1 / 20

ECAR Study of UG Students 2013 Results: Nationally & UoM

ECAR Study of UG Students 2013 Results: Nationally & UoM. S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdD Advanced Learning Center Fall 2013. Study Overview. Started by EDUCAUSE in 2004 UoM began participating in 2005 2013 was the 8 th year that UoM participated Method: Data collected in Spring 2013

zoltan
Download Presentation

ECAR Study of UG Students 2013 Results: Nationally & UoM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ECAR Study of UG Students2013 Results: Nationally & UoM S. J. Schaeffer, III, EdDAdvanced Learning CenterFall 2013

  2. Study Overview • Started by EDUCAUSE in 2004 • UoM began participating in 2005 • 2013 was the 8th year that UoM participated • Method: • Data collected in Spring 2013 • All UG classes solicited (Only Fresh/Senior in past) • Online survey request: • Email from CIO • TigerLAN prompt page at login

  3. General Resultsand Findings

  4. Summary of Participation • 250+ institutions participated in 2013 • Response rate: • US – 29,262 • UoM – 771 (2.6% of all responses) • 120 Freshmen / 143 Sophomores / 190 Juniors /262 Seniors / 56 Other • 72% Female / 28% Male (similar to previous years)

  5. Worth Noting: Our students continue to look like other students across the U.S. • In most cases the results from UoM students largely mirror those from other institutions in this study. This is a trend we’ve seen since beginning participation in this study. • A few notable exceptions are highlighted in this report.

  6. Equipment Ownership • Notes: • Laptop up from 83% in 2011 • Desktop is down from 56% 2011 • Tablet is up from 20% in 2011 • eReader is up from 10% in 2011 • iPhone is up from 62% in 2011

  7. Observations and Implications

  8. Observation: Personal ownership of internet-enabled personal technology is very relevant to our students’ academic success. • 85% of our students say that their personal laptop is very or extremely important to their academic work and success. • In addition, 67% say the same about their smartphone • 90% of our students own two (2) or more internet-enabled devices and 60% own three (3) or more. Implications: Innovative pedagogical strategies (BYOD, flipped, in-class polling, etc.) that rely on personal devices can be readily pursued.

  9. Observation: Campus investments in computer labs are seen by students as primarily for convenience & printing. How our students use lab equipment: • When they leave personal laptop at home (57%) • Printing (67%) • Specialty software (31%) • Faster internet (27%) Implications: Consider print-only labs or similar spaces? Expand the benefit of bringing personal laptops to campus (charging stations, furniture, space, etc.)?

  10. Observation: Campus support for mobile device as a practical tool is making headway. Things they can do with a mobile device: • Access library resources (40%) • Check grades (61%) • Register for courses (49%) • Check financial aid (51%) • Access online course information (40%) Implications: Explore other ways in which the campus can take advantage of student’s willingness to use personal mobile equipment for conducting business as a student.

  11. Coursework, Faculty, Etc.

  12. Observation : Perception of faculty use of technology is improving Most or All Faculty… Implications: Campus faculty community is becoming more prepared for teaching with technology. (A similar survey of faculty self-perceptions might be useful.)

  13. Observation: Students still prefer direct communication with their faculty via traditional means. Students want faculty to use more: • Regular email (65%) • Face-to-Face conversation (61%) …but not so much on social networking: • Texting (34%) • Chat (23%) • Facebook (13%) • Twitter (10%) Implications: Faculty should not feel bad sticking to traditional means of connecting with their students.

  14. Observation: Campus use and perceived value of LMS (D2L) lags other campuses in US. • Pct of our students who did not use the LMS in the last 12 months is 21%, while the US average is 5%. However, 40% wish faculty would use the LMS more often to communicate. • The campus LMS is perceived to be very important for your academic success? • UoM = 51%, US = 74% Implications: Need to understand why our faculty use the LMS less than at other campuses. Perhaps need programs/incentives to encourage more use.

  15. Observation: Students would like to have more use of technology in the classroom. • More use of personal equipment in the classroom: • Laptops (53%), Smartphone (40%), Tablet (38%) • In terms of how technology helps them: • 54% say is makes them more actively involved • 74% say it helps them achieve academic success • 73% say technology prepares them for future educational plans. • But our faculty seem to be going in the other direction: • 70% report smartphones being discouraged or banned entirely in class • Only 1 in 5 report encouragement to use their laptop in class Implications: Disconnect between students and faculty on the role of personal technology in the classroom. What are the impediments? (wireless, furniture, culture, skills)?

  16. Observation: While fully O/L has become mainstream, students do not prefer it. • Good news: 50% have taken a fully O/L course in the last 12 months. • Bad news: Only 10% prefer fully O/L. • Preference: Blended is preferred by 60% of our students. Implications: Perhaps better understand why students feel this way? Is there a need to improve fully O/L experiences for students? Should we explore formalizing a broader use of blended courses for the future?

  17. Miscellaneous Observations: = Yes • Classroom lecture capture – 62% want more access to video-recorded classroom lectures that are available via the web. • MOOCs are not on students’ radar: • Only 2% of our students have taken a MOOC in the last 12 months with only 0.4% reported completing it. • 75% don’t even know what a MOOC is. • These numbers are essentially identical to U.S. = ? Implications: Should we be cautious about our MOOC investments and instead think about more lecture capture technology?

  18. Recap

  19. Recap of Findings • The UoM continues to mirror national trends (significant variances are rare; e.g., LMS usage). • Students see our faculty as having better skills using technology in the classroom. • Ownership of personal computing devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc.) is nearing 100%. • Student perceptions on the value of technology in classes is strong,… • But there is a disconnect with actual use in the classroom.

  20. Follow up: • Presenter: sandy.schaeffer@memphis.edu • EDUCAUSE/ECAR: http://www.educause.edu/ecar • All past ECAR study data on UMwiki

More Related