an interpretation of the 2013 educause student use of technology study andrew c. lawlor, phd faculty...
TRANSCRIPT
An Interpretation of the 2013 EDUCAUSE Student Use of Technology Study
Andrew C. Lawlor, PhD
Faculty of the Future Conference
Bucks County Community College
May 30, 2014
Let’s use the technology!
Respond to the poll – test of Poll Anywhere
Today’s outcomes
Understand ECAR/EDUCAUSE study purpose and design
Identify results of studyConsider the impact on teaching and learning
Purpose
Profile of undergraduates’ ownership and use
What undergraduates say Students’ perceptions Trends of student behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions
Benchmark Longitudinal technology trends Actionable recommendations on meeting preferences and expectations
Scope
Methodology
Local Approval/IRB/Sampling Plan
Link sent to students via emailData collected in March 2013Incentives?Any institution – free
Analysis
Representative sample – matched profile
1% margin of error – whole population
Findings statistically significant (.001 level)
Conducted four focus groups – public MA institution
Summary of Participants and Response Rate
Own a Tablet or iPad – US Results
Of those surveyed, how many students own or plan to purchase a tablet or iPad?
A. 14%B. 29%C. 43%D. 56%
Overview of US Results
Technology Value &Use
Learning Environments
Mobile Device Ownership and Use
Smartphone Use
Of students responding, how many use their smartphone for a combination of academic and other uses?
A. 16%B. 21%C. 54%D. 61%
Connectivity & Engagement
How Bucks Compares
Technology Value & Use
Bucks – 73.3% & AA – 75.1%Bucks – 73.3% & AA – 75.7%
Bucks – 55.5% & AA – 58.7%
Bucks – 66.1% & AA – 68.5%
Bucks – 69.3% & AA – 67.9%
Bucks – 61.6% & AA – 59.9%
Bucks – 45.1% & AA – 40.5%
Bucks – 20.6% & AA – 30.2%
Bucks – 45.8% & AA – 50.8%
Bucks – 25.9% & AA – 22.2%Bucks – 28.2% & AA –
26.9%
Bucks – 67.9% & AA – 57.9%
Learning Environments
Bucks – 56.3% & AA – 56.2%
Bucks – 1.3% & AA – 1.0%
Don’t know what a MOOC is: Bucks – 72.3% & AA – 73.9%
Bucks – 32.9% & AA – 34.9%
Bucks – 58.1% & AA – 52.5%
Instructors effectively using technology
Of those surveyed, how many students feel that most of their instructors effectively use technology?
Mobile Device Ownership and Use
Bucks –
82.8% & A
A –
84.3% Bucks –
80.2
% &
AA –
73.5% Buck
s – 5
7.8%
& A
A –
55% Bucks –
32.3
% &
AA –
32.8%
Bucks –
22.1
% &
AA – 17.6
%
Bucks –
67.9% & A
A –
61.6%
Bucks –
4.1% & A
A –
3.1%
Yes!
Same!!
Bucks –
23.3%
& AA –
21.7%
Bucks –
6.5% & A
A
– 9%
Bucks – 18% & AA – 17.4%
Bucks – 13.3% & AA – 20.6%
Connectivity & Engagement
Bucks – 63.7% & AA – 62.1%
Bucks – 65% & AA – 61%
Bucks – 51.3% & AA – 46.3%
Bucks – 60% & AA – 61.3%
Bucks – 9.9% & AA – 11.4%
Bucks – 86.5% & AA – 82.9%
Bucks – 20.5% & AA – 21.5%
Bucks – 74.5% & AA – 70.8%
What does the literature say?
Thompson, S. (2012).
Student use of library computers: Are desktop computers still relevant in today's libraries? Information Technology & Libraries, 31(4), 20-33.
CSU-San Marcos study of computer use in the library; 2009 & 2010
Largely a commuter campus Students prefer desktop computers in library, even those with laptops
Convenience and close proximity to library services
Was conducted before the iPad/tablet explosion
Elder, A. D. (2013).
College students' cell phone use, beliefs, and effects on their learning. College Student Journal, 47(4), 585-592.
Found increased use and acceptance of cell phone use in class
Heavy reliance on college students’ lives Use of cell phone during a lecture did not negatively affect comprehension, though students predicted poorer scores
No patterns were found among variables of ACT, gender, classification status, ratings of self-reported distraction, ratings of self-reported time using phone
Dresselhaus, A. & Shrode, F. (2012).
Mobile technologies & academics: Do students use mobile technologies in their academic lives and are librarians ready to meet this challenge?. Information Technology & Libraries, 31(2), 82-101.
Case study at Utah State University 54% of undergraduates and 50% of graduate students use mobile technology for academic purposes
How often they used library electronic resources - majority a few times each semester
“If library resources were easily accessible on your mobile devices…” – 70% on a smartphone; 47% on an iPad; 46% on an e-book reader; 63% on other devices
Services desired – library catalog, mobile services, articles, reserve study rooms
Par, S., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2012).
University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592-605.
Theoretical framework – Technology Acceptance Model
20 e-learning courses randomly selected; 567 students responded (94.5% return rate)
Of those, 288 used mobile devices; research limited to this sample
Demographic and data gathered based on TAM
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Results
Model was supported Explains Behavioral Intention (BI) to use m-learning
Major Relevance (MR) plays a significant role in m-learning Attitude (AT) and Perceived Usefulness (PU)
AT a determinant affecting BI Korean society encouraged to use IT in every field
Subjective Norm (SN) is directly related to BI System Accessibility (SA) affected BI; Perceived Effectiveness (PE)
Recommendations
Boost AT toward m-learning Make connection between m-learning and social needs
High quality wireless Internet environment Provide on-line and off-line support to build up Self Efficacy (SE)
TAM Which recommendation from the TAM study do you feel would have the most impact on adoption of mobile learning?
Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. E. (2013).
The use of digital technologies across the adult life span in distance education. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 44(2), 338-351.
Compared access to digital technologies, attitudes to digital technologies and approaches to studying at UK Open University
Stratified random sample by age – 21 to 100 No evidence of discontinuity of tech use around age of 30 Broadly positive attitudes to tech regardless of age Older age groups more likely to adopt deep, strategic
approach to studying Modal response for using technology for studying was “1-3
hours” in every age group; younger spent longer for study, however
Limitation – no academic achievement data; all distance ed students
Analysis
What is different at Bucks?
Tech helps less than expected Less aware of open educational resources Value (important for success) for e-books More familiar with online courses but not as enamored with blended learning
Less laptop adoption, but higher smartphone and desktop
Smartphone use banned or discouraged in class but lower than others, but tablets or laptops encouraged much less
Tech makes students feel connected to faculty slightly higher
What is the impact on teaching and learning at Bucks?
Students do not fully recognize connection between their use of technology and their future
Academic outcomes Future educational plans Workplace
Might our blended learning courses need to become more dynamic/interactive?
How can we leverage the high smartphone adoption rate?
Keep moving towards more e-books Keep/encourage interaction using tech – students feel connected
Conclusions
Data more valuable than anecdotesLeverage what information is already available
Participate in the EDUCAUSE/ECAR study ([email protected])
Technology adoption requires sustained, intentional action
