1. LONDON I OXFORD I NEW YORK I PARIS I BOLOGNA CLIENT LOGO University of Bradford IT Services Student Survey 2011 SPA Future Thinking contacts: Dane Krambergar, Research Executive, dane.krambergar@spafuturethinking.com Stuart Wright, Research Manager, stuart.wright@spafuturethinking.com

2. 2 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

3. 3 Background and methodology In 2009, the IT Services within the University of Bradford wished to conduct an online survey with a sample of their students in order to better understand attitudes towards the services they provide An online survey was produced, which covered a number of key performance indicators that could be used as the basis for any tracking research In 2011 IT Services wished to repeat the survey in order to gauge how usage and attitudes of services and facilities had changed over time The questionnaire was also designed to provide comparable data to findings from the 2009 survey  In total, the survey was sent to a random cross section of 3,000 students.  To help incentivise students to take part in the survey, a prize draw was held offering a £100 Amazon voucher as the prize.  250 students responded to the survey, giving a response rate of c.8% (N.B. The survey was closed once the target of 250 responses was achieved)

4. 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5. 5 Summary Usage of computing facilities has changed significantly since the survey was last conducted, with 73% of students using their own laptop computer compared to just 13% in 2009. This movement coincides with a significant reduction in the proportion of students using their own desktop PCs, which is just under a quarter (23%), compared to 72% in 2009. This movement is likely to be due to the increased affordability and convenience of laptops. Portable device popularity is possibly another factor, with 30% of students using other devices such as PDAs and smartphones compared to just 12% in 2009. The frequency with which students use computing facilities has remained largely stable with the exception of the wireless network which students are using almost twice as frequently as they did in 2009. On average, students report using the network twice a week (1.96) compared to once a week (1.04) in 2009. Usage is significantly higher amongst students that use a PDA/ smartphone device at three times a week (3.11). Students use their university email account and internet access the most frequently at six (5.54) and five times a week respectively. On average, the PC booking system is used the least frequently at 0.40 times a week, followed by the mobile service at 0.79 times a week. IT support services are used relatively infrequently in comparison. Student IT workshops are used most often with 10% of respondents using this service at least once a week. Whilst IT advice from the learner support centre is not the most frequently used service, it is utilised by the most students but largely on an occasional basis – three quarters of students that use the service are occasional users. In contrast, the mobile service is used the second most frequently by students with 7% using it at least once a week, however only 21% ever use it. Four in five students are satisfied with the opening hours of the University computing facilities. However, availability of computing facilities has become an issue. Satisfaction with availability has declined significantly to 64% from 78% in 2009 with over a quarter of respondents (26%) being actively dissatisfied. Whilst satisfaction with the reliability of systems has improved modestly since 2009, over one in five students (22%) are still dissatisfied. Past experience has shown that it is not the actual number of computers available but having them where students want them that can impact on these scores. Summary (I)

6. 6 Summary (continued) Availability of PCs continues to be a major issue with 38% of students citing this as a possible area of improvement compared to 30% in 2009. The increased usage of laptops and other portable devices has impacted heavily on the demand for the wireless network and as a result a significantly higher proportion (21% vs. 12% in 2009) of students cited extending the wireless network as a possible improvement. Positively, however, the proportion of students spontaneously mentioning other areas for improvement has declined, suggesting facilities and services have generally improved since 2009. Nearly four in five students (79%) agree that they have been able to access general IT resources when they have needed to, despite the fact that over a quarter of students (26%) are dissatisfied with the availability of computing facilities. Encouragingly, availability of specialised equipment and facilities has improved with 61% agreeing that they have been able to access specialised equipment/ facilities when they needed to compared to 54% in 2009. Summary (II)

7. 7 Conclusions As mobile technology becomes more affordable and increasingly popular, it is apparent that students are rapidly switching to portable alternatives and the University needs to gear facilities and services towards this growing trend. Given the increased number of laptop and mobile device users, the wireless network is in greater demand and students appear keen to see the network coverage extended. Improved wireless connectivity also has the potential to reduce demand for PCs. However, it is recommended that other measures are also put in place to improve PC availability as it is becoming a major concern. Access to specialised equipment and facilities has slightly improved but there is still clearly room for further improvement. Addressing the issue of availability of computing facilities in general is likely to facilitate this. Whilst satisfaction with the reliability of systems has risen, it is still an issue that needs addressing – perhaps additional maintenance checks are necessary to ensure the systems in place run as smoothly as possible. Conclusions

8. 8 Significantly higher than 2009 data Significantly lower than 2009 data Significantly higher than total Significantly lower than total MAIN FINDINGS SIGNIFICANCE TESTING

9. 9 Computing facilities used Q1. What computing facilities do you use? % Total 2011 Base: (All respondents: 250) 2009 % 13 80 38 72 36 12 (138) Undergraduate: 84% Postgraduate: 56%

10. 10 Printing facilities used Q2. What printing facilities do you use? % Base: (All respondents: 250) Total 2011 2009 % 62 67 32 9 3 (138) No significant differences vs. 2009 Undergraduate: 71% Postgraduate: 51% Undergraduate: 63% Postgraduate: 50%

11. 11 Frequency of using the following university computing and network facilities during term time (I) Q3. How often do you use the following University computing and network facilities during term time? Every day3-4 times a week1-2 times a weekEvery 2 weeksOccasionallyNever 2011 Average frequency of use (per week) 5.54 5.09 1.96 1.84 1.26 1.25 0.79 0.40 Base: (All respondents: 250) % 2009 Average frequency 5.63 5.00 1.04 1.93 1.35 0.97 N/A (138)

12. 12 Q3. How often do you use the following University computing and network facilities during term time? Base: (All respondents) TOTALAGESEXLEVEL Under 2525-3435-4445+MaleFemaleUGPG University e-mail account5.546.055.375.353.495.485.615.795.21 Internet access5.095.874.783.893.395.135.045.404.65 The wireless network (Roamnet)1.962.521.841.310.082.251.682.091.75 General use PC clusters1.842.131.781.890.271.851.841.971.66 Departmental PC clusters1.260.951.961.530.181.650.870.921.72 Printers in PC clusters1.251.381.211.430.401.201.301.311.17 Mobile service0.791.130.600.350.170.860.731.020.51 PC booking system0.400.440.390.520.010.380.420.40 (250)(123)(75)(31)(21)#(125) (141)(108) Average frequency of use (per week) # Caution – low base size Younger age groups demonstrate a higher frequency of usage of IT services than older students Frequency of using the following university computing and network facilities during term time (II)

13. 13 Frequency of using the following support services provided by University IT services staff Base: (All respondents: 250) Q4. How often do you use the following support services provided by University IT services staff? 2009 Every day3-4 times a week1-2 times a weekEvery 2 weeksOccasionallyNever 2011 7N/A 109 66 66 56 42 No significant differences vs. 2009 % Use at least once a week

14. 14 2011 % Very/ fairly satisfied Base: (Those answering) % Very dissatisfied % Very satisfied % Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 81 74 62 67 68 78 69 58 N/A 2009 % Very/ fairly satisfied Satisfaction with the following aspects of University computing facilities Q5. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of University computing facilities? Opening hours (219) Software (218) Prepay printing service (199) IT advice and support (191) Availability of staff (211) Availability of computing facilities (222) Printed/ online information (197) Reliability of systems (227) Face-to-face IT Advice (160) IT and Telecoms Advice and support (145) PC/ Comms Clinic (126) 12 13 20 24 16 11 21 9 36 42 50 (250) % Don’t know Base: (All respondents)

15. 15 Possible areas of improvement Base: (All respondents: 250) Q6. Here is a list of possible improvements. Which would be your first and second choice of things to improve? % Total 2011 1 st choice of improvement 2 nd choice of improvement 2009 (138) 1 st choice2 nd choiceCombined 201030 131528 4812 161127 91322 7815 4711 6713 358 156 134 729

16. 16 75 76 54 2011 % Definitely/ mostly agree Base: (Those answering) % Definitely/ mostly disagree % Mostly/ definitely agree % Neither agree nor disagree 2009 % Definitely/ mostly agree The IT resources and services are good enough for my needs (241) I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to (243) I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed to (203) Agreement with the following statements Q7. For each statement below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement 3 4 19 (250) % Not Applicable No significant differences vs. 2009 Base: (All respondents)

17. 17 Spontaneous comments about the computing services/ facilities “I think compared to other universities that I have been to the amount of computers and computer clusters are a lot less” “Computer rooms not quiet at all due to large number of students using them as places of discussion and generally causing disruptive behaviour” “When the IT desk goes to lunch, someone should be there to cover/ give advice/ support” “I feel that the silent study areas are abused by students, I think that these should be monitored” “People using PC's for extended periods to access facebook, You Tube etc. is infuriating when people are trying to access a PC to legitimately undertake academic work” “The most important problem I see is the number of PCs, I never find a free one and if I find one it is always broken” “I think most people these days have laptops - more provision for them (e.g. Printing from them to library printers while on the WLAN/LAN) seems like a better way of spending money than putting in more PCs” “The system is always down which cause a lot of problems including completing assignments and printing them as well” Q8. Please use this space to make any other relevant comments about the Computing services/ facilities. In particular it would be useful if you could explain your reasons for any dissatisfaction or desired improvement.

18. 18 APPENDIX

19. 19 Student profile 2011200920112009 %% GENDER: TYPE OF STUDENT: Male 5044 Undergraduate 5666 Female 5056 Postgraduate 4334 AGE: SCHOOL: Under 25 4940 Corporate and Central services 2- 25-34 3029 School of Computing, Informatics and Media 69 35-44 1221 School of Engineering, Design and Technology 12 45+ 810 School of Health Studies 1224 School of Life Sciences 3021 DISABILITY: School of Lifelong Education And Development 57 Yes 89 School of Management 158 No 9290 School of Social and International Studies 19 Base:(250)(138)Base:(250)(138)

20. 20 TOTALAGESEXLEVEL Under 2525-3435-4445+MaleFemaleUGPG Mobile service0.320.390.320.140.170.340.290.330.30 Student IT workshops0.290.240.400.410.020.380.210.180.44 E-mail support0.250.230.290.390.030.350.15 0.39 IT advice (learner support centre)0.210.120.380.190.100.270.140.100.34 IT services webpages0.200.110.34 0.030.250.160.110.33 Telephone helpdesk (ICT service desk)0.150.100.290.080.030.220.08 0.24 (250)(123)(75)(31)(21)#(125) (141)(108) Average frequency of use (per week) Frequency of using the following support services provided by university it services staff Base: (All respondents) Q4. How often do you use the following support services provided by University IT services staff? # Caution – low base size

21. 21 TOTALAGESEXLEVEL Under 2525-3435-4445+MaleFemaleUGPG Opening hours 808278837378838081 Software 747771834675747574 Prepay printing service 717469736068757270 IT advice and support 66 70646865 68 Availability of staff 656172686765666172 Availability of computing facilities 646273673868616268 Printed/ online information on using computer services 636171674759686365 Reliability of systems 615866755063595768 Face-to-face IT advice 58537050 54635465 IT and telecoms advice and support helpdesk 544865544352564664 PC/ Comms Clinic 48436354049483765 (250)*(123)(75)(31)(21)#(125) (141)(108) % Very/ fairly satisfied # Caution – low base size Base: (Those answering) Satisfaction with the following aspects of university computing facilities Q5. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of University computing facilities? * Please note that base sizes may vary for each aspect depending on those answering

22. 22 TOTALAGESEXLEVEL Under 2525-3435-4445+MaleFemaleUGPG I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to 797880936081777881 The IT resources and services are good enough for my needs 737573706772757472 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed to 625968644058655966 (250)*(123)(75)(31)(21)#(125) (141)(108) % Definitely/ mostly agree Base: (Those answering) Agreement with the following statements Q7. For each statement below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement * Please note that base sizes may vary for each aspect depending on those answering # Caution – low base size No significant differences