3.1. Teaching and learning: I wish students were better prepared to use basic software programs and apps AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

6.1% 4.9% 6.0%


38.8% 20.4% 23.6%

Neutral 10 255 1383

20.4% 22.4% 22.0%

Agree 10 348 1857

20.4% 30.5% 29.5%


8.2% 20.1% 15.9%


49 1140 6290

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.1. Teaching and learning: Most of my students have adequate technology skills AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 0 12 151

0.0% 0.4% 0.9%


0.8% 2.6% 3.1%


7.2% 12.1% 15.0%

Neutral 19 431 2368

15.2% 14.8% 14.8%

Agree 83 1764 9094

66.4% 60.6% 57.0%


10.4% 9.5% 9.1%


125 2911 15959

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.1. Teaching and learning: Too many of my students look to me or my TAs for tech support AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 8 88 739

6.6% 3.0% 4.6%


8.3% 7.9% 9.1%


42.1% 34.5% 36.8%

Neutral 24 616 3307

19.8% 21.2% 20.7%

Agree 21 706 3542

17.4% 24.3% 22.2%


5.8% 9.1% 6.5%


121 2909 15944

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2. One thing your students could do to be more prepared to use technology:

• They could be required to take a guided online course before their Freshman year began as part of the FYE program. • Learn basic skills such as WORD and other authoring tools as well as better • Self-‐start by being more independent in solving problems with new platforms. A simple search online or time spent with Lynda could help them

tremendously.


• I think they have it down. They just need to be more patient with me! • Take some of our free introductory sessions to the software specific to our program. • Unfortunately, I can't help you here as my students do use technology adequately some better than others. The biggest flaw is no creativity, no ability

to think, resorting to memorization, copy pasting with no understanding • Students are well prepared in many aspects, yet how they use tech for what is equally imp as having the skill sets. • Wider exposure to different technology platforms • Use the services available on Bb and e-‐services provided by textbook publishers to study. • MS office software, especially Excel that is used heavily in technical courses. • Attend student orientation workshops on campus technology • I do not know • My students are all well prepared to use basic software programs and applications. They are mostly mac students. Because I teach Arabic and they

learn Arabic, their macs is not so helpful with Arabic. Sometimes they have to use the university labs to turn in a needed assignment. They prepare very good video clips using their own computers.

• Nothing. They are doing okay. • Google+, Blackboard and One Search training • Attain advanced technological aptitude beyond base-‐level word processing, internet skills, etc. • Come to us with strong keyboarding and word processing skills. • Attend training sessions on a few software programs. • Be critical of internet contents • Enroll in a required core course annual training. • I can specify • Be more focused and attentive with self-‐motivation to lacquer technological skills in this discipline. • Develop skills to build reference databases that would allow them to retrieve information gathered during research reliably. • Be more interested in online activities and use blackboard more effectively. Students tend to resist using blackboard or other online means. • Get training in statistical programs used in social sciences. • Like faculty, there should be a review of using Blackboard, Turnitin and other frequently used technology platforms. At my university, there is a

required course, but students often put it off until their senior year which defeats the purpose. • Use help/support provided by the University. • They could be more independent in learning different common software that is widely available (like Word, PPT), although I admit this would not be

necessary for many of my students. • Look up information online in addition to textbook • For my teaching purposes, my students are adequately prepared. I regularly teach in computer classrooms, so the students readily demonstrate

what they're capable of, and they make good use of the available technology. This semester I will require the students to create a film as part of their research outcome. Given that this activity is more complex than usual, I will invite CLT/UACT staff to give a workshop on how to use the resources. One thing my students can do to be better prepared, is to seek help when they need it, and to find the right campus resources to provide the assistance.

• I think that we need to pile up a set of students FAQ about devices that students are likely to use in online learning, make them aware of how to access this information and how to benefit from it (through workshops offered to those who register in this type of courses). Make available to all help guides that are frequently updated about using all devices pertaining to online learning (if these exist than this statement indicates a need to increase awareness of this fact).

• They should be more selective in the way they use the information available on the internet. • Attend Workshops • Nothing. They just use technology in a perfect sense. • Get more training courses • Learn the formal conventions of word processing rather than doing it haphazardly • Take the 'Library Online Research Tools' course (LORT) in their first semester at college, to know how to better access and benefit from the wealth of

info offered! Should be one of the first requirements to be fulfilled. • Students need to be able to use technology to facilitate in-‐depth learning. Right now most of them think that if they carry out a Google search on a

smartphone, they have done 'research.' The issue is not the technology; it's the understanding that instantly available material is neither accurate nor a sign of learning.

• They could familiarize themselves (or be taught in other classes) what academic resources there are. They tend to use the standard google search for everything, which means they are not making full use or benefitting from other more helpful technological resources available.

• Take basic workshops/courses in Excel. • My students are prepared and dependent on their peers to help them if they don't know how to use a learning technology such as blackboard. • Spend less time on Social Media. • Be motivated by faculty to integrate technology in their learning. • Rely less on general internet searches and master use of specific online research databases. • I think many course activities are curtailed because of students' lack of knowledge about or experience with certain types of technology. However, if

you have the time to spend, students can learn it. • Be told in advance that technology will be used in the classroom, and that they will be expected to develop their skills to the point that they are

comfortable using modern day technologies in a professional way. • Take time to learn it and not be afraid of it. • Participation • Consult with librarians on how to perform efficient online searches for sources and data. • Given the proliferation of e-‐book within the university library system, students need to acquire more knowledge about how to navigate these

information resources to expand and improve their literacy skills development. I've made suggestions to the AUC Library to hold a series of workshops in this area.

• To contact the IT or the person in charge of booking equipment or the quick response of the podium helpers. There were cases that student's presentation would not take place because of podium defect or the connection is not there.

• Many of my freshmen students need better typing skills and better use of Microsoft 'word' . So if they practice these basic skills during the summer, then they will have a smooth freshman year experience.

• Get used to searching and learning on their own and supporting each other. I do scaffold this process for them but they need to become more independent

• Many of the students are technology-‐savy, but some have difficulty navigating new systems and doing online research using library tools, etc. They know how to use something they are interested enough in.


• They are all very good with technology • They could contact the help desk or try to figure it out themselves before contacting the faculty member. • Move outside comfort zone and try new technologies without complaining that its too difficult • Online learning, easy-‐access to textbooks' websites. • Knowledge of how to use the library search system (mentioned above it is the only specific technology they really do not know their way around and

it is not something they are inclined to understand on their own) • Be more patient especially that Arabic language is difficult and different from latin origin languages • Not sure. • Students should be encouraged to take training courses on specialized software packages outside of academic classrooms.

3.3. Institutional alerts: Guidance about courses they may consider taking in the future AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 11 190 928

8.8% 6.5% 5.8%

Not at all interested 14 293 2094

11.2% 10.0% 13.1%

Not very interested 9 418 2759

7.2% 14.3% 17.2%

Moderately interested 33 952 5632

26.4% 32.5% 35.2%

Very interested 48 740 3347

38.4% 25.3% 20.9%

Extremely interested 10 333 1239

8.0% 11.4% 7.7%


125 2926 15999

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.3. Institutional alerts: Alerts if it appears a student's progress in a course is declining


Don't know 5 53 397

4.0% 1.8% 2.5%


9.6% 3.4% 6.3%


8.8% 6.4% 10.0%


20.0% 22.6% 30.2%


40.0% 40.9% 35.2%


17.6% 24.9% 15.7%


125 2924 15979

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.3. Institutional alerts: Suggestions for how to improve performance in a course


Don't know 5 65 467

4.0% 2.2% 2.9%


8.8% 4.0% 7.0%


10.4% 6.9% 10.5%


20.8% 23.8% 30.4%


3.3. Institutional alerts: Suggestions for how to improve performance in a course AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


36.8% 40.4% 34.8%


19.2% 22.8% 14.4%


125 2917 15937

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.3. Institutional alerts: Suggestions about new or different academic resources for your students AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 3 20 123

6.3% 1.8% 2.0%


4.2% 2.2% 3.5%


2.1% 3.3% 5.2%


20.8% 21.8% 29.6%


43.8% 42.1% 38.9%


22.9% 28.8% 20.9%


48 1139 6271

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.3. Institutional alerts: Automated tracking of attendance via ID card scanners/automated means AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 3 72 223

6.3% 6.3% 3.5%


20.8% 13.5% 20.2%


14.6% 15.0% 16.4%


18.8% 18.6% 19.9%


18.8% 23.3% 20.1%


20.8% 23.4% 19.9%


48 1147 6308

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: LMS AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.2% 8.4% 5.7%


6.5% 4.6% 6.0%


9.7% 11.1% 11.5%

Neutral 23 745 3663


3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: LMS AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

18.5% 25.6% 23.0%

Agree 43 1127 6595

34.7% 38.7% 41.4%

Strongly Agree 34 334 1949

27.4% 11.5% 12.2%


124 2910 15911

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Online collaboration tools AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.3% 6.8% 5.6%


4.1% 3.1% 5.1%

Disagree 8 259 1691

6.5% 8.9% 10.6%

Neutral 22 654 3763

17.9% 22.5% 23.7%

Agree 58 1289 6753

47.2% 44.4% 42.5%


21.1% 14.3% 12.4%


123 2904 15880

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: E-‐portfolios AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 10 459 2437

8.3% 15.9% 15.5%


4.1% 4.6% 6.8%


8.3% 9.6% 11.1%

Neutral 32 910 4971

26.4% 31.6% 31.6%

Agree 46 833 4160

38.0% 28.9% 26.4%


14.9% 9.4% 8.7%


121 2884 15751

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: E-‐books or e-‐textbooks AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.2% 6.8% 4.7%


4.0% 4.8% 6.0%


10.5% 9.6% 10.2%

Neutral 13 711 4402


3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: E-‐books or e-‐textbooks AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

10.5% 24.6% 27.8%

Agree 52 1111 5994

41.9% 38.4% 37.8%


29.8% 16.0% 13.4%


124 2896 15842

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Free, web-‐based content AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.3% 5.6% 4.4%


1.6% 3.9% 5.1%


9.0% 6.7% 8.6%

Neutral 22 602 3542

18.0% 20.7% 22.4%

Agree 58 1302 6944

47.5% 44.8% 43.8%


20.5% 18.2% 15.7%


122 2905 15842

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Simulations or educational games AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 9 304 1055

7.4% 10.5% 6.7%


4.1% 5.4% 6.8%


8.2% 9.4% 10.4%

Neutral 23 654 3640

18.9% 22.6% 23.0%

Agree 48 1082 6172

39.3% 37.4% 39.0%


22.1% 14.6% 14.1%


122 2893 15827

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Lecture capture/recordings AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 7 399 1026

5.8% 13.8% 6.5%


2.5% 4.4% 7.3%



3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Lecture capture/recordings AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

9.9% 9.6% 12.0%

Neutral 22 629 3794

18.2% 21.7% 24.0%

Agree 54 1059 5849

44.6% 36.5% 37.0%


19.0% 14.1% 13.3%


121 2901 15824

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Students' tablets during class AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 8 713 1531

6.5% 24.7% 9.7%


9.8% 5.7% 9.4%


19.5% 10.4% 13.8%

Neutral 26 680 4241

21.1% 23.6% 26.8%

Agree 44 787 4964

35.8% 27.3% 31.4%


7.3% 8.3% 8.9%


123 2887 15811

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Students' smartphones during class AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 5 665 1389

4.1% 23.0% 8.8%


18.9% 13.2% 18.2%


26.2% 16.9% 19.6%

Neutral 26 599 3600

21.3% 20.7% 22.8%

Agree 31 578 3814

25.4% 20.0% 24.1%


4.1% 6.1% 6.6%


122 2891 15819

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Students' laptops during class AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 4 719 1442

3.3% 24.8% 9.1%



3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Students' laptops during class AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

6.6% 5.9% 9.6%


21.3% 11.0% 14.2%

Neutral 31 703 4209

25.4% 24.3% 26.6%

Agree 43 752 4978

35.2% 25.9% 31.5%


8.2% 8.1% 9.0%


122 2898 15820

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Social media as a teaching and learning tool AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.3% 7.6% 5.4%


6.6% 10.0% 12.7%


18.0% 14.3% 17.4%

Neutral 29 745 4234

23.8% 25.8% 26.7%

Agree 46 946 4689

37.7% 32.7% 29.6%


10.7% 9.6% 8.2%


122 2892 15829

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: 3D printers AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 34 862 3640

28.8% 29.8% 23.0%


5.9% 9.6% 13.5%


16.1% 14.4% 17.6%

Neutral 30 828 4344

25.4% 28.6% 27.5%

Agree 21 368 2066

17.8% 12.7% 13.1%


5.9% 5.0% 5.3%


118 2896 15807

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Non-‐keyboard or non-‐mouse computer interfaces AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 13 469 1665

10.5% 16.2% 10.5%


3.4. More effective if better skilled with integrating: Non-‐keyboard or non-‐mouse computer interfaces AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


6.5% 4.9% 8.4%


12.9% 12.8% 15.2%

Neutral 46 869 5118

37.1% 30.0% 32.4%

Agree 30 787 4088

24.2% 27.2% 25.9%


8.9% 8.9% 7.7%


124 2892 15813

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.5. Top training/professional development needs:

• More time to do what we need to doâ€¦(training, designing courses, etc.) • I use all the above technologies in my course but I would like more lecture capture training, not on how to use the technology but how to maximize

the results. • Support for me -‐ both for learning and for implementing -‐ then maintaining • New media writing, website design, video and audio editing, online collaboration tools. • I just need someone to help me -‐ and by help I pretty much mean do it for me. I will be honest, I am not young and while I believe these advances are

critical and could significantly enhance learning outcomes and opportunities I sometimes cry in frustration because I just can't figure it out or resolve problems when things don't work. I would like to switch from blackboard to moodle, for example, but again -‐ this could take hours and hours and if it doesn't go smoothly.... Aaaaa!

• I have experience already with most of the above. Perhaps more training on capturing lectures. • Students laptops in some classes. A drawback ...they will tend to go on Facebook &/or email • Preparing more interface online with students

• Automatic access to e-‐textbooks • E-‐portfolios -‐ e-‐books -‐ simulations or educational games • Developing computer-‐based lectures that integrate video, simulations, and existing materials. • Blended learning • I am content with the blackboard • I mark students' writings on the screen. Maybe if there is something new in the filed of e marking that would be helpful. • CLT • None • Exploring lecture capture. • I would like to learn more about and start using ePortfolios. • Performing experiments in class. Some require data collection, use of microphones, and display. • Basically none • Training in course development using state of the art techniques and evaluation by peer review faculty in other institutions abroad. • Workshops • Computer drawing and rendering in both 2D and 3D • I would like to be able to video capture, and edit, my classroom lectures/discussion • Learning how to design problems and simulations for problem based learning purposes. • Online collaborative learning and distant learning • N/A • Improve the limitations and nuances in Blackboard. Access to Camstasia; right now the Camstasia software is on a computer in a large computer so it

could be a distraction to record videos in that space. • Lecture capture, simulation/educational games • Incorporating multi-‐media into classroom instruction. • Simulations • Software for E-‐Portfolios! • Use of eportfolios • Online collaboration tools, educational apps • I need to know about how all the above can make me a better teacher (some the things i marked as neutral or disagree are more of ignorance than

disagreement). I have to confess though that due to time and energy limitations i will limit myself to course management systems and oline collaboration tools.

• Training in using powerpoint in class. • Lecture Recording Online Collaboration Tools • 3D Printers • Online training • Panopto for blended learning when needed • I learn better if someone walks me through the process: one on one, with me trying it out and a professional assisting me with the steps. And the

time to write down my own notes along the way.


• Wireless signal jammers to shut down student cell phone and internet access during class time. • Annual training on new software and the continuous changes of old ones. Virtual training is also a good option, proved useful in the past. as are

video tutorials. • I'm not sure. • I need to learn to do many of the above mentioned items in 3.4. So far I teach myself step by step every semester but I have no doubt that there is a

world of possibilities that I don't know about. • To use Blackboard and Wordle more confidently. • Pedagogical transformation of science and engineering courses. • Automation of basic course-‐building tasks and routine grading • Lecture capture would help a great deal for students who miss class or want review. • Just more time to explore such technologies. Also, having short, 5-‐10 minute exposure videos, about various, useful technologies that were emailed

to faculty once a month would be helpful. A quick way to always see new technologies or programs. Then the instructor could decide to look into it more or not.

• I am fairly acquainted with those technologies. • Data management and learning about how all of the different applications available 'talk' to each other • Training on how to use them • Learning how to locate already existing online resources to enhance my teaching. • I would like to see strategic implementation of an E-‐Portfolio software for our student use. Electronic portfolios can serve as authentic student

assessment tools which can be used widely. The e-‐portfolios can also provide many benefits for pre-‐service teachers including: increasing studentsâ€™ hands-‐on technology skills and enabling them to demonstrate effective and appropriate use of technology, documenting studentsâ€™ progress, encouraging improvement, and motivating involvement in learning, self-‐assessment, and reflective learning.

• For many of these I already know how to use the technology • Receiving assignments via internet and the like. • I would like to be better taught how to help students make full use of their tablets in class without the fear of having them drift away and use these

devices for other non academic purposes. • Well it is something I am working on independently, but I am trying to figure out the best way for both curation/social bookmarking and keeping

abreast of new developments so I can then use all of that when teaching or supporting others (I teach teachers AND i am a faculty developer so dual roles) (P.S. the question above this one is problematic: I am already quite good at the tools I think are important; the question wording is confusing me)

• Just to clarify the above responses-‐-‐I am already utilizing the ones noted as N/A. We usually have good training sessions and one-‐on-‐one sessions from UACT for any technology need.

• None • Blended learning strategies • More extended workshops on using online course management for TA • The question above (3.4) is confusing. 'I' already integrate these technologies and thus responded neutral. If a faculty member does not though, they

would be more effective if they were better skilled in these areas. I need brief and focused sessions which introduce new technologies as they come out. Although I use various technologies for my classes, I didn't know about Prezi until I had seen students using it. If at the beginning of each semester we could be informed of new technologies and then ask for assistance navigating them as needed, that would be useful.

• I need time and patience to develop my material and use better technology to offer it to my students • Workshops/clinics.

For question 3.6, respondents ranked up to three items 1–3. Unranked items were given a rank of 9 for analysis purposes. Value reported is mean rank. Lower values represent a higher ranking.

3.6. Motivating factors for technology integration AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

More/better technology-‐oriented professional development opportunities

Mean 7.9 7.3 7.6

SD 2.6 3.0 2.8

N 132 3011 17451

A monetary or other value-‐oriented incentive

Mean 8.7 7.4 7.9

SD 1.4 3.0 2.5

N 132 3011 17451

Tenure decisions and other professional advancement considerations

Mean 8.1 8.3 8.5

SD 2.3 2.1 1.9

N 132 3011 17451

Release time to design/redesign my courses

Mean 6.5 7.4 6.9

SD 3.5 3.0 3.3

N 132 3011 17451

Direct assistance from an instructional design expert

Mean 7.6 7.6 7.5

SD 2.9 2.8 2.9

N 132 3011 17451

Direct assistance from IT staff

Mean 7.6 7.5 7.4

SD 2.8 2.9 2.9

N 132 3011 17451

A teaching assistant to assist with technology implementation Mean 7.6 8.2 8.1


3.6. Motivating factors for technology integration AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

SD 2.9 2.2 2.4

N 132 3011 17451

Support/encouragement from peers

Mean 8.6 8.7 8.8

SD 1.7 1.3 1.3

N 132 3011 17451

Working in a faculty cohort or community

Mean 7.8 7.8 7.9

SD 2.6 2.7 2.6

N 132 3011 17451

A better understanding of the relevant types of technologies

Mean 7.2 6.6 7.0

SD 3.1 3.4 3.2

N 132 3011 17451

Confidence that the technology would work the way I planned

Mean 7.2 7.0 7.0

SD 3.1 3.2 3.2

N 132 3011 17451

Increased student expectations of technology integration

Mean 8.1 8.1 8.4

SD 2.3 2.3 2.0

N 132 3011 17451

Clear indication/evidence that students would benefit

Mean 6.6 6.2 6.3

SD 3.5 3.6 3.6

N 132 3011 17451

Other please specify below

Mean 8.9 8.9 8.8

SD 0.8 0.9 1.0

N 132 3011 17451

3.6. Motivating factors for technology integration: Other:

• Support for and training in platforms other than LMS (Blogs, Wikis, Sites, Social Media) • I need help. I need someone to come in and look at what I am trying to do, make recommendations, set it up and troubleshoot until I get my sea legs.

Otherwise, this will stay at the margins. • A system to supply students who do not have access to the technology off campus. • Better/faster equipment (hardware and software) available free to faculty • Consultation with an instructional designer on demand • Students' expectations of technology integration • I am very skeptical about the necessity to integrate more technology. Let it be! • Training on state of the art learning software and techniques • More/better technology-‐oriented professional development opportunities. • Better IT training • Providing the chance to observe how other people in institutions where online teaching is well established procedure conduct their courses • Keeping the students focused on the materials taught. • Workshops & Follow-‐up Support • The possibility of exploration: having students teach me about a tool they find useful-‐ they often know so much! • Positive responses from the students. In a previous class when I used wikipages as an assignment the majority of students did not feel the exercise

helped them learn something they wouldn't have with conventional research. • Support/encouragement from peers • I would be better motivated if I knew that learning new things would not take hours and hours of my time. • Value for time invested • Freedom to know the changes were experimental and the ability to say that to the students so that they can actively participate. • Team teaching • Ease of access to technologies to implement instructional technology pedagogies. • A monetary or other valued oriented incentive. • Just to explain the above, using technology for the sake of just using technology is not effective. Technology must be properly integrated to ensure

students are benefiting and meeting outcomes. • A better understanding of the types of technology which will have promising effects on my teaching


SECTION 4: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS (Teaching Faculty Only)

Question 4.1 is intentionally omitted.

4.2. Have you taught a completely online course in the past year? AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

No 45 408 4078

93.8% 35.6% 64.6%

Yes, less than half my teaching load was completely online. 1 135 906

2.1% 11.8% 14.3%

Yes, about half my teaching load was completely online. 1 72 350

2.1% 6.3% 5.5%

Yes, more than half (but not all) my teaching load was completely online. 1 95 320

2.1% 8.3% 5.1%

Yes, all my teaching load was completely online. 0 437 663

0.0% 38.1% 10.5%


48 1147 6317

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.3. Have you taught a MOOC in the past year? AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

No, and I don't know what a MOOC is. 1 262 533

33.3% 35.5% 23.8%

No, but I do know what a MOOC is. 1 442 1630

33.3% 59.8% 72.8%

Yes, through the institution that asked me to take this survey. 0 13 32

0.0% 1.8% 1.4%

Yes, through another institution. 0 19 29

0.0% 2.6% 1.3%

Yes, through a MOOC provider. 0 4 14

0.0% 0.5% 0.6%


6.5

6.6

7.2

7.2

7.6

7.6

7.6

7.8

7.9

8.1

8.1

8.6

8.7

8.9

Release tme to design/redesign my courses

Clear indicaton/evidence that students would benefit

A bever understanding of the relevant types of technologies

Confidence that the technology would work the way I planned

Direct assistance from an instructonal design expert

Direct assistance from IT staff

A teaching assistant to assist with technology implementaton

Working in a faculty cohort or community

More/bever technology-‐oriented professional development opportunites

Tenure decisions and other professional advancement consideratons

Increased student expectatons of technology integraton

Support/encouragement from peers

A monetary or other value-‐oriented incentve

Other please specify below

AUC Mean Values for Mofvafng Factors for Technology Integrafon (Lower Values Represent Higher Rankings, n=132)


4.4. Perception of the value of MOOCs AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 31 700 2870

24.8% 23.9% 17.9%

Completely opposed 4 142 1360

3.2% 4.8% 8.5%

Generally opposed, but willing to consider 17 574 3868

13.6% 19.6% 24.2%

Neutral 18 412 2338

14.4% 14.1% 14.6%

Generally supportive, but somewhat skeptical 41 748 4357

32.8% 25.5% 27.2%

Completely supportive 14 352 1211

11.2% 12.0% 7.6%


125 2928 16004

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Availability of classrooms with multimedia equipment AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 2 441 706

4.1% 38.7% 11.2%

Very dissatisfied 4 41 458

8.2% 3.6% 7.3%

Dissatisfied 3 60 857

6.1% 5.3% 13.6%

Neutral 10 125 908

20.4% 11.0% 14.4%

Satisfied 17 318 2392

34.7% 27.9% 38.0%

Very satisfied 13 156 978

26.5% 13.7% 15.5%


49 1141 6299

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Variety of equipment available AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 3 429 706

6.1% 37.6% 11.3%


4.1% 3.1% 5.9%


8.2% 10.0% 15.4%

Neutral 9 202 1517

18.4% 17.7% 24.2%


49.0% 23.9% 34.4%


14.3% 7.7% 8.9%


49 1140 6270

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4.5. Classroom tech: Reliability of equipment available AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 0 394 560

0.0% 34.4% 8.9%


12.2% 4.3% 7.7%


30.6% 11.6% 18.3%

Neutral 8 160 1154

16.3% 14.0% 18.3%


36.7% 27.4% 37.2%


4.1% 8.2% 9.6%


49 1144 6299

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Refresh/update frequency of equipment AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 2 405 780

4.1% 35.6% 12.4%


10.2% 5.9% 10.0%


22.4% 12.2% 19.3%

Neutral 14 208 1513

28.6% 18.3% 24.1%


24.5% 21.6% 27.4%


10.2% 6.4% 6.8%


49 1138 6286

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Variety of software AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 4 343 805

8.2% 30.1% 12.8%


2.0% 3.2% 5.8%


18.4% 8.8% 13.8%

Neutral 14 239 1644

28.6% 21.0% 26.2%


34.7% 28.8% 33.7%


8.2% 8.1% 7.7%


49 1139 6278

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4.5. Classroom tech: Refresh/update frequency of software AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 6 349 879

12.2% 30.6% 14.0%


4.1% 6.1% 7.6%


12.2% 7.8% 14.5%

Neutral 10 225 1571

20.4% 19.7% 25.0%


40.8% 28.0% 30.9%


10.2% 7.8% 8.0%


49 1140 6279

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: General ease-‐of-‐use of podium systems AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 2 485 969

4.1% 42.6% 15.4%


4.1% 3.3% 5.9%


12.2% 8.3% 12.8%

Neutral 6 145 1085

12.2% 12.7% 17.2%


44.9% 24.2% 36.4%


22.4% 8.8% 12.2%


49 1139 6290

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Computers in the podiums AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 3 504 1318

6.1% 44.2% 20.9%


6.1% 3.9% 6.3%


8.2% 7.3% 11.7%

Neutral 12 142 1051

24.5% 12.4% 16.7%


36.7% 23.4% 33.6%


18.4% 8.8% 10.7%


49 1141 6294

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4.5. Classroom tech: Software on the podium computers AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 5 511 1393

10.4% 44.8% 22.2%


2.1% 2.8% 5.1%


10.4% 6.2% 11.3%

Neutral 14 183 1287

29.2% 16.1% 20.5%


37.5% 22.4% 32.3%


10.4% 7.7% 8.7%


48 1140 6282

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Computer projection AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 2 440 605

4.1% 38.7% 9.6%


8.2% 2.7% 5.4%


6.1% 6.1% 11.8%

Neutral 4 109 829

8.2% 9.6% 13.2%


49.0% 30.2% 43.6%


24.5% 12.7% 16.5%


49 1138 6297

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Audience response systems AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 22 707 3275

45.8% 62.3% 52.1%


4.2% 4.0% 6.5%


4.2% 6.9% 8.6%

Neutral 8 170 1192

16.7% 15.0% 19.0%


22.9% 8.9% 10.5%


6.3% 2.9% 3.3%


48 1134 6284

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4.5. Classroom tech: Wireless access AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 0 397 638

0.0% 34.8% 10.1%


6.1% 3.1% 7.2%


18.4% 6.7% 13.7%

Neutral 9 105 884

18.4% 9.2% 14.0%


30.6% 27.8% 37.1%


26.5% 18.5% 17.9%


49 1141 6293

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.5. Classroom tech: Overall satisfaction AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 1 613 1161

0.8% 21.1% 7.3%


7.3% 4.6% 9.4%


16.9% 10.9% 16.7%

Neutral 55 1017 6147

44.4% 35.0% 38.6%


27.4% 24.6% 24.6%


3.2% 3.9% 3.4%


124 2909 15909

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6a. LMS usage AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

I don't use the LMS at all. 9 336 2373

7.1% 11.4% 14.7%

To push out information 96 1143 9354

75.6% 38.7% 58.1%

To promote interaction outside the classroom 55 953 6542

43.3% 32.3% 40.6%

To teach partially online courses 20 465 2930

15.7% 15.8% 18.2%

To teach completely online courses 2 1555 4144

1.6% 52.7% 25.7%


4.6b. Typical LMS usage AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Less than monthly 7 39 392

6.0% 1.5% 2.9%

Monthly 4 63 553

3.4% 2.4% 4.1%


4.6b. Typical LMS usage AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Weekly 62 577 5009

53.0% 22.3% 36.9%

Daily 44 1907 7628

37.6% 73.7% 56.2%


117 2586 13582

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6c. What LMS do you typically use? AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Blackboard 102 1443 6315

88.7% 55.8% 46.5%

Desire2Learn 0 8 1358

0.0% 0.3% 10.0%

Instructure Canvas 1 187 1399

0.9% 7.2% 10.3%

Jenzabar e-‐Racer 0 0 24

0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Moodle (Moodle Trust) 4 135 2022

3.5% 5.2% 14.9%

Moodlerooms Joule 0 5 76

0.0% 0.2% 0.6%

Pearson eCollege 0 125 203

0.0% 4.8% 1.5%

Sakai 0 80 217

0.0% 3.1% 1.6%

Homegrown/locally developed solution 0 35 186

0.0% 1.4% 1.4%

Other product; please specify 8 537 1669

7.0% 20.7% 12.3%

Don't know 0 33 109

0.0% 1.3% 0.8%


115 2588 13578

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6c. What LMS do you typically use? Other:

• Google sites • Google products • Turnitin -‐ Twitter • Google Sites; Groups; Docs; Hangout; Drive • Google Hangout • I develop a course wiki / website for each course and use that in conjunction with Turnitin.

4.6d. LMS: System availability AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 1 9 70

2.2% 0.9% 1.3%


2.2% 2.5% 2.5%


4.4% 5.2% 6.6%

Neutral 4 147 868

8.9% 14.6% 16.1%



4.6d. LMS: System availability AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

48.9% 50.0% 53.6%


33.3% 26.8% 19.9%


45 1004 5403

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: System response time AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 0 23 158

0.0% 2.3% 2.9%


2.2% 3.0% 5.2%


11.1% 10.0% 11.0%

Neutral 7 157 1080

15.6% 15.6% 20.0%


53.3% 48.1% 47.0%


17.8% 21.0% 13.8%


45 1004 5391

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Ease of use AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 1 11 104

0.9% 0.4% 0.8%


0.0% 3.1% 6.3%


6.0% 11.5% 16.4%

Neutral 25 359 2789

21.4% 14.0% 20.6%


57.3% 51.8% 45.2%


14.5% 19.2% 10.6%


117 2572 13512

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Initial use training AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 8 51 484

17.8% 5.1% 9.0%


2.2% 5.1% 8.0%


11.1% 11.7% 15.9%

Neutral 10 167 1220

22.2% 16.6% 22.6%


33.3% 43.3% 34.6%


4.6d. LMS: Initial use training AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


13.3% 18.2% 10.0%


45 1006 5405

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Ongoing training/professional development AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 11 86 723

24.4% 8.5% 13.4%


4.4% 4.8% 6.5%


8.9% 12.2% 15.4%

Neutral 12 266 1515

26.7% 26.4% 28.1%


26.7% 35.5% 28.5%


8.9% 12.6% 8.1%


45 1008 5399

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Posting content AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 0 4 43

0.0% 0.4% 0.8%


0.0% 2.2% 2.8%


0.0% 7.0% 7.9%

Neutral 4 111 640

8.7% 11.0% 11.8%


52.2% 49.8% 52.9%


39.1% 29.6% 23.8%


46 1008 5411

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Managing assignments AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 8 60 584

17.4% 6.0% 10.8%


0.0% 3.3% 3.6%


4.3% 10.4% 10.0%

Neutral 8 154 1042

17.4% 15.3% 19.3%


41.3% 43.1% 42.2%



4.6d. LMS: Managing assignments AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

19.6% 22.0% 14.0%


46 1008 5403

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Monitoring or managing enrollments AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 15 140 749

32.6% 13.9% 13.9%


2.2% 2.4% 3.6%


4.3% 8.4% 10.0%

Neutral 8 180 1159

17.4% 17.9% 21.5%


23.9% 39.1% 39.6%


19.6% 18.4% 11.5%


46 1008 5394

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Entering student progress information AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 6 37 428

13.0% 3.7% 7.9%


2.2% 4.7% 6.4%


4.3% 12.3% 14.9%

Neutral 11 122 854

23.9% 12.2% 15.8%


45.7% 43.0% 40.7%


10.9% 24.2% 14.3%


46 1002 5408

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Receiving course assignments reliably AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 9 50 628

19.6% 5.0% 11.6%


0.0% 2.0% 2.3%


4.3% 6.1% 5.6%

Neutral 3 127 858

6.5% 12.6% 15.9%


47.8% 48.3% 47.5%


21.7% 26.1% 17.1%


4.6d. LMS: Receiving course assignments reliably AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


46 1005 5395

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Engaging in meaningful interactions with students AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 22 180 2066

18.8% 7.0% 15.3%


2.6% 2.4% 4.0%


8.5% 10.0% 13.1%

Neutral 30 436 3536

25.6% 17.0% 26.3%


36.8% 45.3% 33.3%


7.7% 18.4% 8.0%


117 2566 13460

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6d. LMS: Overall satisfaction AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

N/A 1 9 85

1.4% 0.6% 1.1%


0.0% 1.9% 3.1%


4.3% 7.2% 11.2%

Neutral 18 261 2061

25.7% 16.8% 25.7%


61.4% 57.4% 50.7%


7.1% 16.1% 8.3%


70 1550 8025

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6e. LMS: Critical to my teaching AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 2 22 149

1.8% 0.9% 1.1%


6.1% 3.2% 6.3%


10.5% 8.2% 13.7%

Neutral 27 350 2624

23.7% 13.6% 19.5%

Agree 43 859 4500

37.7% 33.4% 33.4%


20.2% 40.8% 26.1%



4.6e. LMS: Critical to my teaching AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

(Percentages sum to 100%.) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6e. LMS: Very useful as a tool to enhance my teaching AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 1 25 147

0.9% 1.0% 1.1%


2.6% 1.6% 2.6%

Disagree 7 114 870

6.0% 4.4% 6.5%

Neutral 22 321 2231

19.0% 12.5% 16.6%

Agree 59 1191 6479

50.9% 46.4% 48.1%


20.7% 34.1% 25.2%


116 2567 13472

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6e. LMS: Very useful as a tool to enhance student learning AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Don't know 1 24 148

0.9% 0.9% 1.1%


0.9% 1.4% 2.5%

Disagree 8 116 860

6.9% 4.5% 6.4%

Neutral 26 357 2703

22.4% 13.9% 20.1%

Agree 55 1164 6269

47.4% 45.4% 46.6%


21.6% 33.8% 23.4%


116 2563 13465

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.7. In-‐class policy: Smartphone AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Ban students from using it in class 46 586 4244

37.4% 20.9% 26.9%

Discourage students from using it in class 32 560 3833

26.0% 20.0% 24.3%

Neither discourage nor encourage students 34 1234 5658

27.6% 44.0% 35.9%

Encourage students to use it in class 10 377 1840

8.1% 13.4% 11.7%

Require students to use it in class 1 50 183

0.8% 1.8% 1.2%


123 2807 15758

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4.7. In-‐class policy: Tablet or iPad AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


12.2% 6.6% 8.9%


15.4% 6.3% 9.2%


46.3% 51.8% 51.2%


24.4% 31.0% 28.1%


1.6% 4.3% 2.5%


123 2801 15721

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.7. In-‐class policy: Laptop AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


8.3% 4.7% 7.0%


14.0% 5.0% 7.9%


46.3% 42.6% 47.2%


26.4% 35.1% 31.7%


5.0% 12.6% 6.3%


121 2806 15701

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.7. In-‐class policy: Wearable (e.g., Google Glass) AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


23.5% 17.2% 20.5%


13.9% 10.0% 11.0%


52.2% 65.8% 63.9%


8.7% 6.2% 4.2%


1.7% 0.8% 0.3%


115 2730 15179

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8. Devices in class: The use of mobile devices in-‐class can enhance learning. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


3.2% 12.0% 4.1%


19.2% 6.5% 8.4%


16.8% 9.0% 10.6%

Neutral 32 616 3916


4.8. Devices in class: The use of mobile devices in-‐class can enhance learning. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

25.6% 21.4% 24.7%

Agree 39 1097 6639

31.2% 38.2% 41.9%


4.0% 12.9% 10.2%


125 2873 15850

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8. Devices in class: In-‐class use of mobile devices is distracting. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


2.4% 11.9% 3.7%


0.8% 4.2% 3.6%

Disagree 9 311 1667

7.3% 10.9% 10.5%

Neutral 20 581 2872

16.1% 20.3% 18.1%

Agree 52 1012 6693

41.9% 35.3% 42.3%


31.5% 17.5% 21.8%


124 2866 15841

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8. Devices in class: I am concerned about the security/privacy problems of mobile technology. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


5.6% 13.2% 5.4%


4.8% 5.7% 5.8%


13.7% 20.1% 22.4%

Neutral 45 799 4681

36.3% 27.9% 29.7%

Agree 34 702 4337

27.4% 24.5% 27.5%


12.1% 8.6% 9.3%


124 2862 15779

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8. Devices in class: I'd like more training on incorporating mobile devices into my courses.



4.1% 14.2% 5.6%


7.3% 5.9% 7.3%


13.0% 10.9% 13.7%

Neutral 22 587 3555


4.8. Devices in class: I'd like more training on incorporating mobile devices into my courses. AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

17.9% 20.6% 22.5%

Agree 54 1007 5947

43.9% 35.3% 37.7%


13.8% 13.2% 13.1%


123 2856 15766

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8. Devices in class: I create assignments that take advantage of mobile technologies.


Don't know 18 582 1911

14.6% 20.5% 12.1%


17.9% 10.9% 16.1%


35.8% 20.3% 26.3%

Neutral 14 609 3085

11.4% 21.4% 19.6%

Agree 22 585 3175

17.9% 20.6% 20.2%


2.4% 6.4% 5.7%


123 2844 15745

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.9. What technology has the greatest potential positive impact on your faculty role?:

• Online discussions, group data analysis, and materials sharing via Blackboard and Moodle • Social media and tablets • Anything interactive • Social Media and Blogging Platforms • Hard to say. Blackboard means I can get stuff up but its hard to use. Data projectors mean students can see slides.... Now, I use facebook with some

success in focusing on current events and am trying to enhance visibility with twitter (pretty good for an old fart, no?) But overall, I find these things overwhelming. Again, I am not opposed and believe they have great value -‐ I just don't know what to do with them

• The technology that allows students to access course content and/or my input throughout the week. • 1.the previous question needed space for comments. So my comment is that my answers are based that the students will use it to research answers

& not for socialization. 2. Blackboard, YouTube, mindomo, timelines, power point, etc. • Laptops and ipads/tablets • Blackboard online testing • LMS • Technology that supports the integration of video, simulations, and existing education, especially if it allows interactivity through various controls. • Blackboard • Sometimes my students would use their tablets or mobile phone to check the online dictionary to check meanings or synonyms in class. • Online assignments and wiki homework • My Galaxy Note • Ipad course management software, blackboard, PDFs, email • Blackboard so far. I think the flipped classroom idea with more online learning out of class (whether made by me or others online) and ePortfolios

have potential for positive impact on my teaching in the next few years. • Animated illustrations and videos showing actual footage of machines at work. • Pens and paper • IPads • internet • Lighting and sound control systems in performance laboratories • Effectively being able to integrate internet videos etc. into class time (without buffering, etc.) • None specifically • Laptops, audio/visual files, internet • Blackboard • Mobile devices -‐ smartphones and iPads. • Mobile devices, since students tend to use them more than laptops or desktops, and that can be used to provide higher availability of online

teaching. • I think tablets have the most potential. QR code reader and language learning software have a lot of potential, but I have not really utilized these in

my classes yet.


• Create more opportunities for discussion • The computer • Learning and Teaching Management systems • Classroom computers • Collaboration Tools • Tablet or iPad if the students can use them to take notes in a more effective manner. • Blackboard • None. A good teacher doesn't rely on technology to do their job. Many students complain that their professors now only prepare publisher-‐provided

powerpoint presentations and read from them rather than actually teaching. • Blackboard, email, Google, YouTube • Mobile phone messaging apps that allow me to contact someone who can help me solve a problem on the spot, or who can give me advice

immediately when I need it (ie, while in the middle of doing something). Greatly cuts the time lapse for decision-‐making when on the spot. And internet access of course, for its immediacy and practicality.

• Technologies that actually work, unlike classroom projectors and office computers that are broken or otherwise non-‐functioning half the time. • Mobile devices since everyone has one. • Online search engines • Smart devices and Internet connectivity. • Pushing content to tablets -‐ large enough for small groups to work on the same screen • Tablets/laptops, although students are often unable to stay on task and get distracted by social media. • Access to class website, resources, peers, etc. through internet. It all comes back to opportunities that come through access. • The use of tablets for the teacher and for the student • Media projection of texts and images in class • I would like to see more enhanced technology development to create Micro-‐Lectures to advance student understanding in critical areas which can

be: (1) Used to explain or reinforce a difficult concept. (2) Used as review of material that should have been mastered in previous courses. (3) Used to provide additional examples of working out a problem, or for sharing the answers to a test students can replay them multiple times if they donâ€™t understand something the first time they can be used as a component of class flipping. (4) Reused for several years and/or several classes.

• iPad. I connect my iPad to play sound examples in class, and connect to the internet to show helpful clips on the screen • Blackboard, power point slide shows • Your past questions lead me to refer to a hardware rather than software technology. I don't think the question should be worded like this, but I'll say

my iPad because it gives me notifications from all my social media outlets (Twitter, facebook, wordpress, google plus) and so helps me stay abreast of communication with colleagues

• I think the best is the wifi access that students have utilizing either their smart phones or laptops to access readings, activities, etc. This cuts down on paper waste and keeps the students engaged.

• In class podiums • It would be great if everyone had access to a computer in class. • Social media tools, blogging and collaborative spaces such as wikis • Laptops • Technologies which allow for feedback on writing assignments (Turnitin) and free up my time to have useful conference sessions with students,

technologies which enable discussions online / so that the learning doesn't end when we leave the classroom. • From text to speech programs, automatic speech recognition • Computer tech.

SECTION 5: TECHNOLOGY FOR RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP (Research Faculty Only)

5.1. Research support: Resources for cross-‐institution research AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Not applicable to my research 5 114 862

7.9% 14.4% 11.8%

Don't know 14 133 1059

22.2% 16.8% 14.5%


6.3% 11.1% 11.4%

Disagree 8 107 1237

12.7% 13.5% 16.9%

Neutral 16 142 1584

25.4% 17.9% 21.7%

Agree 13 169 1491

20.6% 21.3% 20.4%


4.8% 5.0% 3.3%


63 793 7309

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


5.1. Research support: Access to specialized research software AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


11.1% 15.9% 10.3%

Don't know 3 47 251

4.8% 5.9% 3.4%


11.1% 11.2% 9.5%

Disagree 8 112 1105

12.7% 14.0% 15.1%

Neutral 13 137 1296

20.6% 17.2% 17.7%

Agree 22 228 2626

34.9% 28.6% 35.8%


4.8% 7.3% 8.1%


63 798 7327

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Access to specialized research hardware AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


19.4% 24.6% 21.3%

Don't know 4 53 255

6.5% 6.6% 3.5%


6.5% 11.0% 8.6%

Disagree 5 70 909

8.1% 8.8% 12.4%

Neutral 14 149 1345

22.6% 18.7% 18.4%

Agree 19 194 2176

30.6% 24.3% 29.7%


6.5% 5.9% 6.1%


62 797 7317

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Adequate and appropriate support from IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


14.3% 16.7% 10.4%

Don't know 4 50 276

6.3% 6.3% 3.8%


11.1% 9.5% 9.9%

Disagree 3 85 1000

4.8% 10.7% 13.7%

Neutral 20 172 1576

31.7% 21.6% 21.5%

Agree 16 219 2411

25.4% 27.5% 32.9%



5.1. Research support: Adequate and appropriate support from IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

6.3% 7.8% 7.8%


63 797 7326

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Timely support from IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


16.1% 21.6% 15.5%

Don't know 2 48 196

6.5% 11.7% 5.8%


6.5% 9.2% 9.7%

Disagree 5 34 402

16.1% 8.3% 12.0%

Neutral 6 75 677

19.4% 18.2% 20.2%

Agree 8 91 954

25.8% 22.1% 28.4%


9.7% 9.0% 8.3%


31 412 3355

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Tech support for promotion and tenure AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


9.7% 14.8% 11.3%

Don't know 7 81 614

22.6% 19.7% 18.3%


16.1% 13.9% 16.9%

Disagree 4 57 602

12.9% 13.9% 17.9%

Neutral 4 64 554

12.9% 15.6% 16.5%

Agree 5 64 529

16.1% 15.6% 15.8%


9.7% 6.6% 3.3%


31 411 3358

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Effective software for grants AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


9.7% 17.0% 14.2%


32.3% 21.7% 17.1%


3.2% 14.1% 13.6%

Disagree 4 47 560

12.9% 11.4% 16.7%


5.1. Research support: Effective software for grants AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Neutral 5 65 589

16.1% 15.8% 17.6%

Agree 5 63 595

16.1% 15.3% 17.7%


9.7% 4.6% 3.2%


31 411 3356

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Adequate text analysis capabilities AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


16.1% 27.5% 30.8%


25.8% 26.3% 26.4%


6.5% 7.8% 8.1%

Disagree 3 34 325

9.7% 8.3% 9.7%

Neutral 5 63 498

16.1% 15.3% 14.9%

Agree 8 42 278

25.8% 10.2% 8.3%


0.0% 4.6% 1.8%


31 411 3348

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1. Research support: Generally satisfied with research support AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


1.6% 8.6% 3.7%

Don't know 2 38 184

3.2% 4.8% 2.5%


3.2% 12.3% 11.6%


29.0% 15.0% 18.2%

Neutral 14 188 1820

22.6% 23.8% 25.0%

Agree 22 229 2465

35.5% 29.0% 33.8%


4.8% 6.5% 5.2%


62 789 7285

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.2. Do you conduct data-‐intensive research? AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

No 47 597 5214

74.6% 75.4% 71.7%

Yes 16 195 2062


5.2. Do you conduct data-‐intensive research? AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

25.4% 24.6% 28.3%


63 792 7276

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: Adequate bandwidth AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


12.5% 10.4% 4.8%

Don't know 3 10 74

18.8% 5.2% 3.6%


6.3% 7.3% 9.4%

Disagree 3 18 227

18.8% 9.4% 11.1%

Neutral 0 40 345

0.0% 20.8% 16.9%

Agree 5 76 903

31.3% 39.6% 44.3%


12.5% 7.3% 9.8%


16 192 2038

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: Adequate data storage AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


0.0% 8.9% 3.0%

Don't know 1 8 56

6.3% 4.2% 2.8%


18.8% 10.9% 14.1%

Disagree 2 32 309

12.5% 16.7% 15.2%

Neutral 3 31 340

18.8% 16.1% 16.7%

Agree 5 68 802

31.3% 35.4% 39.4%


12.5% 7.8% 8.8%


16 192 2035

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: Most of my data are stored in a cloud AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


12.5% 10.9% 7.5%

Don't know 2 6 48

12.5% 3.1% 2.4%


25.0% 19.7% 26.4%

Disagree 5 49 636

31.3% 25.4% 31.2%


5.3. Data research support: Most of my data are stored in a cloud AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Neutral 0 24 230

0.0% 12.4% 11.3%

Agree 2 38 329

12.5% 19.7% 16.1%


6.3% 8.8% 5.1%


16 193 2040

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: IT is proactive in responding to my needs AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


6.3% 13.4% 6.7%

Don't know 2 19 119

12.5% 9.8% 5.8%


18.8% 13.4% 22.1%

Disagree 4 41 549

25.0% 21.1% 26.9%

Neutral 6 42 426

37.5% 21.6% 20.9%

Agree 0 28 271

0.0% 14.4% 13.3%


0.0% 6.2% 4.4%


16 194 2042

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: Wait time for consultation is too long AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


6.3% 19.8% 15.3%

Don't know 3 28 257

18.8% 14.6% 12.6%


6.3% 6.3% 6.8%

Disagree 2 25 338

12.5% 13.0% 16.6%

Neutral 6 54 572

37.5% 28.1% 28.1%

Agree 2 27 297

12.5% 14.1% 14.6%


6.3% 4.2% 6.0%


16 192 2037

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


5.3. Data research support: Communication with IT is adequate and appropriate AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


11.1% 12.5% 9.6%

Don't know 1 6 39

11.1% 6.8% 4.3%


0.0% 17.0% 15.9%

Disagree 2 14 156

22.2% 15.9% 17.1%

Neutral 4 24 235

44.4% 27.3% 25.8%

Agree 0 13 194

0.0% 14.8% 21.3%


11.1% 5.7% 6.0%


9 88 912

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: IT plays an integral part AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


10.0% 13.6% 8.3%

Don't know 1 2 37

10.0% 2.3% 4.1%


0.0% 25.0% 26.0%

Disagree 3 20 188

30.0% 22.7% 20.6%

Neutral 4 14 167

40.0% 15.9% 18.3%

Agree 0 9 142

0.0% 10.2% 15.6%


10.0% 10.2% 7.2%


10 88 913

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3. Data research support: Generally satisfied with research computing AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


0.0% 9.8% 2.7%

Don't know 1 5 48

6.3% 2.6% 2.3%


12.5% 14.5% 15.8%

Disagree 7 40 473

43.8% 20.7% 23.2%

Neutral 2 42 449

12.5% 21.8% 22.0%

Agree 2 51 593

12.5% 26.4% 29.0%


5.3. Data research support: Generally satisfied with research computing AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions


12.5% 4.1% 5.0%


16 193 2043

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SECTION 6: DEMOGRAPHIC AND INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONS

For the next set of questions, respondents were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 0–100, with 0 towards the first descriptor and 100 towards the opposite descriptor.

6.1a. Disposition towards IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Reluctant vs. Enthusiast

Mean 73.5 78.6 73.9

SD 24.2 22.5 23.3

N 128 2921 17080

Late adopter vs. Early adopter

Mean 65.1 67.2 62.9

SD 28.0 27.2 27.4

N 125 2882 16832

Technophobe vs. Technophile

Mean 65.5 67.2 65.4

SD 25.7 25.0 24.9

N 117 2849 16688

Skeptic vs. Cheerleader

Mean 62.2 68.4 61.9

SD 25.8 25.7 25.6

N 117 2852 16712

By-‐the-‐book vs. Experimenter

Mean 66.2 66.0 64.7

SD 25.9 26.1 25.2

N 122 2866 16736

Critic vs. Supporter

Mean 68.5 71.7 66.3

SD 25.9 25.3 24.9

N 122 2865 16793

Conservative vs. Radical

Mean 54.3 56.1 54.2

SD 22.0 23.0 21.6

N 119 2859 16685

6.1b. Attitude towards IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Dissatisfied vs. Satisfied

Mean 71.2 73.9 67.7

SD 22.4 22.9 22.7

N 125 2911 16914

Discontent vs. Content

Mean 71.0 72.0 65.9

SD 20.5 23.1 22.7

N 121 2861 16753

Perturbed vs. Pleased

Mean 69.5 71.9 66.0

SD 22.6 23.9 23.0

N 122 2857 16703

Burdensome vs. Beneficial

Mean 72.3 75.1 69.6

SD 24.8 24.4 24.6

N 124 2867 16750

Useless vs. Useful

Mean 80.8 81.3 77.8

SD 17.8 20.9 20.6

N 123 2869 16787

Distraction vs. Enhancement Mean 73.3 74.1 69.1


6.1b. Attitude towards IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

SD 22.0 24.4 23.9

N 120 2863 16696

6.1c. Usage of IT AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Never connected vs. Always connected

Mean 82.6 85.0 80.8

SD 20.8 18.9 20.3

N 128 2928 17052

Peripheral vs. Central

Mean 74.4 77.1 72.3

SD 22.8 22.3 23.0

N 124 2874 16823

Old media vs. New media

Mean 71.4 73.9 68.7

SD 23.4 22.3 22.5

N 123 2877 16856

Infrequent vs. Frequent

Mean 80.4 84.4 80.3

SD 20.8 19.4 20.6

N 124 2894 16922

Satiable vs. Insatiable

Mean 58.2 62.0 56.4

SD 26.6 25.4 24.8

N 121 2848 16594

6.2. Gender AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Male 66 1319 8018

51.2% 44.4% 46.6%

Female 61 1577 8603

47.3% 53.0% 50.0%

Other 0 3 19

0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Prefer not to answer 2 75 554

1.6% 2.5% 3.2%


129 2974 17194

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.3. Faculty load area AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Agriculture and natural resources 0 4 373

0.0% 0.1% 2.2%

Biological/life sciences 5 77 1023

3.9% 2.6% 5.9%

Business, management, marketing 8 527 1538

6.2% 17.6% 8.9%

Communications/journalism 4 61 524

3.1% 2.0% 3.0%

Computer and information sciences 2 150 810

1.6% 5.0% 4.7%

Education, including physical education 11 393 1530

8.5% 13.1% 8.8%

Engineering and architecture 18 60 952

14.0% 2.0% 5.5%

Fine and performing arts 2 152 701

1.6% 5.1% 4.1%


6.3. Faculty load area AUC MA Private Institutions All institutions

Health sciences, including professional programs 0 338 1927

0.0% 11.3% 11.1%

Humanities 20 313 1890

15.5% 10.5% 10.9%

Liberal arts/general studies 15 233 837

11.6% 7.8% 4.8%

Manufacturing, construction, repair, or transportation 0 4 84

0.0% 0.1% 0.5%

Physical sciences, including mathematical sciences 5 140 1662

3.9% 4.7% 9.6%

Public administration, legal, social, and protective services 4 44 200

3.1% 1.5% 1.2%

Social sciences 13 308 1883

10.1% 10.3% 10.9%

Other; please describe 22 185 1368

17.1% 6.2% 7.9%


129 2989 17302

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.3. Faculty load area: Other:

• International Affairs (interdisciplinary -‐ IR, Law and ISS) • English for Academic Purposes • Mathematics & scientific thinking • Language learning • Language teaching • I am not currently teaching, but in fall I will be teaching in communications and general studies areas. • Library • Legal • Foreign language teaching • Intensive Academic English • Rhetoric and Composition • Rhetoric and Composition • Rhetoric, writing, and research

ecar study of faculty and technology report › docs › research_ir... ·...

Documents