1. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Student technology use and skill: convenience, communication, and control January 24, 2005 NLII New Orleans, LA Robert B. Kvavik University of Minnesota ECAR Senior Fellow Copyright Robert B. Kvavik, 2004. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author. Student technology use and skill: convenience, communication, and control January 24, 2005 NLII New Orleans, LA Robert B. Kvavik University of Minnesota ECAR Senior Fellow Copyright Robert B. Kvavik, 2004. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

2. Page 2 ECAR Publication Judy B. Caruso, University of Wisconsin-Madison and ECAR Fellow Robert B. Kvavik, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and ECAR Senior Fellow Glenda Morgan, California State University System ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control

3. Page 3 Hypotheses  Students are demanding greater use of technology in teaching and learning  It is increasingly necessary for faculty to use technology to appeal to students  Students already possess good skills with IT  Students gained these skills outside of the classroom  Little further IT training of students is necessary

4. Page 4 Methodology Literature review Review of other higher education IT surveys Review and comparison with ECAR Faculty Use of Course Management Systems study Quantitative survey of 9,350 freshmen/9,050 seniors - 13 institutions Qualitative interviews with 132 students and 23 administrators

5. Page 5 Sample size - Senior 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error

6. Page 6 Sample size - Freshman

7. Page 7 Characteristics of sample 38.8% are male; 61.2% female 95% are 25 years or younger 95% are full-time students; 5% are part-time 44.9 % live on campus; 55.1% do not 66% have a B or better GPA 81% are white, not of Hispanic origin 4.4% are from BA institutions; 52.3% from MA institutions; 43.3% from doctoral institutions

8. Page 8 Hardware Ownership – Male/Female Technology Owned All Male Female Personal Desktop62.8% 69.5% 58.8% Laptop46.8% 46.8% 46.6% PDA11.9% 17.8% 8.2% Smart Phone 1.1% 1.9%.6% Cell Phone82.0% 77.7% 84.7% 93.4% of all students own a computer 81.5% have access to broadband PDAs and smart phones haven’t penetrated the student market

9. Page 9 Hardware Ownership – Senior/Freshman Technology OwnedAll SeniorFreshman Personal Desktop62.8% 70.7%57.1% Laptop46.8% 38.5%52.7% PDA11.9% 15.1% 9.6% Smart Phone 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Cell Phone82.0% 81.7%82.3% Students are now buying more laptops Laptop purchases are higher for freshmen for on- campus mobility

10. Page 10 IT Applications Used (1) ApplicationTotalSeniors Freshmen Writing documents99.5%99.4%99.6% Email99.5%99.6%99.5% Surfing Internet for pleasure97.2%97.2%97.1% Classroom activities/studying96.4%96.4%96.3% Using library resource83.6%86.9%81.7% Chatting with instant messenger83.0%71.2%91.3% Downloading/listening music/video80.9%72.3%87.1% Using course management system75.8%73.5%77.4% Students primarily use IT for communication and classroom activities

11. Page 11 IT Applications Used (cont.) ApplicationTotalSeniors Freshmen Online shopping70.0%77.4%64.8% Playing computer games69.6%62.3%74.8% Spreadsheets64.9%75.1%57.6% Creating presentations (PowerPoint)57.1%68.8%48.8% Using technology at employment47.5%62.3%36.9% Creating graphics (Photoshop,etc.)46.7%47.3%46.3% Creating web pages21.7%23.8%19.6% Creating video/audio21.2%18.1%22.6% Next, students use IT for personal uses; last for specialized applications

12. Page 12 IT Applications & hours/week used (1) Activities NMeanStd. Deviation Classroom activities/studying 43674.011.241 Writing documents 43523.76.955 Surfing Internet for pleasure 43593.471.213 Email 43593.47.979 Chatting with instant messenger 43473.451.620 Using technology at employment 33373.312.306 Downloading/listening to music/video 43363.151.563 Using course management system 43442.481.152 Mean: 5=6-10 hours/week; 4=3-5 hours/week; 3=1-2 hours/week; 2=<1 hour/week; 1=do not use Classroom & communication activities predominate when looking at hours

13. Page 13 IT Applications & hours/week used (cont.) ActivitiesNMeanStd. Deviation Using library resources43492.461.010 Playing computer games43372.391.312 Spreadsheets43422.071.060 On-line shopping43352.06.960 Creating presentations (PowerPoint)43421.82.896 Creating graphics (Photoshop, etc.)43351.791.077 Creating web pages43151.39.898 Creating video/audio43381.34.793 Mean: 5=6-10 hours/week; 4=3-5 hours/week; 3=1-2 hours/week; 2=<1 hour/week; 1=do not use Students spend very little time – less than 1 hour/week on specialized apps

14. Page 14 Explanation for application usage (1 ) Application/hours spentStrongest factor Factor two Classroom activities/studying Senior Major (engr) Writing documents Institution Gender (female) Surfing Internet for pleasure Gender (male) Institution Email Senior Gender (female) Instant Messenger Age (youngest) On-campus Using technology at employment Senior Full-time Downloading/listening to music Age (youngest) Gender (male) Course management system Major (business) Institution Communications – age, gender make a difference. For CMS, curriculum matters

15. Page 15 Explanation for application usage (cont.) Application/hours spentStrongest factor Factor two Using library resourceSenior Major (life/soc. sci.) Playing computer gamesGender (male) On-campus SpreadsheetsAge (oldest) Major (engr, bus) On-line shoppingNo factor No factor Creating presentations Age (oldest) Major (engr, bus) Creating graphicsMajor (fine arts) Gender (female) Creating web pagesGender (male) Major (soc. sci.) Creating video/audioGender (female) Major (fine arts) For specialized applications such as creating graphics and web pages, the curriculum matters.

16. Page 16 Level of skills attained (1) Application/skill levelMeanStd. Deviation Email3.60.525 Instant messenger3.54.652 Word processing3.53.553 Web surfing3.47.578 Presentation software (PowerPoint)2.90.762 4= very skilled; 3= skilled; 2= unskilled; 1= very unskilled Students overestimate their skills but they were cognizant of their lack of skills in more specialized applications

17. Page 17 Level of skills attained (cont.) Application/skill levelMeanStd. Deviation Online library resources2.88.687 Spreadsheets2.86.763 Course management system2.83.744 Graphics (Photoshop, etc.)2.45.846 Creating web pages2.17.910 Creating/editing video/audio2.07.848 4= very skilled; 3= skilled; 2= unskilled; 1= very unskilled Note that students give themselves a mean of 2.83 on CMS – somewhere between unskilled and skilled.

18. Page 18 Explanation for level of skills attained (1) Application/factorStrongest factorFactor 2 EmailNo factorNo factor Instant messengerAge (youngest) Institution Word processingSenior Major (Humanities) Web surfingGender (male) Age (youngest) Presentation softwareSenior Major (engr, bus) All students report similar skills with email. The curriculum and class make a difference in spreadsheet and PowerPoint skills.

19. Page 19 Explanation for level of skills attained (cont.) Application/factorStrongest factorFactor 2 Online library resourcesSenior Major (social science) SpreadsheetsSenior Major (business) Course management systemInstitution Major (business) GraphicsGender (male) Major (fine arts) Creating web pagesGender (male) Major (life sciences) On more specialized applications – curriculum matters even more

20. Page 20 Student preferences for technology in the classroom Students preference for technology was not as high as we expected. Instead it’s closer to a normal bell curve. One explanation may be how well and consistently the technology is being used by the faculty.

21. Page 21 Preference for technology in the classroom by major DisciplineNo LimitedExtensive technologytechnologytechnology Engineering4.8%24.4%67.8% Business1.3%28.2%64.3% Life sciences4.8%35.3%56.3% Physical sciences5.7%40.9%51.8% Social sciences7.9%44.4%44.2% Education3.5%47.9%42.9% Humanities7.7%47.9%40.2% Fine Arts9.0%46.9%39.3% The more students use technology (like in the engineering and business major), the more they prefer it.

22. Page 22 Perceived benefits of IT in the classroom BenefitNumber Percent Convenience2,12348.5% Helped me manage class activities 72416.6% Saved me time 70516.1% Improved my learning 55712.7% No benefits 160 3.7% Other 87 2.0% Total4,35699.6% Today’s benefits are about convenience and control.

23. Page 23 Student experience with Course Management Systems (CMS) 76.1% of students have positive experiences using CMS and 83% have taken a class using CMS

24. Page 24 CMS Features Used Note that the features most used are convenience and management features. This was also true of faculty.

25. Page 25 CMS features that students perceived improved learning and class management Features used Learning Rank Management Rank Sharing materials with students 52.8% 1 30.8% 6 Track grades 47.9% 2 80.3% 1 Faculty feedback on assignments 42.3% 3 27.0% 8 Sample exams online 42.0% 4 38.4% 4 Online readings 37.8% 5 42.0% 3 Turn in assignments 35.9% 6 34.6% 5 Syllabus 27.3% 7 28.6% 7 Online quizzes 26.8% 8 54.0% 2 Online discussions 22.5% 9 17.5% 9 Grading feature is highly valued by students and interactive features are perceived to improve learning. But interactive features are much less used by faculty.

26. Page 26 Trends Mining and analysis of student course activity data leading to programs and effective practices. Continued proliferation of networked scholarly information. Exploration and integration of new capabilities and practices from the video gaming, virtual reality, simulation, and modeling arenas.

27. Page 27 Trends Increasing student and faculty information literacy. Ongoing improvement in the quality and usability of course delivery systems. Greater emphasis by institutions on instructional planning.

28. Page 28 Summary (1) 93.4% of student respondents own a computer 81% of students have access to broadband Students primarily use their computers for education, followed by communication Academic usage is strongly related to student major and class standing (senior vs. freshman) Students rate themselves as highly skilled in communication, word processing, and Internet use

29. Page 29 Summary (cont.) Students prefer a moderate amount of technology in the classroom IT in the classroom is perceived as greatly impacting communication between students and the instructor The primary benefit of IT use in the classroom is for convenience. Only 12.7% of the students reported that the most valuable benefit was improved learning. Some barriers to IT use in the classroom were identified with the highest being “feels like extra work” (16.7%)

30. Page 30 Summary (cont.) 83% of the students have used a CMS 76.1% of the students had a positive or very positive experience with a CMS CMS features most used were syllabus (95%), online reading (94.7%) and tracking grades (89.4%) CMS features that students said most improved learning were the least used by faculty (“share materials with other students” and “faculty feedback on assignments”)

31. Page 31 Questions and comments Kvavik@umn.edu