Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EDUCAUSE Data, Research & Analytics
Leah Lang, EDUCAUSECSG
January 2012
©2012 EDUCAUSE 1
2
EDUCAUSE DRA Staff
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Susan GrajekVP for Data, Research, and Analytics
Toby SitkoManaging Director for Research
Pam ArrowaySenior Statistician
Eden DahlstromSenior Research Analyst
Leah LangIT Metrics and Benchmarking Specialist
• Data Visualization Specialist• Senior Research Analyst• Managing Director for Analytics
Recent Additions
3
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
IT Issues Panel
Core Data
Service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
4
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
IT Issues Panel
Core Data
Service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
5
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
6©2012 EDUCAUSE
2011 Major Research Studies
7
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
8
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
IT Issues Panel
Core Data
Service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
9
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
10
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
11
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
IT Issues Panel
Core Data
Service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
12
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
13
http://www.educause.edu/coredata
©2012 EDUCAUSE
14
Centralized IT Funding per Student FTE, Adjusted for Inflation 2006–2010
DR EXT DR INT MA BA LA BA GEN AA$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
US
Dol
lars
per
Stu
dent
FTE
2006 20102008 2006 201020082006 20102008 2006 201020082006 201020082006 20102008
Note: Bottom of bar = 25th percentile, line in bar = 50th percentile/median, top of bar = 75th percentile.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
15
Deployment Maturity: Teaching & Learning Technologies
• Facebook• Distance learning with local
students and remote instructor• E-portfolios• Learning objects• Lecture capture• Wikis• E-books• Simulation
TRANSITIONING TO MAINSTREAM
• Document management tools• Hybrid courses• E-learning (wholly online
courses)• Distance learning with local
instructor and remote students
MAINSTREAM
EXPERIMENTAL
• Mobile applications• E-textbooks• Twitter• Open content• Gaming
In transition• Interactive learning• Collaboration tools
(e.g., Google Apps, Sharepoint)
• Blogs
Exp
erim
enta
l
Tran
siti
on
ing
to
M
ain
stre
am
Mai
nst
ream
Content management
Instruction
Social media
Content
Innovative learning
©2012 EDUCAUSE
16
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Google Microsoft Google and Microsoft Other0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AA
BA LA
BA Other
MA
DR
Reasons for Outsourcing Reduce costs Increase storage Access to additional applications
Outsourcing Student E-Mail 58% of U.S. institutions are
outsourcing student e-mail• 65% of AA institutions• 39% of BA institutions
16% have plans to outsource
17©2012 EDUCAUSE
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
18
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
19
Data, Research & Analytics (DRA)
ECAR
IT Issues Panel
Core Data
Service
©2012 EDUCAUSE
Data Commons
20
Data Commons
Vision• The Higher Education Data Commons and Analytics
Collaborative• A single, integrated resource for higher education
benchmarks, outcomes, and analytics:
©2012 EDUCAUSE
– IT– Finance– HR– Faculty data
– Course data– Admissions– IR– Libraries
– Student data– Research
administration– Facilities
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
24
Questions for you
• What benchmarks are you looking for?
• What questions could the Data Commons help you answer?
• Wanna help?
©2012 EDUCAUSE
25
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
27
ADDITIONAL ECAR SLIDES
©2012 EDUCAUSE
28
ECAR is Evolving to Increase Value
Consolidating and organizing EDUCAUSE data and research activities:• Research focus and agenda• Research methodology• Research products
©2012 EDUCAUSE
29
Research Agenda
TOFROM
• Objectives-based research
• Actionable results• Transparent and
responsive agenda
Descriptive and exploratory research
©2012 EDUCAUSE
30
Research Methodology
TOFROM
• Method tailored to the issue
• Shorter, more focused surveys
• Random, stratified panels
• Integrated data sources
• Consistent method applied to all issues
• Long, time-consuming surveys
• Opportunistic sampling
• Data archipelago
©2012 EDUCAUSE
31
Research Products
TOFROM
• Six original studies (and growing)
• Research hub• Plan-to-publish:
4–6 months • Core Data “Spotlight”• Member-submitted
research bulletins• Gartner research
• Four original studies• Dissertation model• Long report, summary
report, case studies• Plan-to-publish:
1–1½ years• Member-submitted
research bulletins• Four Burton studies
©2012 EDUCAUSE
32
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
33
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
34©2012 EDUCAUSE
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.
35©2012 EDUCAUSE
Data, Research & Analytics consulted on the review of the study methodology.
CHECS reports will be available to ECAR subscribers for free in 2012.
36
RESEARCH STUDY RESULTS
©2012 EDUCAUSE
37
http://www.educause.edu/ecaridm1101All study materials are now publicly available.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
©2012 EDUCAUSE 38
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.
Five Core Identity Management Elements
39©2012 EDUCAUSE
Authentication
Role-Based
Authentication
Reducedor
SingleSign-On
FederatedIdentity
EnterpriseDirectoryThe greatest motivator
for engaging in identity management is
security and privacy.
*Scale: 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high, 5 = very high
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.
Outcome: Identity Management Capability Score
1–1.49 1.5–1.99 2–2.49 2.5–2.99 3–3.49 3.5–3.99 4–4.49 4.5–50%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0%2%
19%
22%
30%
17%
9%
2%0%
2%
8%
14%
31%
26%
14%
7%
Identity Management Capability Score, by Year
2005 (N = 126) 2010 (N = 117)
Capability Score*
Perc
enta
ge o
f Ins
tituti
ons
40©2012 EDUCAUSE
41©2012 EDUCAUSE
Using strong passwords Identifiers unique for all time in all cases
Prohibiting unencrypted passwords in all cases
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
59%
45%
29%
75%
64%58%
2005 2010
Perc
enta
ge o
f Ins
tituti
ons
+26%+19%
+29%
Identity Policies and Practices
42©2012 EDUCAUSE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not con-sidering Evaluating Planning
Partial Imple-
mentation
Ful-lImple-
mentation
Implementation of Automated Role-Based Authorization
Institutions with fully operational implementations reported better IdM outcomes:
1. Getting expected value from IdM projects2. Meeting expectations about cost savings from
IdM projects3. Reported capability to engage in IdM projects
43©2012 EDUCAUSE
AA
BA Gen
BA LA
MA
DR
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
44%
32%
21%
34%
6%
33%
44%
44%
30%
18%
15%
12%
18%
7%
18%
5%
8%
6%
19%
31%
3%
4%
12%
10%
26%
Stage of Implementation of Federated Identity
Not considering Currently evaluating Planning Implementing or partially operational Fully operational
Percentage of Institutions
57%
29%
18%
12%
8%
Demand for cloud computing in the coming year will increase the need for federated ID solutions.
©2012 EDUCAUSE 44
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/MobileITinHigherEducation2011R/238470Full report publicly available in May 2012.
©2012 EDUCAUSE 45
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 46
Student- and Public-Facing Services Are Enabled First
22%
16%
10%
29%
8%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
A lot, almost all, or all None or almost none
Perc
enta
ge o
f Ins
titut
ions
Amount of Current Mobile Demand Being Met for Three Constituencies
Students
Faculty
Staff
Services focused on staff arelanguishing, relative to
student-focused services.
©2012 EDUCAUSE 47
Maturity for Mobile-Enablement
• Primary web presence• Learning/course management
services
TRANSITIONING TO MAINSTREAM
• Library catalog and other library services
• IT services and support• Administrative services for
student information• Student recruitment and
admissions• Advancement/development/
alumni services
EXPERIMENTAL
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
In transition• Administrative
services for student information
• Student recruitment and admissions
MAINSTREAM• None
Em
erg
ent
Exp
erim
enta
l
Mai
nst
ream
Tran
siti
on
ing
to
M
ain
stre
am
Main public- andstudent-facing
services
Library, IT, and key constituent
servicesPeripheral
services for faculty and
students Right Click for Data
On Average, More Mobile Enablement Occurs Where Central IT Spends More On It
©2012 EDUCAUSE 48
It costs roughly $5k to mobile-enable a service
©2012 EDUCAUSE 49
More Staff Working on Mobile-Enablement Results in Greater Progress
6.28
1.78 1.72 1.50
0.90
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Central IT Other Central Office Cross-InstitutionalCollaboration
Vendor Local or DepartmentalIT
Mea
n*
Who Is in Charge of Mobile-Enablement?
©2012 EDUCAUSE 50
Most Activity is in Generic Mobile Web
No discernible strategy, 45%
Mobile web only, 24%
Mobile web and native apps, 13%
Native apps only, 8%
Other combination, 10%
Pattern of Inactivity is Reflected in Development Strategy
Respondents Broadly Support Collaborations
©2012 EDUCAUSE 51
0% 1%
10%
34%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
I am personally in favor of them. (n = 207)
0% 2%
15%
42% 41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
They would be a successful model. (n = 206)
0%
8%16%
39% 37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
They could save higher education money. (n = 202)
0%5%
17%
54%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
We might accept compromises to save money.
(n = 203
52
http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheHigherEducationCIOPortraito/236114Full report publicly available in March 2012.
©2012 EDUCAUSE
©2012 EDUCAUSE 53
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 54
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 55
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 56
In Next Six Years, 31% of CIOs Plan to Retire or Leave Higher Education
Plan to stay in higher educa-tion42%
Did not know or did not give enough in-formation
28%
Plan to retire in next six years22%
Plan to leave higher education in next six years
9%
n = 368
©2012 EDUCAUSE 57
Results Suggest a Sufficient Supply of Aspirants in Coming Years
Aspirants Expected Vacancies0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
186
234
113
Nu
mb
er
of R
esp
on
de
nts
Currently at non-executive level
Currently at ex-ecutive level
©2012 EDUCAUSE 58
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 59
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARNationalStudyofUndergradua/238012
All study materials are publicly available.
…they prefer small, mobile ones.
©2012 EDUCAUSE 60
Technology Students Own
Laptop 87%
Printer 81%
DVD Player 75%
USB Thumbdrive 70%
Wi-Fi* 67%
Stationary gaming device 66%
iPod 62%
HDTV 56%
Smartphone 55%
Digital Camera 55%
Webcam 55%
Desktop Computer 53%
Handheld Gaming Device 38%
Netbook 11%
iPad 8%1
8
23 4
5
7
9
1011
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Traditional age college students (18-24) and those from households of $100K+ own more technology than their counterparts.
6
Technology Ownership
*Likely interpreted by the respondent as having access to Wi-Fi
Students own many different devices...
61
Students Rely on Traditional Devices…
…and Core Software
©2012 EDUCAUSE
62
Students Recognize the Major Benefits of Technology
Laptop computer
Wi-Fi
USB Thumbdrive/portable harddrive
Netbook
Net: Smartphones
eReader (e.g., Kindle, NOOK)
Other mobile/cell phone
Other tablet - not an iPad
iPadmp3 player/music device (other than
iPod)iPod
Handheld/portable gaming device
81%
78%
64%
46%
33%
33%
32%
26%
24%
23%
18%
14%
Value of Technology for Academic SuccessPercent Responding “Extremely Valuable”
Wi-Fi access is key to student
success, and students want
access from everywhere on campus.
…they value anytime, anywhere access
…they use their smartphones for academics
…they wish their instructorsused technology more often
©2012 EDUCAUSE
63
Students Report Uneven Perceptions of Technology
…I know more than my teachers
PD opportunities for faculty…
…but studentswant more technology
Institutions provide these services well…
©2012 EDUCAUSE
64
Facebook-Gen Students Juggle Communication Tools
Frequency of Use for School or Personal PurposesE-mail
Text message
Use Facebook
Download or stream web-based videos (YouTube, etc.)
Read Wikis (Wikipedia, course wiki, etc.)
Instant message (Gchat, Facebook chat, AIM, etc.)
Download or stream web-based music
Read blogs
Use online forums or bulletin boards
Use telephone-like communication over the Internet
Watch podcasts or webcasts
Participate in online chats, chat events, webinars
Use photo-sharing websites (Flickr, Snapfish, Picasa, etc.)
Tagging/bookmarking/liking
Play online multi-user computer games for recreation
Contribute to blogs
Post videos to a video-sharing website (YouTube, etc.)
Use Twitter
Use other social networking websites (MySpace, etc.)
Access Internet content via a TV (Apple TV, Roku)
Use LinkedIn
Contribute to Wikis (Wikipedia, course wiki, etc.)
Use social studying sites
Use Geo-Tagging, Geo-Tagged environments
Participate in online virtual worlds
75%
74%
58%
20%
12%
27%
15%
13%
11%
7%
6%
6%
9%
13%
6%
14%
14%
12%
12%
11%
9%
11%
7%
5%
6%
9%
8%
11%
33%
35%
22%
30%
23%
23%
21%
18%
15%
13%
17%
15%
11%
8%
9%
6%
7%
6%
5%
7%
99%
93%
90%
85%
85%
81%
79%
72%
70%
68%
59%
53%
50%
49%
43%
43%
42%
37%
31%
25%
25%
25%
23%
18%
15%
18%
26%
20%
23%
27%
25%
33%
33%
28%
32%
20%
14%
24%
29%
12%
17%
12%
15%
18%
12%
9%
8%
Once a day
A few times a week
Less often
Total
…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).
mass a
doption…
just ab
out eve
ryone
is usin
g it
©2012 EDUCAUSE
65
Students Prefer…
Seminars and other smaller classes with some online components
Classes that give me the option to use as many or as few online components as I need to
Large lecture classes with some online components
Seminars and other smaller classers with no online components
Seminars and other smaller classes that are completely online
Large lecture classes with no online components
Large lecture classes that are completely online
36%
22%
16%
10%
6%
5%
5%
…and say they learn more in blended courses
…courses with online components…Preferred Learning Environment
Nea
rly 8
0% p
refe
r ble
nded
env
ironm
ents
©2012 EDUCAUSE
66
http://www.educause.edu/coredata
©2012 EDUCAUSE
67©2012 EDUCAUSE
Funding Sources by IT Function
System/District
Resale of Products
Other Sources
Operating Approp.
Cost Recovery
Capital Approp.
Student IT Fees
Info Systems, E
RP
Web Support Serv.
Data Center Oper.
Support Service
s
Identity Mgmt.
Educational Tech.
Comm. Infra
structu
re
Office of the CIO
Research Computing
