Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Student AffairsDivision of
Technology andStudent Affairs
NASPA Mid-Managers Institute
June 6, 2005
Leslie Dare, Ed.D.Director, DE & Tech ServicesDivision of Student Affairs – NC State University
Distance Education & Technology Services
•Help Division units serve distance learners •Technology Planning & Resources
Presentation Agenda
•Overview of Technology: A Student Affairs Perspective
•Survey Results: “Trends in Technology Administration in Student Affairs”
•Hands On Demonstration
Overview of Technology: SA Perspective
•Five Arenas of The Technological Environment •Student Services & Programs•Other Issues•Recommendations for Student Affairs Administrators
Five Arenas of theTechnological Environment
Arenas of the Technology Environment
1. Information Dissemination • World Wide Web• CD-ROM• Campus Cable
2. Transactional Interaction • eBilling• Course Registration• Housing sign up• Creating appointments for career counseling • “Smart cards” for building and services access
Arenas of the Technology Environment
3. Communication • Email• Instant Messaging• Video Conferencing
4. Entertainment • Music and movie downloads from the Internet
(can be illegal; eats up bandwidth)• Gaming
(Online; Xbox, Playstation)
Arenas of the Technology Environment
5. Education • Learning Management Systems
(WebCT, Blackboard, WebAssign)• Satellite• Video• Cable
Engstrom, C.M., & Kruger, K.W. (1997) Using technology to promote student learning: Opportunities for today and tomorrow. New Directions for Student Services Series #78. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Student Servicesand
Programs
Student Services & Programs
1. Student Expectations • Digital versions of all services• Availability - 24/7 – “Right Here, Right Now”
2. Challenges • Know-How• Resources• Keeping Up
Other Issues
Other Issues
1. Technology Fluency (aka “computer literacy”)• For Students• For Student Affairs staff
2. Legal & Ethical Issues• Copyright• Harassment• Plagiarism• Security/Privacy
Other Issues
3. Distance Education• Growing exponentially overall• Growing 11% annually at NC State• How use technology to serve this population • Fee issues related to technology
4. Accessibility• Students with disabilities • Access to resources: broadband Internet connections;
software
Other Issues
5. Top Ten Technology Resources to Watch & Learn(by Leslie Dare…no particular order)
• Blogging • thefacebook.com• RSS• Flash Drives• Multipurpose Mobile Devices (cell/pda/mp3) • Wi-Fi• Bluetooth• Mozilla Firefox• Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VOIP)• Instant Messaging
Other Issues
6. Top Ten Gadgets (by ZDNet – May 25, 2005)• Sony PSP (video game console)• Samsung MM-A80 (cell phone)• Archos PocketMedia Assistant PMA430 (portable video player)• Logitech Harmony 880 (universal remote)• PalmOne LifeDrive (handheld)• Canon Digital Rebel XT (digital camera)• Samsung YEPP-YP T7Z (portable audio)• Apple iPod Mini (portable audio)• Motorola Razr V3 (cellphone)• PalmOne Treo 650 (smartphone)
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Top_gadgets/4520-8900_16-1008327-1.html?tag=fs
Technology is Ubiquitous in Higher Ed•The role of technology in higher education is widely studied and embraced. •Technology in higher education (especially related to teaching and learning) is generally well funded and integrated in administration, planning and decision making.•Likewise, student affairs organizations should incorporate technology considerations into all areas of planning.
Why Technology and Student Affairs?
Why Technology and Student Affairs?
Student Affairs is Not Keeping PaceThree indicators suggest that this mainstreamed approach to using technology as a tool is still not embraced.
1. Anecdotal evidence as observed by technology practitioners in student affairs.
2. The lack of a current handbook or text on the topic of technology in student affairs.
3. The absence of dedicated coursework on the topic in most student affairs graduate programs.
What Sparked This Project1. Student Affairs On-Line (studentaffairs.com) – Articles in general
2. Student Affairs On-Line –2004 Virtual Case Study Competition (Create a course on Student Affairs and Technology)
3. How does what we are doing (at NC State) compare to others?
4. Barratt, W. (2001). Managing information technology in Student Affairs: A report on policies, practices, staffing, and technology. (NASPA, Seattle, WA).
Why Technology and Student Affairs?
What the Literature Tells Us1. Vast literature about technology in higher education, particularly its
use and impact in the classroom. However, literature more specific to technology in student affairs is only recently emerging and still quite limited.
2. One common theme: balancing high tech with high touch3. New audiences: serving distance learners via technology4. The discussion is not “if” but “when;” and today isn’t soon enough
(source = just about any student).
Why Technology and Student Affairs?
Selected References
Barratt, W. (2003). Information Technology In Student Affairs. In S. Komives, D. Woodward, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student Services (pp. 379-96). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Dare, L., Thomas, A., & Zapata, L. Assessing the Co-Curricular Needs of Distance Learners: A Student Affairs Perspective. Manuscript in progress.
Engstrom, C.M., & Kruger, K.W. (1997) Using technology to promote student learning: Opportunities for today and tomorrow. New Directions for Student Services Series #78. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Goldsmith, H. Upcraft M. (2000). Technological Changes in Student Affairs Administration. In M. Barr &., M. Desler (Eds.) The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration, 2nd Edition (pp. 216228). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Hirt, J., Cain, D., Bryant, B. & Williams, E. (2003). Cyberservices: What’s important and how are we doing? NASPA Journal, 40 (2) 98118.
WICHE - Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (2003). Beyond the Administrative Core: Creating Web-based Student Services for Online Learners. http://www.wcet.info/projects/laap/
Why Technology and Student Affairs?
Survey Objectives
•To understand how other Student Affairs units are administering technology.•To see how our own efforts compare to other institutions.•To create a benchmark against which we can compare future survey results and contribute to the profession.
• Barratt (2001) looked at these four areas:• Policies• Practices• Staffing• Technology
• We adjusted this model, resulting in these areas:• Planning (includes policies, assessment)• Practices• Staffing• Resources (more general take on technologies)
Survey Topics
Methodology
Methodology – Sample
• Carnegie Classifications
• NASPANational Association of Student Personnel AdministratorsACPAAmerican College Personnel Association
• Institutional vs. Individual Membership
• Instrument review (sample available)
• Online survey
• Databases for institutions and survey results
Methodology – Survey Creation
1. Method• Paper available
2. Correspondence• Initial invitation• Reconciling bounces• Two follow-up messages• Postcard • Bulk email used for all correspondence• Email, phone and fax used for troubleshooting
3. Listserv• Requests = 100+
Methodology – Survey Distribution
• Sample-convenience not random• Survey questions/options: New topic-lack of
qualitative foundation• Due to the diversity within Student Affairs
programs, it was sometimes difficult to pick one answer that captured what was happening in the division.
• Diversity between Student Affairs units may account for some differences (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of Enrollment Management offices).
Limitations of the Research
SurveyResults
1. Return Rate2. Carnegie Classification3. Public/Private4. Student headcount5. Position of individual completing survey
Section 1: Demographics
Return Rate• Sample Size = 1154• Return = 412• Rate = 36%
Section 1: Demographics
58
40
106
32
56
27
9
62
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Carnegie Classification
DR Univ Ext DR Univ Inten Masters I Masters II Bac Lib Arts Bac Gen Bac/Associate Associate Specialized Tribal C&U
233
167
0
50
100
150
200
250
Institution Type
Public Private
95
187
6957
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Student Headcount
1999 and under 2000 to 10999 11000 to 19999 20000 and above
95
187
6957
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Submitter
CSAO Technology leadership Help with technology Don't work with technology
Summary of Demographics
1. Sample not random-determine institution by institution how to interpret
2. CSO filled out survey-considering how busy CSOs are, the fact that they filled it out themselves may indicate a special interest in the topic.
3. Sample: Larger number public institutions than in the population
4. Sample: Carnegie rep is heavier for DE, DI, MI, MII, BLA, BG
1. Centralized, formalized planning2. Assessment as component of planning3. Student development theory or philosophy as component
of planning4. Representation on institution-wide technology committees
Section 2: Planning
252
158
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Centralized, Formal Technology Planning
Yes No
195
73
140
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Assessment a Component of Tech Planning
Yes No Don't Plan
8
85
201
57 60
0
50
100
150
200
250
Theory or Philosophical Approach in Planning
Never Rarely Sometimes Always Don't Plan
For those that indicated that they do incorporate student development theory into their technology planning, please share how that is accomplished on your campus.
Section 2: Planning
7 23
137
243
0
50
100
150
200
250
Representation on Campus-Wide Tech Committees
Never Rarely Sometimes Always
Summary of Planning
•Larger schools (over 2000) tend to plan (statistical association)
•Planners tend to assess (statistical association)
•Those with tech leadership tend to plan (statistical association)•85.14% of “Full Time Leadership” plan•68.64% of “One Responsibility Leadership” plan•74.32% of “Committee Leadership” plan
•Impact of background on planning•68.00% of “Primarily SA Background Staff” plan•74.11% of “Primarily Tech Background Staff” plan•76.32% of “Even Mix Background Staff” plan
1. Climate in Student Affairs re: technology2. Services available solely via technology
Section 3: Practice
5
48
221
137
0
50
100
150
200
250
Climate in Student Affairs
Poor Fair Good Excellent
24
120
217
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Portion of Services Available Completely via Technology
None A few Some Majority
• People report either good or excellent climate for technology in Student Affairs.
• Most institutions have at least “a few” services available completely via technology.
Summary of Practice
1. Technology leadership2. Level of centralized technology staffing3. Adequacy of technology staffing4. Type of technology staffing
Section 4: Staffing
74
120
74
137
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Technology Leadership
At least one full time position One of several responsibilities of one staffA committee No identified technology leadership
41
76
203
89
0
50
100
150
200
250
Technology Staffing
Centralized internal technology staff Centralized And OthersNo centralized some scattered No technology staff
43
171 164
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Adequacy of Tech Staffing
Poor Fair Good Excellent
77
112
76
144
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Type of Technology Staffing
Primarily Student Affairs Primarily technical Even mix No technology staff
Q13(Staffing 3 Adequacy of the technology staffing for SA) Q11(Staffing 1 Identify technology
leadership) Poor Fair Good Excellent
Total
At least one full time position 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 4.23
22.97 10.18
40 9.95
54.05 24.69
17 4.23
22.97 56.67
74 18.41
One of several responsibilities of one staff
10 2.49 8.40
23.26
45 11.19 37.82 26.95
59 14.68 49.58 36.42
5 1.24 4.20
16.67
119 29.60
A committee 10 2.49
13.51 23.26
32 7.96
43.24 19.16
30 7.46
40.54 18.52
2 0.50 2.70 6.67
74 18.41
No identified technology leadership 23 5.72
17.04 53.49
73 18.16 54.07 43.71
33 8.21
24.44 20.37
6 1.49 4.44
20.00
135 33.58
Total 43 10.70
167 41.54
162 40.30
30 7.46
402 100.00
Frequency Missing = 10
Staffing by Adequacy of StaffANOVA p-value=.001 R-Sq =.1423
Summary of Staffing
•66% of responding institutions have some sort of technology leadership.
•47% felt that the staffing is adequate.
•For those with technology staff, there seems to be more of a technology background than a Student Affairs background
•27.4% are primarily tech and 18.8% are primarily Student Affairs
•Institutions with headcount of 11,000 and up tend to have primarily staff with technical backgrounds.
•Institutions with headcount of 11,000 and up tend to have full-time leadership; smaller institutions tend to have no leadership.
1. Technology adoption rate2. Use and satisfaction of various technologies
for individual or departmental productivity3. Use and satisfaction of various technologies
for delivering student services and programs
Section 5: Resources (Technologies)
82
252
71
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Integrating New Technologies
Late Adopter Mainstream Adopter Early Adopter
Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very
SatisfiedDo not
use
Web - Basic delivery of information 4 55 263 84 3
Web - Online forms 11 90 226 65 11
Web - Video conferencing 9 60 119 20 194
Other video conferencing 8 54 105 22 204
Email 1 4 135 265 0
Listservs 3 12 226 149 16
Instant Messaging 2 27 104 37 232
Portals 5 54 146 34 154
Cable 4 33 190 71 96
Satisfaction/Use of Resources(For Individual or Departmental Productivity)
Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very
SatisfiedDo Not
Use
Satellite 7 22 112 27 229
Electronic Signatures 13 42 137 26 182
PDA 9 58 192 48 97
Fax 1 7 182 217 0
Landline Telephone 1 8 182 212 4
Cellular Telephone 4 25 191 151 34
Voice over IP 1 22 55 23 295
Pager 1 15 124 54 209
CDs with Content 6 43 151 49 154
VHS tapes with Content 6 23 120 21 230
Satisfaction/Use of Resources(For Individual or Departmental Productivity)
continued
Very
Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied VerySatisfied
DoNot Use
Web - Basic delivery of information 5 70 229 96 4
Web - Online forms 11 95 201 80 14
Web - Video conferencing 5 50 90 19 230
Other video conferencing 4 45 86 14 244
Email 4 40 169 183 5
Listservs 3 49 181 85 80
Instant Messaging 3 29 89 35 241
Portals 9 55 125 44 160
Cable 6 33 175 66 114
Satisfaction/Use of Resources(For Delivering Student Services or Programs)
Satisfaction/Use of Resources(For Delivering Student Services or Programs)
continued
VeryUnsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very
Satisfied Do not use
Satellite 2 18 91 21 258
Electronic Signatures 13 39 111 26 204
PDA 2 51 110 27 205
Fax 10 191 122 74 10
Landline telephone 5 17 207 148 20
Cellular telephone 4 29 179 101 84
Voice over IP 3 21 47 18 303
Pager 0 15 89 30 261
CDs with content 4 36 152 52 152
VHS tapes with content 2 20 127 27 219
Q15(Resources 1 How quickly integrate new technologies)
Q11(Staffing 1 Identify technology leadership) Late
adopter Mainstream
adopter Early
adopter Total
At least one full time position 6 1.50 8.22 7.50
48 12.03 65.75 19.20
19 4.76
26.03 27.54
73 18.30
One of several responsibilities of one staff
20 5.01
16.81 25.00
79 19.80 66.39 31.60
20 5.01
16.81 28.99
119 29.82
A committee 10 2.51
13.51 12.50
50 12.53 67.57 20.00
14 3.51
18.92 20.29
74 18.55
No identified technology leadership 44 11.03 33.08 55.00
73 18.30 54.89 29.20
16 4.01
12.03 23.19
133 33.33
Total 80 20.05
250 62.66
69 17.29
399 100.00
Frequency Missing = 13
Staffing by How Quickly Integrate New TechnologySignificant p-value but very very low Rsq
Summary of Resources
•Institutions are generally satisfied with technology resources they are using.•The results for the two “laundry lists” of resource items are fairly similar.•There are some resources being used more for individual/deparmental productivity than for delivering services and programs.
• Structure of office– support for additional staffing– possible reorganization
• Encourage departments to consider both types of backgrounds (Student Affairs and tech) in hiring decisions
• Need to more intentionally incorporate student development theory/philosophy in technology planning
• Encourage departments to use division planning as a model for their own planning
• Continue to gather and evaluate information regarding other models
Implications for DETS at NC State
Recommendationsfor
Student Affairs Administrators
Recommendations
1. Designate “technology leadership” as a responsibility for someone in the Student Affairs organization (position or hat)
2. Participate in campus-wide technology planning and initiatives (committee representation)
3. Engage in deliberate technology planning (including budgeting and assessment) for the Student Affairs organization and units within the Student Affairs organization
Recommendations
4. Recruit staff at all levels invested in using technology5. Embrace some basic technology principles, such as:
• Technology should be used as a tool, and not just for the sake of using it
• Equitable access to technology resources and training should be provided to all staff;
• Digital interactions should complement but not replace personal interactions with students
6. Improve your own “Tech IQ” and comfort level
Hands-On Demonstration
Questions & Answers
Technology in Student Affairs
Division of Student AffairsNC State UniversityCampus Box 7301 Raleigh, NC 27695-7301
darebryan: AOL IMladarencsu: Yahoo IM
•This Presentationhttp://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/mmi05/
•Recent NASPA Presentationshttp://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/naspa05/
•Distance Education & Technology Services (Student Affairs, NC State)http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/dets/
•Division of Student Affairs (NC State)http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/
