Research and Educational Technology Committee
9:00 – 10:15 a.m., October 16, 2014, FAC 228D
I. 9:00-9:30 Priorities for 2014-2015 – Discussion (Brad Englert)
II. 9:30 – 10:00 The Technology Enhanced Classroom – Discussion (Gloria Quesada, Emily
Cicchini, Ken Tothero)
III. 10:00 – 10:15 Member Business – Discussion
2013-2014 Governance Priorities and ITS Capital Budget – Update
Summary Status of IT Governance Priorities – FY 2013-2014
Summary Status of IT Governance Priorities – FY 2013-2014
Complete
X
Initiate Administrative Systems Replacement
Update the Educational Technologies Roadmap
X
Create a Research Data Preservation Strategy
X
Create System Standards
X
Design and Begin to Implement IT Shared Services
X
In Progress
Create a Building Security System Replacement Strategy
(Funding Strategy Complete)
Create a Cloud Computing Strategy
X
Begin to Develop Learning Analytics
X
VoIP Deployment (Ongoing)
X
X
ITS Capital Budget in Support of Governance Priorities – FY 2013-2014
Project
Mobile Strategy Implementation
– Web Infrastructure (hardware,
software, consultant)
VoIP Continued Deployment
Identity Management Strategy
Implementation
Design New Administrative
Systems Technical Environment
TOTAL
1
Estimated Budget
$1,250,000
$1,500,000$1,700,000
$1,400,000$1,600,000
$300,000
$4,450,000$4,850,000
Expenditures
Notes
$1,000,000 $250,000
allocated in FY
12-13
$1,100,000
$30,000 $1.4-1.6
million in FY
14-15
To Be Part of
Determined Administrative
Systems
Master
Program
$2,130,000
Information Technology Governance Priorities and ITS Capital Budget 2013-2014
ITS Capital Budget in Support of IT Operations – FY 2013-2014
Project
Network Upgrades
(e.g. TACC – 100 gbps)
Information Security
Enhancements
Virtual Machine Expansion
Office 365 Migration
TOTAL
2
Estimated Budget
$550,000
Expenditures
$545,000
$415,000
$310,000
$250,000
$800,000
$2,015,000
$150,000
$1,002,000
$2,007,000
Information Technology Governance Priorities and ITS Capital Budget 2013-2014
Notes
2014-2015 Governance Priorities and Estimated Budget – Discussion
Summary Status of IT Governance Priorities – FY 2014-2015
Summary of IT Governance Priorities – FY 2014-2015
Oversee the Administrative Systems Modernization Program
Develop Learning Data Analytics
Participate in Technology Enhanced Education Governance
Create a Digital Asset Management Strategy
Complete VoIP Deployment
Create a Building Security System Replacement Strategy
Create a Cloud Computing Strategy
Retire Under-utilized ITS Services
Build Systems Management Infrastructure
Establish a Direction for Infrastructure as a Service
Create TSC Certification Plan
ITS Capital Budget in Support of Governance Priorities – FY 2014-2015
Project
Complete VoIP
Identity Management
Rebuild Core Webpages
TOTAL
Estimated Budget
$1,000,000
$1,400,000 - $1,700,000
Notes
TO BE DETERMINED
ITS Capital Budget in Support of IT Operations – FY 2014-2015
Project
Network Upgrades
Information Security
Enhancements
UT Back-up (CrashPlan Renewal)
TOTAL
1
Estimated Budget
TO BE DETERMINED
2014-2015 Governance Priorities and Estimated Budget
Notes
STUDENTS
TECHNOLOGY
AND
2013
Students value the ways in which technology helps
them achieve their academic goals and prepares them
for their future academic and workplace activities.
achieve my academic outcomes (76%)
Technology helps me
prepare for future educational plans (76%)
prepare for the workplace (61%)
of students said most/all of
their instructors...
⅔
E-BOOK USE IN COURSES
...have adequate technical skills
Did not use
...use technology e ectively
26%
35%
Used in one
OPEN EDUCATIONAL
RESOURCES
17%
Used in half
or more
22%
71%
54%
of students use open
educational resources
Used in a few
of students say...
feel they are very or
extremely important
½
...e-books are important to their
academic success
...wish their instructors would
use them more
BLENDED LEARNING
Students prefer blended learning environments
while beginning to experiment with MOOCs.
77%
65%
63%
50%
38%
of students said they took any online
46% course in the past year
34%
Few students said they took a
MOOC in the past year
U.S.
Canada
No
Other
countries
Yes
3%
97%
U.S.
Students taking about half or
more of their classes as blended
learning
96%
4%
Canada
6%
95%
Students who say they prefer
blended learning classes
Other countries
Students are poised to use their mobile devices more,
and look to institutions and instructors for opportunities
and encouragement to do so.
DEVICE OWNERSHIP
+3%
89%
Laptop
(percentage-point
change since 2012)
+14%
+10%
+15%
Smartphone
16%
31%
43%
76%
+4%
Desktop computer
Tablet
E-reader
STUDENTS' IN-CLASS BYOD EXPERIENCES
Top 5 in-class uses
for smartphones:
1 To look up information
Banned/
Discouraged
Encouraged/
Required
74%
3%
2 To photograph information
Smartphone
3 To access digital resources
30%
15%
Tablet
4 To record my instructors
19%
5 To participate in activities
26%
Laptop
58%
of students own three or more
Internet-capable devices
Students value their privacy, and using technology
to connect with them has its limits.
the institution (64%)
Technology makes me feel more connected to
professors (60%)
other students (53%)
Early Alert and Resource Recommendations
60%
11%
of students prefer to keep
their academic and social
lives separate.
Keeping academic and social
lives separate is more important
to older students than younger
students.
89%
Not
interested
Moderately
interested
Very
interested
76%
24%
Guidance about Course O erings
The data in this infographic come from the ECAR report
ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013.
To view the full report, visit:
educause.edu/ecar-student-2013
EDUCAUSE CENTER FOR ANA LYSIS AND RESEARCH
ECAR Research in the Academic Communities
Faculty Technology Study 2014 and Student Technology Study 2014
Research Prospectus
I.
Project Overview
Technology is a critical part of the teaching and learning mission as well as the research mission of higher
education. In 2014, ECAR is conducting two studies about technology expectations and experiences in
higher education. Our 2014 work includes the eleventh iteration of our exploration of undergraduate
students’ technology experiences and our first survey of faculty technology. Both surveys ask
respondents to share their current technology experiences, needs, and expectations about technology
and technology issues at their campus. The results of these studies will be combined, when possible, to
provide a two-sided view of these stakeholders’ technology experiences. Institutions can participate in
one or both studies. There is no fee to participate.
The Student Study explores technology ownership, use patterns, and expectations as
they relate to the student experience. The results of this study can be used to improve IT
services, increase technology-enabled productivity, prioritize strategic contributions of
information technology to higher education, plan for technology shifts that impact students, and
become more technologically competitive among peer institutions.
The Faculty Study explores technology ownership, use patterns, and expectations as
they relate to the faculty role. The results of this study can be used 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.
Specific institution-based results and comparative (anonymous) peer benchmarks will be shared with
participating institutions, and ECAR will create a public report using the results of one or both studies.
These studies are in line with the EDUCAUSE focus on investing substantial effort and resources in
improving the relevance, quality, and breadth of its research.
©2014 EDUCAUSE. Reproduction by permission only.
Research Objectives
The purpose of EDUCAUSE research in the academic community is to understand the technology,
experiences, needs, and expectations of academic community members and stakeholders for the
purpose of helping higher education IT professionals and decision-makers fulfill the following jobs to be
done:
1. Improve information technology services
2. Increase technology-enabled productivity
3. Prioritize strategic contributions of information technology to higher education
4. Plan for technology shifts among the various constituencies of the academic community
5. Become more technologically competitive among their peer institutions or ideal benchmarks
In order to attain these objectives, survey contents focus primarily on the measures and dimensions in
the following rubric:
Measures
Dimensional Categories
Extent of Ownership,
Use, or Activity
User Satisfaction
or Importance Ratings
Needs Assessment
or Expectations
Devices
Services
Applications
Websites
Activities
Connections/Engagement
Resources/Tools
Outcomes
The scope of the work includes surveying undergraduate students and/or faculty in spring 2014. ECAR is
continuing an internal discussion about reengineering these types of surveys with other populations in
mind (i.e., college aspirants, graduate students, alumni, staff, leaders, etc.) for possible spinoff surveys
to tell a broader story about the status and efficacy of technology in higher education.
2
II.
Research Methodology
These studies consist of a web-based quantitative survey of undergraduate students and/or faculty from
different types of higher education institutions. Data will be gathered from individual institutions that
volunteer to participate in this work. EDUCAUSE will provide a single survey instrument for each
population (undergraduates and faculty) to all participating institutions with questions that align with
the studies’ research objectives. Each institution will administer the survey(s) to faculty (any individual
with a faculty-member designation or whose job duties are primarily instructional, including teaching,
clinical, and research faculty; full-time and part-time faculty; tenured, tenure-track, associate, assistant,
and other faculty) at their institution between January and March 2014 and/or to undergraduate
students enrolled at their institution between February and April 2014. The data will be collected in a
secure, cloud-based repository that is only available to authorized ECAR researchers. ECAR will provide
background materials needed by institutions to initiate IRB approvals or exemptions, a link to the online
survey, recommendations and consultancy about sampling methodology, and recommended text to
send to students inviting (and subsequently reminding them) to participate.
General Timeline
●
Mid-November: Resource materials and the “intent to participate” form posted online
(https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1441726/ECAR-Research-in-the-Academic-Communities).
●
Mid-November 2013 through January 2014: Survey invitation window open for participation in
the 2014 studies (formal invitations sent to ECAR contacts)
●
Mid-January through Mid-March 2014: Data-collection window for the faculty study
●
Mid-February through Mid-April 2014: Data-collection window for the student study
●
Early June 2014: Institution-specific data files sent to participating institutions
●
Early August 2014 through Mid-September 2014: Public reports released
Participants will not receive any compensation for participating in the survey but can opt-in to an
opportunity drawing to receive a gift certificate. Survey participants will not be contacted directly by
EDUCAUSE, and the purpose of the drawing is to provide incentive to complete the survey.
III.
●
●
●
●
●
●
Form Factors/Deliverables
Research hub
Reports by population surveyed
Derived/combined reports by topic
Survey instruments
Slide decks
Infographics
For participating institutions:
In addition to having access to the materials outlined above, participating institutions will receive:
●
Raw data files of de-identified (anonymous) student responses
●
Aggregated summative data and comparative benchmarking data from (anonymized) peer
institutions to each participating institution
3
IV.
Partners/Collaborators
Principal Investigator:
Eden Dahlstrom, Director of Research, EDUCAUSE, edahlstrom@educause.edu
Subject-Matter Experts:
●
Malcolm Brown, Director, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, EDUCAUSE, mbrown@educause.edu
●
Christa Copp, Director of Academic Technology, Loyola Marymount University,
crista.copp@lmu.edu
●
Veronica Diaz, Associate Director, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, EDUCAUSE,
vdiaz@educause.edu
●
Kyle Dickson, Learning Studio Director, Abilene Christian University, dicksonk@acu.edu
●
Charles Dziuban, Director, Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Central
Florida, charles.dziuban@ucf.edu
●
Glenda Morgan, E-Learning Strategist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
glenda.morgan@gmail.com
●
Sandy Schaeffer, Director of Advanced Learning Center, University of Memphis,
sschaffr@memphis.edu
●
Craig Stewart, Associate Dean for Research Technologies, Indiana University–Bloomington,
stewart@iu.edu
●
Kristen Vogt, Knowledge Management Officer, NGLC, EDUCAUSE, kvogt@educause.edu
●
JD Walker, Research Associate, University of Minnesota, jdwalker@umn.edu
V.
Subject Consent
By responding to the survey, students/faculty will be giving their consent to participate (see project
website for full details about informed consent: http://www.educause.edu/student-study). Individuals
under the age of 18 will not be permitted to participate. Data are collected only via the survey.
Responses to the survey questions will be anonymous. Participating institutions will receive their
participants’ responses (de-identified without any confidential data).
4
ECAR Research in the Academic Communities
Faculty Technology Study 2014
and
Student Technology Study 2014
Participation Checklist
PLAN:
Faculty study: 9/20/2013–1/31/2014
Student study: 9/20/2013–1/31/2014
Declare your institution’s intent to participate in one or both 2014 ECAR technology surveys in
the academic communities by completing the online “Intent to Participate Form” on the
participation page.
ECAR contacts the designated survey administrator(s) indicated in the “Intent to
Participate Form” with instructions about the next steps.
ECAR verifies institution’s opt-in/opt-out status for the EDUCAUSE-hosted survey
incentive program and preferences for peer benchmark grouping.
Faculty study: 11/13/2013–2/28/2014
Student study: 11/23/2013–3/28/2014
Survey administrator(s) submit institutional sampling plan and approval to participate.
ECAR will send survey administrator(s) an e-mail during the first week of each month
leading up to the survey, confirming documentation and participation status.
ECAR will send survey administrator(s) the survey links only after an institution submits
requisite documentation to participate.
Faculty study: by 1/24/2014
Student study: by 1/31/2014
Survey administrator(s) finalize local survey implementation logistics.
Survey administrator(s) decide on local survey launch and close dates. Institutions can
invite their faculty and/or their students to participate in the survey for the entire
survey period or a portion of the survey window (see implementation section).
Survey administrator(s) draft invitation to participate message and text for anticipated
follow up e-mail(s).
Survey administrator(s) prepare e-mail list, LMS posting plan, or social media marketing
campaign that includes potential respondents who fit the institutional sampling plan
profile.
IMPLEMENT:
Faculty study: 1/31/2014–3/14/2014
Student study: 2/10/2014–4/11/2014
Survey administrator(s) invite/recruit survey participants during active survey window(s).
Survey administrator(s) send out invitations to participate in the survey(s); with survey
link(s) included in the message.
Survey administrator(s) send out reminders to participate in the survey(s).
Faculty study: 2/2/2014–3/14/2014
Student study: 2/21/2014–4/11/2014
ECAR sends preliminary response counts and response rates to survey administrator(s) every
two weeks to inform survey reminder strategies.
Survey administrator(s) send reminder(s) to their sample of faculty/students during
their “survey open” window.
SHARE:
Faculty study: by 5/1/2014
Student study: by 7/1/2014
ECAR sends survey administrator(s) institutional data files.
Faculty study: 5/1/2014–4/30/2015
Student study: 7/1/2014–6/30/2015
Survey administrator(s) use the results to inform policy and practice at their institution.
Faculty study: by 8/1/2014
ECAR publishes study reports and related materials.
Student study: by 10/1/2014
Faculty study: by 10/3/2014
Student study: by 10/3/2014
ECAR presents findings at the EDUCAUSE Annual Conference in Orlando.
2
ECAR Technology Research in the Academic Communities
201L Timeline
•
s
1"0
0
- Faculty Study
- Student Study
•
4
Declare your institution's
intent to participate
•
.
.
Survey admanastrator
subm1ts anst1l Ut1ona1
samphng plan
0
N
•
•
N
Survey admani strator
f1nalizes local survey
1mplementat1on log1st1CS
D
•
•l
--- -t• --- fil--------- Survey administrator fnvites/recruats
0
survey partac1pants during active
j
survey window($)
0
F
ECAR sands response counts and
response rates to survey adm1nis·
trator every two weeks to inform
survey reminder strateg1cs
M
A
• • •
M
"'"
0
0
ECAR sends survey
adm•nistrator insti·
tut1onaldata files
J
N
. .
j
0
A
s
N
...,
ECAR publishes study reports
and related materials
••
ECAR presents findings
at the EDUCAUSE Annual
Conference
0
0
0
0
•
•
Survey administrator uses the results
to inform policy and pract1cc at thclf
•nst•tutaon
D
Beyond
EDUCAUSE CENTER FOR ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH
3