EDUCAUSE
Data, Research & Analytics
Leah Lang, EDUCAUSE
CSG
January 2012
©2012 EDUCAUSE
1
EDUCAUSE DRA Staff
Susan Grajek
VP for Data, Research,
and Analytics
Eden Dahlstrom
Senior Research Analyst
Leah Lang
IT Metrics and
Benchmarking Specialist
Toby Sitko
Managing Director for
Research
Pam Arroway
Senior Statistician
• Data Visualization Specialist
• Senior Research Analyst
• Managing Director for Analytics
©2012 EDUCAUSE
2
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
Core
Data
Service
IT Issues
Panel
©2012 EDUCAUSE
3
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
Core
Data
Service
IT Issues
Panel
©2012 EDUCAUSE
4
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.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
5
2011 Major Research Studies
©2012 EDUCAUSE
6
ECAR 2012 Research Agenda
 2012 ECAR study of students and information
technology
 Cross-institutional collaborations and shared services
 Analytics readiness and needs assessment
 Service catalogs
 Benchmarking user satisfaction
 Research computing: key performance indicators and
maturity index
©2012 EDUCAUSE
7
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
Core
Data
Service
IT Issues
Panel
©2012 EDUCAUSE
8
IT Issues Panel
Established in September, 2011 to provide
quick feedback to EDUCAUSE
on current issues, problems, and
proposals across higher education IT.
20 member panel of CIOs, senior IT or library
leaders, and faculty
©2012 EDUCAUSE
9
Top IT Issues in September 2011
1. Integrating IT with the strategic mission of
the institution
2. Using analytics to support critical
institutional outcomes such as student
success
3. The consumerization of IT
©2012 EDUCAUSE
10
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
Core
Data
Service
IT Issues
Panel
©2012 EDUCAUSE
11
Core Data Service (CDS)
Benchmarking service
established in 2002 to inform
IT strategic planning and management.
Over 800 colleges and universities
Participate annually.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
12
http://www.educause.edu/coredata
©2012 EDUCAUSE
13
Centralized IT Funding per Student FTE, Adjusted for
Inflation 2006–2010
US Dollars per Student FTE
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
2006
2008
DR EXT
2010
2006
2008
DR INT
2010
2006
2008
2010
2006
MA
2008
BA LA
2010
2006
2008
2010
BA GEN
2006
2010
2008
AA
Note: Bottom of bar = 25th percentile, line in bar = 50th percentile/median, top of bar = 75th percentile.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
14
Deployment Maturity: Teaching & Learning Technologies
Experimental
Mainstream
Transitioning to
Mainstream
•
•
•
Content management
Instruction
Social media
Content
Innovative learning
•
MAINSTREAM
Document management tools
Hybrid courses
E-learning (wholly online
courses)
Distance learning with local
instructor and remote students
TRANSITIONING TO MAINSTREAM
• Facebook
• Distance learning with local
students and remote instructor
• E-portfolios
• Learning objects
• Lecture capture
• Wikis
• E-books
• Simulation
In transition
• Interactive learning
• Collaboration tools
(e.g., Google Apps,
Sharepoint)
• Blogs
EXPERIMENTAL
•
•
•
•
•
Mobile applications
E-textbooks
Twitter
Open content
Gaming
©2012 EDUCAUSE
15
E-Mail
Reasons for Outsourcing
Outsourcing Student E-Mail
 Reduce costs
 Increase storage
 Access to additional applications
 58% of U.S. institutions are
outsourcing student e-mail
• 65% of AA institutions
• 39% of BA institutions
 16% have plans to outsource
100%
80%
AA
60%
BA LA
BA Other
40%
MA
DR
20%
0%
Google
Microsoft
Google and Microsoft
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Other
16
Deeper dive into selected portions of CDS




September: Connecting Student Data from ECAR and CDS
January: Funding Model Archetypes
February: IT Expenses
Future: Help desk practices, IT security practices,
Cyberinfrastructure update
©2012 EDUCAUSE
17
Focus for 2012 Data Collection
 Improve technical functionality
 Refine/streamline survey
 Start to include service effectiveness metrics





Networks
Enterprise Infrastructure (data centers)
Security Administration
Support Center
Messaging/Messaging Infrastructure (email, webmail, etc)
©2012 EDUCAUSE
18
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
Data
Commons
Core
Data
Service
IT Issues
Panel
©2012 EDUCAUSE
19
Data Commons
Vision
• The Higher Education Data Commons and Analytics
Collaborative
• A single, integrated resource for higher education
benchmarks, outcomes, and analytics:
–
–
–
–
IT
Finance
HR
Faculty data
–
–
–
–
Course data
Admissions
IR
Libraries
©2012 EDUCAUSE
– Student data
– Research
administration
– Facilities
20
Rationale
• Analytics can help higher education manage costs and
outcomes
– Makes sense of complex environments
– Can make decisions based on new understanding
• Implementing analytics is a differentiator between
high- and low-performing organizations
Rationale
• Effective analytics requires good data
– The right data
– Standardized data
• Higher education lacks good data
• The government is showing signs of regulatory
interest
– Common Higher Education Data Standards Initiative
IN 2012, We Will PLAN AND BEGIN to BUILD
• An analytics infrastructure
 Serve as a data commons—data we have; can link
 Provide specialized data mining, business intelligence,
and analytics tools
 Offer an intuitive, interactive, and useful interface
• Good data
 Clean data, the right data
• Analytics services to collect, analyze, and deliver
data and analytics
• Professional development
 To build our members’ expertise and capabilities
Questions for you
• What benchmarks are you looking for?
• What questions could the Data Commons help
you answer?
• Wanna help?
©2012 EDUCAUSE
24
ECAR Subscriptions
 Subscriptions are being renewed right now!
 Or become a new subscriber to ECAR.
http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/ECARHome/SubscriptionsandSubscribers/98
©2012 EDUCAUSE
25
Thank you!
http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Leah Lang
llang@educause.edu
©2012 EDUCAUSE
26
ADDITIONAL ECAR SLIDES
©2012 EDUCAUSE
27
ECAR is Evolving to Increase Value
Consolidating and organizing EDUCAUSE data and
research activities:
• Research focus and agenda
• Research methodology
• Research products
©2012 EDUCAUSE
28
Research Agenda
Descriptive and
exploratory
research
• Objectives-based
research
• Actionable results
• Transparent and
responsive agenda
©2012 EDUCAUSE
29
Research Methodology
• Consistent method
applied to all issues
• Long, timeconsuming surveys
• Opportunistic
sampling
• Data archipelago
• Method tailored to the
issue
• Shorter, more focused
surveys
• Random, stratified
panels
• Integrated data sources
©2012 EDUCAUSE
30
Research Products
• Four original studies
• Dissertation model
• Long report, summary
report, case studies
• Plan-to-publish:
1–1½ years
• Member-submitted
research bulletins
• Four Burton studies
• Six original studies
(and growing)
• Research hub
• Plan-to-publish:
4–6 months
• Core Data “Spotlight”
• Member-submitted
research bulletins
• Gartner research
©2012 EDUCAUSE
31
Other Popular Research Bulletins
 “How Are Students Actually Using IT? An
Ethnographic Study” (Nov. 2011)
 “From Learning Commons to Learning Outcomes:
Assessing Collaborative Services and Spaces” (Sept.
2011)
 “Evaluating IT and Library Services with the MISO
Survey” (Jul. 2011)
 “Clickers in the Classroom: Transforming Students
into Active Learners” (Jul. 2011)
 “Doing Academic Analytics Right: Intelligent Answers
to Simple Questions” (Feb. 2011)
©2012 EDUCAUSE
32
Budding Partnerships
Gartner Research: In 2012, ECAR subscribers will
receive:
 Four IT1 Research Reports (and one in 2011)
 Access to over 500 research reports via Gartner’s IT
News and Insight service
 Invitations to Gartner webinars of particular
relevance to higher education
©2012 EDUCAUSE
33
 In 2012, NSSE is launching the second pilot of
its newly designed survey.
 Institutions will have the option to include a
new “Technology Module,” which was
developed in collaboration with Data, Research
& Analytics
 In addition, NSSE researchers collaborated with
ECAR on developing questions for our 2012
student study.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
34
 Data, Research & Analytics consulted on
the review of the study methodology.
 CHECS reports will be available to ECAR
subscribers for free in 2012.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
35
RESEARCH STUDY RESULTS
©2012 EDUCAUSE
36
http://www.educause.edu/ecaridm1101
All study materials are now publicly available.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
37
Identity Management Study
 A survey was sent to EDUCAUSE members
 323 institutions in the US and Canada responded
 Interviews with 55 IT leaders at 43 institutions.
 Higher education has made substantial progress in the
last five years, but many institutions are still struggling
to deliver the full benefits of IdM.
 Institutions that report the greatest success have
invested in all infrastructure aspects—technical,
administrative, and political--required for identity
management.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
38
Five Core Identity
Management Elements
The greatest motivator
for engaging in identity
management is
Federated
security and
privacy.
Identity
©2012 EDUCAUSE
39
Outcome: Identity
Management Capability
Score
For comparison, we
calculated each
institution’s mean
reported capability to
deliver the 14 IdM
benefits; we called the
result the institution’s
“capability score.”
 Capability score improved
significantly between 2005
and 2010.
 In neither year did
capability score vary
significantly by Carnegie
class, institution size, or
institutional control.
Identity Management Capability Score, by Year
35%
30%31%

Percentage of Institutions
30%
26%
25%
22%
19%
20%
17%
15%
14%
10%
14%
9%
8%
7%
5%
2% 2%
0%
2%
0% 0%
1–1.49 1.5–1.99 2–2.49 2.5–2.99 3–3.49 3.5–3.99 4–4.49
Capability Score*
2005 (N = 126)
4.5–5
2010 (N = 117)
*Scale: 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high, 5 = very high
©2012 EDUCAUSE
40
Identity Policies and Practices
Percentage of Institutions
80%
60%
75%
59%
64%
+26%
58%
+19%
45%
+29%
40%
29%
20%
0%
Using strong passwords
Identifiers unique for all time
in all cases
2005
2010
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Prohibiting unencrypted
passwords in all cases
41
Implementation of Automated Role-Based Authorization
Not considering
0%
10%
Evaluating
20%
30%
Planning
40%
Full
Implementation
Partial Implementation
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Institutions with fully operational
implementations reported better IdM
outcomes:
1. Getting expected value from IdM projects
2. Meeting expectations about cost savings from
IdM projects
3. Reported capability to engage in IdM projects
©2012 EDUCAUSE
42
Stage of Implementation of Federated Identity
DR
6%
18%
MA
18%
31%
Demand for cloud
30%
7%
computing in the coming
year will increase
the need 18%
44%
for federated ID solutions.
34%
BA LA
21%
BA Gen
32%
AA
44%
44%
0%
Not considering
20%
Currently evaluating
26%
19%
6%
12%
33%
40%
60%
Percentage of Institutions
Planning
10%
12%
8% 4%
15%
5% 3%
80%
100%
Implementing or partially operational
Fully operational
©2012 EDUCAUSE
43
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/MobileITinHigherEdu
cation2011R/238470
Full report publicly available in May 2012.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
44
ECAR Mobile IT Study
• 925 EDUCAUSE members were invited to
respond
– Roughly half of EDUCAUSE members invited
– Stratified across Carnegie classes
• Responses were received from 209 institutions
– Overall response rate of 23%
©2012 EDUCAUSE
45
Student- and Public-Facing Services Are Enabled First
40%
35%
Percentage of Institutions
30%
25%
Services focused on staff are
languishing, relative to
student-focused services.
35%
29%
22%
Students
20%
16%
Faculty
15%
10%
Staff
10%
8%
5%
0%
A lot, almost all, or all
None or almost none
Amount of Current Mobile Demand Being Met for Three Constituencies
©2012 EDUCAUSE
46
Maturity for Mobile-Enablement
Main public- and
student-facing
services
Library, IT, and
key constituent
services
Peripheral
services for
faculty and
students
Mainstream
Transitioning to
Mainstream
Experimental
Emergent
MAINSTREAM
• None
TRANSITIONING TO
MAINSTREAM
• Primary web presence
• Learning/course management
services
EXPERIMENTAL
• Library catalog and other
library services
• IT services and support
• Administrative services for
student information
• Student recruitment and
admissions
• Advancement/development/
alumni services
EMERGENT
• Faculty biographies and CVs
• Facilities and space services
• Payroll and benefits services
• Financial services
• Procurement services
• Health services (institutional
health center)
• Grants management
services
©2012 EDUCAUSE
In transition
• Administrative
services for student
information
• Student recruitment
and admissions
Right Click for Data
47
On Average, More Mobile Enablement Occurs Where
Central IT Spends More On It
It costs
roughly $5k
to mobileenable a
service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
48
More Staff Working on Mobile-Enablement
Results in Greater Progress
7.0
6.28
6.0
Who Is in Charge of MobileEnablement?
5.0
Mean*
4.0
3.0
1.78
2.0
1.72
1.50
0.90
1.0
0.0
Central IT
Other Central Office
Cross-Institutional
Collaboration
Vendor
Local or Departmental
IT
©2012 EDUCAUSE
49
Most Activity is in Generic Mobile Web
Pattern of Inactivity is Reflected in
Development Strategy
Other combination,
10%
Native apps only,
8%
Mobile web and
native apps, 13%
No discernible
strategy, 45%
Mobile web only,
24%
©2012 EDUCAUSE
50
Respondents Broadly Support Collaborations
They would be a successful model. (n = 206)
I am personally in favor of them. (n = 207)
56%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
34%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
1%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
10%
Agree
Strongly agree
0%
2%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
60%
Agree
Strongly agree
(n = 203
50%
39%
40%
60%
37%
54%
50%
40%
30%
17%
20%
8%
10%
0%
Strongly
disagree
25%
30%
16%
20%
0%
Neutral
We might accept compromises to save money.
They could save higher education money. (n = 202)
10%
41%
15%
0%
Neutral
42%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
0%
0%
Strongly
disagree
©2012 EDUCAUSE
5%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
51
http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheHigherEducationCIOPortraito/236114
Full report publicly available in March 2012.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
52
IT Workforce and Leadership Study
• 30,000 individuals in the EDUCAUSE database
were invited to respond
– Unlike most ECAR surveys which go to institutions
• Responses were received from 3,400 people
from more than 1,000 institutions.
– 368 senior IT leaders (whom we refer to as CIOs)
– 545 CIO “aspirants”
– 2,487 other IT staff
©2012 EDUCAUSE
53
Higher Education CIOs Are
Doing More
 Standard functions reporting to the CIO include user
support, administrative information systems, network
infrastructure, data center operations, IT security and
policy, and telephony.
 From 2005 to 2009, half of institutions reported
adding more official functions to the central IT
organization.
 IT planning and budgeting activities have significantly
increased in central IT.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
54
The CIO is No Longer in the “IT Box”
 The CIO position is more strategically oriented.
 Half of CIOs selected IT funding as one of the top-five
issues they spend time on.
 CIOs cited the importance of being able to
communicate, think strategically, influence,
negotiate, and manage relationships.
 CIOs must know how to introduce a new technology,
as well as which ones to introduce.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
55
In Next Six Years, 31% of CIOs Plan
to Retire or Leave Higher Education
Plan to leave higher
education in next six
years
9%
Plan to stay in higher
education
41%
Plan to retire in next
six years
22%
Did not know or did
not give enough
information
28%
n = 368
©2012 EDUCAUSE
56
Results Suggest a Sufficient Supply
of Aspirants in Coming Years
450
Number of Respondents
400
350
300
234
Currently at nonexecutive level
250
200
150
100
186
Currently at
executive level
113
50
0
Aspirants
Expected Vacancies
©2012 EDUCAUSE
57
A Culture of Succession Planning is
Needed Within Higher Education
 74% of CIOs come from within higher education.
Roughly half of those from within the institution.
 Only 31% of CIOs indicated that they are held
responsible for identifying a successor.
– However, 64% of CIOs have identified a successor.
 Aspirants who are being groomed for the CIO
position are more optimistic about job opportunities.
– However, less than one-third of staff selected
mentoring as a top factor in their professional growth.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
58
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARNationalStudyof
Undergradua/238012
All study materials are publicly available.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
59
Students own many different devices...
…they prefer small, mobile ones.
Technology
Ownership
Technology
6
1 Laptop
87%
2 Printer
81%
3 DVD Player
75%
4 USB Thumbdrive
70%
5 Wi-Fi*
67%
6 Stationary gaming
66%
7 iPod
62%
8 HDTV
56%
9 Smartphone
55%
10
Digital Camera
55%
11
Webcam
55%
12
Desktop Computer
53%
13
Handheld Gaming
Device
38%
14
Netbook
11%
15
iPad
8%
device
5
7
12
11
1
4
3
10
1
4
2
*Likely interpreted by the respondent as
having access to Wi-Fi
9
8
13
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Students
Own
1
Traditional age college students
(18-24) and those from households
of $100K+ own more technology
than their counterparts.
60
Students Rely on Traditional Devices…
…and Core Software
©2012 EDUCAUSE
61
Students Recognize the Major
Benefits of Technology
…they use their smartphones for academics
…they value anytime,
anywhere access
Value of Technology for Academic Success
Percent Responding “Extremely Valuable”
Laptop computer
…they wish their instructors
used technology more often
81%
Wi-Fi
78%
USB Thumbdrive/portable…
64%
Netbook
46%
Net: Smartphones
33%
eReader (e.g., Kindle, NOOK)
33%
Other mobile/cell phone
32%
Other tablet - not an iPad
iPad
mp3 player/music device (other…
iPod
Handheld/portable gaming device
©2012 EDUCAUSE
26%
24%
23%
18%
Wi-Fi access is
key to student
success, and
students want
access from
everywhere
on campus.
14%
62
Students Report Uneven
Perceptions of Technology
Institutions provide these services well… …but students
want more
technology
…I know more
than my teachers
PD opportunities
for faculty…
©2012 EDUCAUSE
63
Facebook-Gen Students Juggle
Communication Tools
Frequency of Use for School or Personal Purposes
E-mail
75%
Text message
74%
Use Facebook
20%
12%
Use online forums or bulletin boards
Use telephone-like communication over the Internet
Watch podcasts or webcasts
Participate in online chats, chat events, webinars
15%
11%
7%
Play online multi-user computer games for recreation
23%
11%
23%
15%
Use social studying sites
Use Geo-Tagging, Geo-Tagged environments
Participate in online virtual worlds
14%
9%
12%
25%
18%
7%
25%
12%
9%
8%
23%
18%
15%
37%
31%
25%
15%
5%
42%
12%
17%
7%
6%
43%
43%
29%
6%
Access Internet content via a TV (Apple TV, Roku)
49%
24%
8%
59%
50%
20%
11%
79%
72%
53%
32%
17%
Use Twitter
Contribute to Wikis (Wikipedia, course wiki, etc.)
28%
85%
68%
33%
9%
85%
70%
33%
13%
Use other social networking websites (MySpace, etc.)
Use LinkedIn
25%
21%
93%
81%
23%
15%
6% 6%
20%
27%
5% 18%
6%
Contribute to blogs
Post videos to a video-sharing website (YouTube, etc.)
22%
99%
90%
18%
30%
9%
7%
Use photo-sharing websites (Flickr, Snapfish, Picasa, etc.)
Tagging/bookmarking/liking
11%
13%
8%
26%
12%
9%
11%
33%
35%
27%
Download or stream web-based music
14%
14%
12%
Instant message (Gchat, Facebook chat, AIM, etc.)
Read blogs
6%
58%
Download or stream web-based videos (YouTube, etc.)
Read Wikis (Wikipedia, course wiki, etc.)
13%
Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Less often
©2012 EDUCAUSE
…more on how students
use social networks
Students are comfortable
communicating with other
students on Facebook about
academics; however, they prefer
their communication with
instructors to be more formal
(using email for this
purpose instead).
64
Students Prefer…
…courses with online components…
Seminars and other smaller classes with
some online components
36%
Classes that give me the option to use as
many or as few online components as I
need to
22%
Large lecture classes with some online
components
Seminars and other smaller classers with
no online components
16%
10%
Seminars and other smaller classes that
are completely online
6%
Large lecture classes with no online
components
5%
Large lecture classes that are completely
online
5%
Nearly 80% prefer blended environments
Preferred Learning Environment
©2012 EDUCAUSE
…and say they learn more
in blended courses
65
http://www.educause.edu/coredata
©2012 EDUCAUSE
66
Funding Sources by IT Function
System/District
Student IT Fees
Resale of Products
Other Sources
Operating Approp.
Cost Recovery
Capital Approp.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
67