1. ECAR Research 2012 in Review—2013 Preview
Jacqueline Bichsel, Ph.D., Researcher
EDUCAUSE Southeast Regional Conference
May 29, 2013

2. Todays Agenda Introduction to ECAR Review of selected 2012 research
Full 2013 research agenda
Write for EDUCAUSE
<
On today’s agenda, I’m going to introduce you to ECAR. <
We’re going to review selected 2012 research findings. <
We’re going to preview the 2013 research agenda. <
And I’m going to show you how you can write for and publish with EDUCAUSE, if you’re interested. <

3. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)
Established in 2001 to provide research-based evidence to support effective decision making in higher education. Nearly 500 colleges and universities subscribe to ECAR.
< ECAR was established in 2001 to provide research-based evidence to support effective decision making in higher education. <
Nearly 500 colleges and universities subscribe to ECAR. <

4. DRA Staff “A great team, doing great things!” Susan Grajek,
Vice President,
Data, Research, and Analytics
Eden Dahlstrom, Senior Research Analyst
Mike Roedema, Statistician
Karen Wetzel, Program Manager Washington Office, ACTI
Ron Yanosky,
Senior ECAR Research Fellow
Kate Hellweg, Research Associate
Susan Grajek is our vice president. We have three principal investigators, Eden Dahlstrom, Ron Yanosky and I, and, in this presentation, we’ll be reviewing many of the studies we have conducted. Leah Lang heads the Core Data Service, and I’ll be speaking a lot about what CDS can do for your institution. We have a team of two statisticians, Pam Arroway and Mike Roedema. Our portfolio manager is Joanna Grama. Tyson Anderson is our data visualization specialist, and Kate Hellweg is our research associate. <

5. Three Primary Research Product Lines
Core Data Service
Research Studies
Research Bulletins
There are essentially three main product lines in ECAR: Core Data Service, Research Studies, and Research Bulletins.
The EDUCAUSE Core Data Service has been providing comparative data on IT in higher education since 2002, thanks to the dedicated contributions of over 750 institutions annually. Recently, the service underwent a substantial redesign to provide new interfaces for data entry and reporting, and new and expanded content. 
We’re always working to improve CDS.  Changes you can expect to see in 2013 include a new data collection timeline from July to September.  This timeline will ensure that we’re collecting the most recent financial data.  We’re also working to align all CDS content under three key pillars: IT Financials, Staffing, and Services. 
Research Studies are our 2nd product line. These major ECAR publications are substantive examinations of issues of strategic importance to higher education. There were seven research studies in 2012, and I’ll be highlighting key findings from those studies in this presentation.
Research bulletins are our 3rd product line, and these are focused research on specific IT issues that may be authored by ECAR members or ECAR researchers. The special CDS Spotlight Series analyzes content from CDS not reported in the CDS Annual Summary Report.
In 2012, ECAR published 17 research bulletins and CDS Spotlights. These publications are produced roughly every three weeks. Two of our recent research bulletins that are now public are “Classroom Technology” (December 2012), which looked at Core Data Service survey results related to classroom technology; and “Five Guidelines for Instituting IT Value Measurement” (November 2013), which outlines five recommendations to help advise IT leaders and others when implementing their own IT value measurement initiatives.
In 2012, ECAR higher education institution subscribers received selected research services from Gartner, Inc., at no additional charge due to a joint agreement between EDUCAUSE and Gartner. These services include Quarterly IT1 research reports, chosen by ECAR staff as the most relevant or timely for the higher education IT community. <

6. In addition, the EDUCAUSE IT Issues Panel includes individuals from EDUCAUSE member institutions who provide quick feedback to EDUCAUSE on current issues, problems, and proposals across higher education IT.
The EDUCAUSE annual publication of top IT issues has long resonated as a yearly snapshot of the most pressing issues for IT leaders in higher education. In 2000, EDUCAUSE changed the method by which the issues were selected and ranked, instituting a member survey. For twelve years, members were asked to select the five most-important IT issues out of a selection of about thirty in each of four areas: (1) issues that are critical for strategic success; (2) issues that are expected to increase in significance; (3) issues that demand the greatest amount of the campus IT leader’s time; and (4) issues that require the largest expenditures of human and fiscal resources.
A research panel of IT leaders from representative member institutions identifies and prioritizes the top IT issues facing their institutions. The panel members are asked: “What is the single-biggest IT-related issue currently facing your institution?” Then panel members are asked to select and vote on the top IT issues. 
The 2012 IT Issues list is pretty comprehensive and was published in the May/June 2012 issue of the EDUCAUSE Review. The issues identified by the EDUCAUSE IT Issues Panel inform the ECAR research agenda, so you will see many of those issues reflected in our research. <

7. Deep Dive: 2012 Top Ten IT Issues and ECAR Research Offerings
Issue: Supporting the trends toward IT consumerization and bring-your-own device
Issue: Using analytics to support critical institutional outcomes
Issue: Supporting the research mission through high-performance computing, large data sets, and analytics
Theme: Improving student success
Theme: Managing the IT organization
To demonstrate how ECAR’s research is relevant to today’s IT issues in higher education, we are going to do a deeper dive on some of our research informed by the 2012 IT issues list and the themes identified by the IT Issues Panel. In 2012, all of our research activities touched on many aspects of the top IT issues list. In 2013, we continue to make sure our research reflects the issues that are most important to our members and IT practitioners. <
In case someone asks, the 2012 Top Ten IT Issues were: (bold = deep dive items)
Updating IT professionals’ skills and roles to accommodate emerging technologies and changing IT management and service delivery models
Supporting the trends toward IT consumerization and bring-your-own device
Developing an institution-wide cloud strategy
Improving the institution’s operational efficiency through information technology
Integrating information technology into institutional decision-making
Using analytics to support critical institutional outcomes
Funding information technology strategically
Transforming the institution’s business with information technology
Supporting the research mission through high-performance computing, large data, and analytics
Establishing and implementing IT governance throughout the institution

8. IT Issue: IT Consumerization and BYOD
“Faculty, staff, and students no longer need the IT organization as an intermediary in their adoption and application of the most commonly used technologies. They arrive with mature personal computing environments…”
One of the issues identified by the IT Issues Panel centers on IT consumerization and Bring Your Own Device. The IT Issues Panel noted: “While the technology landscape has never been more personal or easy to use, it is simultaneously increasingly complex to manage and support. Faculty, staff, and students no longer need the IT organization as an intermediary in their adoption and application of the most commonly used technologies. They arrive with mature personal computing environments that they have self-configured to meet their specific needs, preferences, and styles of work and recreation. Any college or university that maintains hard-and-fast rules about which devices and communication tools must (or may not) be used risks being irrelevant. Yet the institution’s data and intellectual property must be safeguarded, no matter where it is stored, transmitted, or accessed.” (EDUCAUSE Review, May/June 2012)
Within the 2012 research agenda, the consumerization and BYOD themes appear in a number of studies. <

9. Students and IT Study, 2012 Prolific and Diverse BYO Technology
The 2012 Study on Undergraduates and Information Technology was one such study.
This study involved a voluntary survey distributed to 195 institutions, and the study received 106,575 student responses.
The student study is a longitudinal study and is both popular and important because:
a) It monitors the ongoing evolution of undergrads’ relationship with technology.
b) It provides baseline and trending metrics to get at longitudinal trends and peer benchmarks.
c) It amplifies the student voice in shaping the learning environment in higher education by highlighting students’ preferences for and motivation to use technology.
One of the major themes in this year’s study was that “Students continue to bring their own technology, and the technology is both prolific and diverse.” A key finding in the study was that students want to access academic progress information and course material via their mobile devices, and that institutions increasingly deliver that level of mobility.
The highlighted recommendation from the 2012 Study of Undergraduates and IT is to prioritize the development of mobile-friendly resources and activities that students say are important. What students want is increased access to: (1) course websites and syllabi, (2) course and learning management systems, and (3) academic progress reports.

10. Students and IT Study, 2012 Extreme Mobility Still Supplemental
Time will tell if mobile devices are additive or will replace another technology, like laptops. Tablets are notably good consumption tools but still somewhat awkward tools for production.
So there were no surprises this year for device ownership:
86% of students own a laptop
And this figure is highest among younger students and students attending four-year colleges and universities
62% own smartphones
This is up from 55% in 2011.
But nearly twice as many in 2012 said they use smartphones for academic purposes (67% for 2012 and 37% for 2011).
In comparison, Pew says 46% of adults own a smartphone, but even that number is on the rise.
Only 15% of students own tablets, and 12% own e-readers. According to Pew, 19% of adults own these items.
The greatest ownership of tablets and e-readers is in non-north American countries.
There is a chasm between desktop ownership (which is 33%) and the percentage who say they use one (which is 56%) – suggesting that institutionally-provisioned desktops are still popular. One could speculate as to why this is.
Fast/reliable internet connection
Designated workspace
Specialty hardware/software access
Access free/low cost printing <
Use Device for Academics
e-reader 6%, Tablet 12%, Desktop Computer 56%, Smartphone 42%, Laptop 91%

11. Student Mobile Computing Practices: Lessons Learned from Qatar (2012) Qatar and U.S. Student differences
The study on student mobile computing practices in Qatar highlights the international role of EDUCAUSE in higher ed technology.
This report is based on 369 student survey responses and 26 focus-group participants from the mobile-device-heavy student population in Education City, Qatar.
Findings indicate that:
students are avid mobile device users and are open to expanding the ways in which they use them for academics;
students find mobile technology convenient and engaging; and
institutions need to invest in more and better mobile support.
Students are also eager to move forward with integrated mobile computing in their coursework and their campus life. The results of this study not only tell the story about technology adoption and perceptions for students in Qatar but may also be broadly applicable to institutions around the globe with burgeoning mobile proliferation.
ECAR partnered with Texas A&M at Qatar to study mobile technology among students enrolled in six of the ten educational institutions operating in Education City. Education City students are demographically younger, more often male, and more often from households that earn more than $50K USD annually.
When compared to the 2011 Student Study, the students in Education City trailed US students when it comes to mobile device ownership and usage of mobile devices for academics.

12. IT Issue: Using Analytics
"Accountability and, increasingly, the need to give students the information they require are driving the use of analytics in higher education.”
The use of analytics in higher education was another theme identified by the IT Issues Panel. The panel noted, "Accountability and, increasingly, the need to give students the information they require are driving the use of analytics in higher education. Institutions are under continued pressure from accreditors and public funding sources to demonstrate that student outcomes are improving and that institutions are being run efficiently. Students and parents are beginning to clamor for more direct and “real-time” feedback by gaining access to the data that institutions collect about student performance." (EDUCAUSE Review, May/June 2012)
EDUCAUSE studied the evolving roll of analytics in higher education IT in a number of reports and symposia in <

13. ANALYTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION (2012) WHEN I HEAR ANALYTICS, I THINK OF…
The report Analytics in Higher Education: Benefits, Barriers, Progress, and Recommendations assessed the current state of analytics in higher education, outlined the challenges and barriers to using analytics, and developed a maturity index to provide a common means of assessing progress in analytics. <

14. Analytics in Higher Education (2012) Analytics Is a Priority
Key Findings and recommendations included the following:
Analytics is widely viewed as important, but data use at most institutions is still limited to reporting.
Analytics programs are most successful when various constituents—IR, IT, functional leaders, and executives—work in partnership.
Where analytics is concerned, investment is the area in which higher education institutions are making the least progress.
Institutions should focus their investments on expertise, process, and policies before acquiring new tools or collecting additional data. <

15. Analytics in Higher Education (2012) ECAR Analytics Maturity Index
Institutions that have made more progress in the areas of Investment; Culture & Process; Data, Reporting, & Tools; Expertise; and Governance & Infrastructure are more likely to use data to make predictions or projections or to trigger action in a variety of areas.
The ECAR Analytics Maturity Index for Higher Education measures progress in analytics along six dimensions. The index was developed from: (a) a factor analysis of survey responses from the ECAR report on Analytics in Higher Education; (b) input from focus groups consisting of Information Technology and Institutional Research leaders; and (c) expert advisors to the analytics study.
To assess the progress of your own institution, take our short survey at this site. Progress along each dimension will be assessed with a score from 1 to 5, and a composite score representing the average of all six dimensions will also be provided. You will also be given feedback as to how your institution can take analytics to the next step.
You can also provide us with feedback as to what more you would like to see with these maturity indexes. We currently also have a maturity index on Research Computing and are developing one on E-Learning. We are planning on creating many more in the future, so feel free to give us an idea of what works and doesn’t work for you. <

16. 2013 PREVIEW-Analytics
Core Data Service Reporting Tool, Open Beta Launch (January 2013)
The big news on analytics for 2013 was the Core Data Service Reporting Tool Beta Launch. This tool provides institutions with practical analytics for benchmarking their own programs.
Core Data participants may use this tool to:
View data
Apply peer group slices
Compare data
Export data
<

17. IT Issue: Research Computing
“Ensuring adequate infrastructure for researchers is challenging higher education institutions, in terms of both physical and human resources, at a pace unseen before.”
The IT Issues Panel identified research computing as a top ten theme in The panel said "Ensuring adequate infrastructure for researchers is challenging higher education institutions, in terms of both physical and human resources, at a pace unseen before. The amount of information being generated continues to grow at an incredible rate, in both big and small science. Network, storage, analytical, and visualization tools need to be implemented, supported, and grown at an unprecedented pace." (EDUCAUSE Review, May/June 2012) <

18. Research Computing, 2012 Contemporary Definition of Research Computing
Any service or infrastructure provided to faculty or research staff for the purpose of performing research at a higher education institution
Highly resource intensive; demanding of computing infrastructure, hardware, software, and personnel
The 2012 Research Computing Study used data from the Core Data Survey (CDS) as well as focus groups to answer four primary research objectives:
Provide a contemporary definition of research computing.
Explore the extent to which research computing is a competitive advantage for an institution.
Identify the current and optimal roles of IT in research computing support in both research-intensive and non-research-intensive institutions.
Develop a maturity index of research computing practices.
As you all know, research computing is more than just “big computers.” “Research computing consists of the infrastructure, applications, expert staff, policies, and other resources required to support data-intensive activity related to research.”
Key findings from the study were:
1. Information technology’s primary research computing role is as an enabler of research.
2. Provision of specialized staff is just as important as the provision of hardware and software resources for research computing.
3. There is general dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of research computing practices and strategies.
4. The structure and organization of research computing support relates to the quality of research computing practices and services.
Key recommendations were:
1. IT departments should leverage the research computing services and infrastructure they provide to partner with researchers on grants.
2. IT should explore providing research computing services to other institutions for a fee.
3. Institutions of medium research intensity should consider spending more of their research computing dollars on additional staffing.
4. IT should be proactive in uncovering research computing needs and communicating which research computing services are available.

19. Research Computing, 2012 Research Intensity
One of the things we did in the Research Computing study was to compare institutions of different research intensity.
This figure shows, not surprisingly, that two year institutions are primarily low in research intensity. Doctoral institutions are primarily high in research intensity. These are the institutions that are spending the most research dollars for their size. More high-RI institutions are represented among private than public four-year institutions. Among master's institutions there is great disparity between public and private institutions in the percentage of low-RI institutions: low RI is more heavily represented in private master's institutions. Public institutions have more medium-level research intensity than do both four-year and master's private institutions.
Research intensity was assessed by comparing the ratio of research dollars to student FTE.
We learned that providing research computing services is very important, even among those institutions that are not considered research intensive. As one of our focus group members stated, “Institutions need to provide research computing resources if they want to be considered even a *player* in research.” <
Three categories of research intensity were derived.
Low, RI = $0
Medium, RI = up to $439 (per student FTE)
High, RI = above $439 (per student FTE)

20. Research Computing, 2012 Perceived Effectiveness
CDS respondents (Module 4) were asked to indicate the effectiveness of research computing strategies and practices. More than half of the respondents said that none of these strategies were in place. Of those who did employ one or more of these specific strategies, the majority stated that they were at least somewhat effective.
Effectiveness assessments differed significantly by research intensity level. Not surprisingly, high research intensity institutions generally rated each of these strategies/practices as more effective than medium or low RI institutions.
One of the study’s findings was that “Institutions that want to advance their research should develop a research computing strategy that includes an investment-based funding approach as well as integrated services and infrastructure.”
In addition, don’t forget about the Research Computing Maturity Index previously mentioned. That can help you benchmark your institution’s progress on research computing initiatives.

21. Core Data Service Almanacs, 2012 Summary Data on Research Computing
This snapshot is from the Doctoral Institutions 2012 CDS Almanac. The point of this slide is to show you that this type of information on research computing is included in the 2012 almanacs. If you want further information or other slices of the data to compare your institution with your peers, you can just consult these almanacs.
CDS Almanacs are two-page, easy-to-scan summaries that distill CDS data in a variety of categories that include IT Financing, IT Staffing, Support Services, and many other service areas.

22. Theme: Improving Student Success
“We are doing a lot of studying, research, and soul-searching about how to deal with the problem of helping the high school student perform better and allowing the student to succeed.” Roger Flahive, CIO, County College of Morris
In addition to the Top Ten IT Issues offered in 2012, the EDUCAUSE IT ISSUES Panel also presented a number of themes that are strategically important to the success of higher education institutions. One of these themes was “Using IT to support the institution’s teaching mission.”
A focus on the student experience and how that experience is impacted or influenced by higher education information technology offerings was explored in a number of venues in the 2012 research agenda. <

23. Community Colleges, 2012 Students Prefer Online Learning Options
Preferred Learning
Environment
No online components
Some online components
Completely online
Institution Offers
Entirely Online Courses
Yes No
Students Have Taken
an Online Course
IT departments at community colleges provide services to more than 13 million students annually. Community colleges are distinguished from other types of higher education institutions by their institutional missions, the populations they serve, and the degrees and certifications they confer. However, as institutions of teaching and learning, they have congruent responsibilities with all higher education institutions to provide the technological infrastructure, support, and services that students, faculty, and staff need to be successful in their respective roles. ECAR engaged in a research project about IT services in community colleges to identify the strengths, opportunities, and challenges of community college IT.
The report on IT Services in Community Colleges is the product of a secondary analysis of the EDUCAUSE 2011 Core Data Service survey and the 2011 ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. Data from these sources were utilized to assess the current status of six IT service areas at community colleges.
Key Findings were that:
IT support of teaching and learning is a particular strength of community colleges.
IT resource allocation and IT management practices are similar to those of other types of institutions.
IT governance and IT sustainability practices are opportunity areas for community colleges.
Managing IT risk poses a challenge to community colleges.
This slide shows that:
Students prefer online learning options and Community colleges deliver.
Community college students are particularly underrepresented when it comes to owning a mobile computing device—83% of community college students own one, as compared to 95% of non-community college students. This difference persists for all age categories and is true for students from households earning less than $100,000 per year. With the industry push of mainstream mobile technologies into the teaching and learning paradigm, as well as to utilize these devices for information and transactional purposes, community college students may find themselves disadvantaged in this arena.
Only 10% of CCs have a student computer policy; 49% of other institutions have a student computer policy requiring students to own or lease a computer. <
2011 SS – Q18, 18c, 18d – online learning

24. CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY, 2012 COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Half of institutions preload their CMS with basic content. Those that do report significantly more student satisfaction with the CMS.
The CDS Spotlight on Classroom Technology is now public on the ECAR site.
One of the key findings in this research bulletin was that nearly all institutions have a Course Management System (CMS), and half of institutions preload their CMS with basic content. Those that do that report significantly more student satisfaction with the CMS. Those that preload content also report significantly more faculty using the CMS.
The most substantial change in the technology face of classrooms since last year is in the use of mobile apps. There has been a 20% increase in use of mobile apps in 2012 compared to 2011.
That increase in mobile app usage mirrors findings from some of our other studies, including the student study. <

25. Core Data Service Almanacs, 2012 Summary Data on Learning Technologies
This is another example of information you can get from the CDS Almanacs. This snapshot is from the Master’s Institution 2012 CDS Almanac—another resource that provides data that is relevant to the theme “improving student success.” Again, data from the almanacs can be used to gauge an institution’s relative stance with regard to peers of the same Carnegie class.

26. Theme: Managing the IT Organization
“Institutional decision-making that accounts for information technology will benefit by examining total cost of ownership, switching costs, user-support needs, system requirements, market forces and trends, and IT skill and expertise capacity.” Ann Kovalchick, CIO, Drake University
“Managing the IT Organization” wasn’t directly on the IT issues list, but it was a theme that was on the mind of the IT issues panel as one that is strategically important to the success of higher education institutions. You could say that managing the IT organization is a thread that runs through nearly all ECAR research reports, but we focused on this issue intensively in the following studies. <

27. MEASURING USER SATISFACTION, 2012 USE OF SURVEYS TO MEASURE SATISFACTION
As institutions look to reduce or contain costs, CIOs, institutional leaders, and service managers are challenged to optimize service delivery based on costs, features, and quality. Evaluating service quality requires understanding users and their satisfaction with service delivery. The ECAR report on Measuring User Satisfaction synthesized data from the EDUCAUSE 2011 Core Data Service (CDS) and three focus groups of IT professionals to better understand how and why institutions are gathering satisfaction data.
What we found was:
Institutional leaders, CIOs, and service managers are focused on service delivery. Understanding the user perspective is instrumental in making good decisions about service sourcing, investments, and life cycles.
To best provide IT services that meet user needs, institutions should follow a formal feedback-gathering process that collects actionable data on a regular basis, uses those data to inform decision making, and closes the loop by reporting results and decisions to respondents and to the wider community.
Institutions are gathering satisfaction data in three main ways: homegrown surveys, professional standardized surveys, and professionally customized surveys.
A majority of institutions create separate surveys for different IT services—such as help desk, wireless connectivity, or —and in many cases the survey questions are very similar. This duplication of effort presents an opportunity for collaboration.
The slide shows that homegrown surveys are the most popular method for collecting satisfaction data (employed at 65% of institutions). These surveys are developed by IT staff and are most often used specifically for annual planning of IT initiatives. These surveys are popular because they offer the ability to customize questions to include specific campus terminology.
A quarter of institutions use professional standardized surveys (e.g., TechQual+ or MISO surveys) which include benchmarking capabilities but have limited flexibility in terms of customization.
Very few institutions use professionally customized surveys to measure user satisfaction. <

28. Key Findings Almost every university delivers six core applications.
LMS/CMS applications are the most homogenous.
Open-source options are more widespread in LMS/CMS than in other application areas.
Grants-management solutions—both for pre-award and for post-award application—are the most commonly homegrown tools among the application areas in our study.
The 2011 Enterprise Application Market in Higher Education report explored the enterprise application landscape in higher education. From that report, we learned which types of applications are more or less widespread, which solutions are most common, when open source is most customary, and the frequency of outsourcing in application management. <
Key Findings
Almost every institution (more than 95%) delivers a set of six core applications: student information, HR/payroll, finance, (for faculty and staff and for students), learning management, and IT help desk trouble ticketing. <
Learning/course management systems is the most homogeneous application area, with 94% of institutions using one of only five solution providers. <
Open-source options are more widespread in learning/course management systems than in other application areas. <
Grants-management solutions—both for pre-award and for post-award application—are the most commonly homegrown tools among the application areas in our study. <
One interesting tidbit from study is that HR/payroll systems are one of the set of six core applications.
98% of institutions report using this type of application.
The percentage of the market owned by the top 5 providers is 79% (Sungard Banner, Oracle PeopleSoft, Datatel Colleague HR, Homegrown, ADP Payforce/HRMS/eTime/PC/Payroll/Other).

29. Core Data Service Almanacs, 2012 Summary Data on IT Organizations
The picture is from the Master’s Institution 2012 CDS Almanac. Here we see total central IT spending sliced a number of ways: as a percentage of total budget, per employee, per FTE. We also see the average annual student technology fee for master’s institutions. Again, the CDS almanac data can help you compare your institution within its Carnegie class with regard to a number of aspects of managing your IT organization.

30. 2013 Full Research Agenda
Study: ERP cost drivers (in collaboration with CAUDIT) (January 2013)
Study: IT Consumerization/BYOD (March 2013)
Study: Cost of IT (April 2013)
Study: E-Learning (June 2013)
Study: Mobile IT (August 2013)
Study: Student Technology Use (September 2013)
Study: IT Workforce (November 2013)
2013 Core Data Service spotlights, almanacs, and reports
Research Bulletins
Gartner IT Reports (Quarterly)
This is a preview of the complete 2013 Research Agenda. <
Study: ERP cost drivers (in collaboration with CAUDIT) (January 2013) <
Study: IT Consumerization/BYOD (February-March 2013) <
Study: Cost of IT (April 2013) <
Study: E-Learning (May/June 2013) <
Study: Update on mobile IT (August 2013) <
Study: Student Technology Use (September 2013) <
Study: IT Workforce issues (November 2013) <

31. ECAR Subscriptions Become a new subscriber to ECAR.
You can become an ECAR subscriber. Just go to this website, and you can access information on becoming a subscriber and see more details from our past studies.
©2012 EDUCAUSE

32. EDUCAUSE Needs You!
We encourage submissions and proposals from the doers, strategic thinkers, and innovators involved in higher education information technology.
Share your research findings in an ECAR Research Bulletin.
Write for EDUCAUSE Review Online.
Contribute to an ECAR case study.
Contribute to an ELI case study.
We encourage submissions and proposals from the doers, strategic thinkers, and innovators involved in higher education information technology—like you! There are many ways to contribute:
Share your research findings in an ECAR Research Bulletin
Write for EDUCAUSE Review Online
Participate in ECAR/ELI case studies

33. THANK YOU. Jacqueline Bichsel jbichsel@educause. edu http://www