Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services A partnership project between NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc Presented.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services A partnership project between NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc Presented."— Presentation transcript:

1 Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services A partnership project between NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc Presented by: Julia Panke Makela with support from The NCSD Technology Advisory Committee

2 Survey Development & Procedures Going about figuring it out

3 3 Technology Area Questions In what areas have student development professionals in two-year colleges implemented technology tools? Are there differences in the areas technology tools by implementation by demographics (e.g., size, location, region)? Are these technology tools easy for staff to use? Do these technology tools effectively meet the needs of staff?

4 4 Implementation Level Questions Can we uncover information about the level of technology implementation by two-year institutions? What types of technology are found in two-year colleges with low-level implementation? Moderate implementation? Extensive implementation?

5 5 Method for Exploring Questions Established an NCSD Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) to determine technology areas and specific questions to address – Evelyn Clements, NCSD Past President – Jim Grigsby, Germanna Community College (VA) – Gilbert Hermosillo, MiraCosta College (CA) – Mike Lopez, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MN) – Peg Morelli, James A. Rhodes State College (OH) – Darrow Neves, Middlesex Community College (MA) – Susan Roberts, Columbia-Greene Community College (NY) – Lori A. Sebranek, Madison Area Technical College (WI) – Sandra H. Thomas, John Wood Community College (IL) – Henry B. Villareal, College of San Mateo (CA)

6 6 Method for Exploring Questions Developed a survey covering: –11 technology areas –respondent demographics –overall concerns Conducted the survey online via Survey Monkey Used SPSS and Excel to run data comparisons at the National Office, with feedback gathered from the NCSD TAC

7 Survey Participants Who helped us figure it out?

8 8 Participants Originally contacted: –589 Chief Student Services Officers 168 NCSD members 421 non-members –One contact per community college, contacts obtained from NCSD Membership List and Contact List Participated: –118 responded (20.0%) –102 (17.3%) provided usable surveys 49 NCSD members (29.2% of those contacted) 53 non-members (12.6% of those contacted)

9 9 Demographics – Participant Role The possible respondent categories included: – President or Vice President of your Institution – Dean or Vice President of Students, Student Affairs, or Student Development –Director of a Student Services Office (e.g. Admissions, Financial Aid, Career Services –Associate or Assistant Director of a Student Services Office –Faculty or Instructor –Chief Technology Officer, or IT Staff Member –Other (please specify)

10 10 Demographics – Participant Role Target audience 1: Dean or Vice President of Students, Student Affairs, or Student Development Target audience 2: President or Vice President of your Institution. Over 85% of respondents fell in these categories.

11 11 Demographics –Region The possible responses included the NCSD regions: –Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode –Region 2: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania –Region 3: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia –Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee –Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin –Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas –Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska –Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming –Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada –Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington –Region 11: Canada

12 12 Demographics –Region Largest response from: –Region VI - Midwest (23%) –Region IV - Southeast (23%) –Region V - Southwest (11%) Smaller response from: –Region III – Middle East Coast (8%) –Region VII – South (7%) –Region VIII – Midwest / Central (7%) –Region I – Northeast (7%) –Region X – Northwest (5%) –Region II – Upper east coast (5%) –Region IX– Central (4%)

13 13 Demographics - Size Potential responses included the Carnegie Classification sizes for two–year institutions: –Less than 500 –500 to 1,999 –2,000 to 4,900 –5,000 to 9,999 –10,000 or more

14 14 Demographics - Size Responding institutions were primarily from larger institutions: –10,000 or more students (36%) –5,000 – 9,999 students (25%) –2,000 – 4,900 students (26%)

15 15 Demographics - Environment The possible responses included: –Urban –Suburban –Small Town –Rural –Other

16 16 Demographics - Environment Responding institutional environments were more evenly distributed than their geographic regions. –26% suburban –24% small towns –23% rural –21% urban 6% reported other environments

17 Technology Area Implementation So, what do they have?

18 18 11 Technology Areas Admissions and student recruitment Financial aid Academic placement, orientation, and assistance Academic advising Registration Student Assistive technology for people with disabilities Counseling Career services Student activities Other student services

19 19 Admissions and Recruiting Does your institution have? –Technology-based recruiting tools –Online marketing materials Prospective students website Virtual tour –Online applications Before seeing the results… What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

20 20 Admissions and Recruiting Technology-based recruiting tools –Yes 74.5 % No 19.6 % Don't Know 4.9% Online marketing materials –Prospective students website64.7 % –Virtual tour28.4 % Online applications –Yes 90.2 % No 8.8 % Don't Know 0.0%

21 21 Admissions and Recruiting Best Experiences Online applications Fast, easy communication Websites, online registration and online orientation Biggest Challenges Inadequate technology Loss of face-to-face interactions / personal touch Technology glitches (e.g. duplicate applications, system crashes) Accuracy of information Time for data entry

22 22 Financial Aid Does your institution have? –Online processing for financial aid applications –Online view for application progress –Online inquiry for application progress Before seeing the results… What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

23 23 Financial Aid Online processing for financial aid applications –Yes 84.3 % No 8.8 % Don't Know 6.9% Online view for application progress –Yes 64.7 % No 12.7 % Don't Know 8.8% Online inquiry for application progress –Yes 66.7 % No 11.8 % Don't Know 8.8%

24 24 Financial Aid Best Experiences Timeliness / speed at all phases of the application process Ease of use Specific system feature Biggest Challenges Loss of personal touch – students want face-to-face for financial matters Training Security / privacy / FERPA Ease of use Student usage Accuracy of input Student access and literacy

25 25 Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance Does your institution have? –Computer-based academic placement –Computer-based student orientation –Academic assistance Computer-based academic tutoring Computer-based study / Life skills training Advising via online chat Tutoring via online chat What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

26 26 Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance Computer-based academic placement –Online52.9% –Offline50.0% Computer-based student orientation –Online39.2% –Offline8.8% Academic Assistance –Computer-based academic tutoring62.7 % –Computer-based study / Life skills training34.3 % –Advising via online chat25.5 % –Tutoring via online chat18.6 %

27 27 Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance Best Experiences Student reception and access Specific system feature Timely and effective communication Biggest Challenges Ensuring access Security / privacy / FERPA / identity verification Staff time Low usage Training Cost

28 28 Academic Advising Does your institution have technology for… –Student academic records –Academic placement records –Web-based degree audits –Transfer articulation records –Student class schedules –Automated advisor assignment –Web-based self-scheduling for student-advisor appointments What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

29 29 Academic Advising Student academic records90.2% Academic placement records90.2% Web-based degree audits61.8% Transfer articulation records60.8% Student class schedules93.1% Automated advisor assignment28.4% Web-based self-scheduling 20.6%

30 30 Academic Advising Best Experiences Specific system feature, e.g. degree audit, academic history Current, accurate information Ease of use Software system Use in distance advising Biggest Challenges Current, accurate information Ease of use Integration with other systems / software Security Training Time and cost Improve specific feature, e.g. transfer articulation check Flexibility for 2- yr. college environments

31 31 Registration Does your institution have? –Computer-based methods of registration What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

32 32 Registration Computer-based methods of registration –Online85.3% –Offline30.4%

33 33 Registration Best Experiences Students can be more self- sufficient / personally responsible for registration process Real time access 24/7 Saves time and space – more efficient Specific system feature Biggest Challenges Technology glitches Loss of personal touch – face-to-face time is necessary for some Student data entry error Training Inadequacy of user interface or system features Cost and staff time Security Keeping the technology current

34 34 Student Does your institution have? – accounts for students If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by students? –Low, medium or high? What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

35 35 Student accounts for students –Yes 65.7 % No 28.4 % Don't Know 0.0% Level of usage by students –Low40.3% –Medium43.3% –High11.9% –Don’t Know4.5%

36 36 Student Best Experiences Communication to individual students and groups Biggest Challenges Student use –Other personal accounts –How to assess? –Is it effective? Managing account assignment Training Spam Managing the volume of s sent to students Creating a single password

37 37 Assistive Technology Does your institution have? –Assistive technology for people with disabilities If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by students? –Low, medium or high? What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

38 38 Assistive Technology Assistive technology for people with disabilities –Yes 72.5 % No 9.8 % Don't Know 10.8% Level of assistive technology usage by students –Low15.7% –Medium30.4% –High22.5% –Don’t Know3.9%

39 39 Assistive Technology Best Experiences Specific software, e.g., ZoomText, JAWS Student use and reported satisfaction Access / effectiveness Biggest Challenges Cost Staying current Training Space / hours of operation Access Knowledge of available resources / use Standardization Anticipating needs Specific tool, e.g. books on tape

40 40 Counseling Does your institution have? –Computer-based needs assessment –Computer-based client intake –Counseling via online or chat services What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

41 41 Counseling Computer-based needs assessment24.5% Computer-based client intake10.8% Counseling via online or chat services16.7%

42 42 Counseling Best Experiences Distance counseling / various locations Needs assessment Student reported satisfaction Biggest Challenges Security / confidentiality / verification of identity Use A need for more in this area Personal touch

43 43 Career Services Does your institution have? –Self-assessment –Career / major exploration –Placement –Client data tracking What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

44 44 Career Services Self-assessment –Online50.0%Offline55.9% Career / major exploration –Online58.8%Offline59.8% Placement –Online33.3%Offline67.6% Client data tracking –Online21.6%Offline16.7%

45 45 Career Services Best Experiences Wealth of information Access Specific software, e.g., job posting Biggest Challenges Student use Personal touch Current info for local labor market

46 46 Student Activities Does your institution have? –Technology to encourage student clubs/groups to interact online If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by students? –Low, medium or high? What would you expect the implementation levels to be? –Low –Medium –High

47 47 Student Activities Technology to encourage student clubs/groups to interact online –Yes 38.2 % No 42.2 % Don't Know 5.9% Level of usage by students –Low38.8% –Medium41.8% –High11.9% –Don’t Know7.5%

48 48 Student Activities Best Experiences Improved communication Improved access for distance students Use Student engagement Biggest Challenges Inappropriate use A need for more in this area Use Staying current

49 Technology Implementation Levels Exploring implementation areas across institutions

50 50 Level Exploration Strategy 86 respondents completed all 11 sections of the survey, and therefore could be included in overall trend analyses. Give institutions credit for ANY type of technology in an area These 86 institutions reported having implemented technology in: –Minimum of 5 (45.5%) areas –Maximum of 11 (100.0%) areas –Average of 9 (81.8%) areas

51 51 Implementation Categories Institution were categorized as follows: –Low implementation 7 or fewer areas –Medium implementation 8-9 areas –High implementation areas Number of institutions in each category: –12 low implementation –41 medium implementation –33 high implementation Number of Areas Percent of Areas Number of Institutions % % % % % % %17

52 52 Low Implementation Institutions (12) Technology AreaNumber of InstitutionsPercent Admissions % Financial Aid541.7% Placement / Orientation1191.7% Academic Advising1191.7% Registration975.0% Student % Assistive Tech325.0% Counseling18.3% Career Services1083.3% Student Activities18.3% Other1191.7%

53 53 Popular Technology for Low Implementation Institutions

54 54 Medium Implementation Institutions (41) Technology AreaNumber of InstitutionsPercent Admissions % Financial Aid3892.7% Placement / Orientation3995.1% Academic Advising3995.1% Registration3995.1% Student % Assistive Tech3073.2% Counseling1331.7% Career Services3995.1% Student Activities614.6% Other %

55 55 Additional Popular Technology for Medium Implementation Institutions

56 56 High Implementation Institutions (33) Technology AreaNumber of InstitutionsPercent Admissions % Financial Aid % Placement / Orientation3297.0% Academic Advising % Registration % Student % Assistive Tech % Counseling2472.7% Career Services % Student Activities3193.9% Other %

57 57 Additional Popular Technology for High Implementation Institutions

58 58 Technology Not Addressed Technology Area Low Implement Medium Implement High Implement Admissions100.0% Financial Aid41.7%92.7%100.0% Placement / Orientation91.7%95.1%97.0% Academic Advising91.7%95.1%100.0% Registration75.0%95.1%100.0% Student 41.7%61.0%87.9% Assistive Tech25.0%73.2%100.0% Counseling8.3%31.7%72.7% Career Services83.3%95.1%100.0% Student Activities8.3%14.6%93.9% Other91.7%100.0%

59 Technology Ease and Effectiveness How is technology really addressing needs?

60 60 Ease / Effective Exploration Strategy Please tell us about your staff’s experience with ____. –Is it easy to use? –Does it effectively meet your needs? Reponses were rated on a 5 point scale – 1Not at all – 2Somewhat – 3Moderately – 4Very – 5Extremely –Or, Don’t Know

61 61 Exploration Strategy, Con’t. For each set of ease / effectiveness questions, we created difference scores –Respondent 1:Ease 1 – Effectiveness 1 = Difference 1 –Respondent 2:Ease 2 – Effectiveness 2 = Difference 2 –… –Respondent n:Ease n – Effectiveness n = Difference n Then, the mean of the differences was found. A two-tailed t-test for the differences was computed at α =.05

62 62 What differences do you see? Not significant Marketing Financial aid applications Academic placement tools Academic advising applications Registration Assistive technology for people with disabilities Online career services Significant Recruiting tools Admissions applications Orientation tools Academic support tools Student Counseling services Offline career services Student clubs and groups For all, ease of use scores were significantly higher than effective scores.

63 Overall Future Challenges What overall challenges will community colleges face down the line?

64 64 Most Cited Challenges 1.Resources (30) –Cost / Funding (19) –Time (4) –Infrastructure (4) –Other (3) 2.Specific Area (25) –Advising (8) –Distance Education (6) – (3) –Counseling (2) –Other (6)

65 65 Most Cited Challenges 3.Training (19) –Staff / Faculty (11) –Students (6) –Not specified (2) 4.Staying current with technology changes (18) 5.Expectations / consumer market (10) 6.Others … –Data entry / conversions / compatibility (8) –Student use / awareness (6) –Access / literacy (6) –Security (5) –Quality / high tech-high touch (3)

66 Thank you for listening! For questions or additional information, contact: Julia Panke Makela Assistant Director, NCSD National Office (217)

67 Special Thanks to CampusWorks, Inc CampusWorks Inc. (CWI) is an information technology (IT) management and strategic planning services firm dedicated exclusively to technology support to higher education. CampusWorks specializes in working within the community college higher education arena and provides information technology leadership and technical expertise to a number of North American clients. You can learn more about them at:


Download ppt "Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services A partnership project between NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc Presented."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google