Earlier this autumn, ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) released its annual study about undergraduate students’ use, ownership of, and attitudes about technology as it relates to their academic experiences. ECAR has collected data for this annual survey for nine years now, surveying 100,000 students at 195 higher education institutions around the world. ECAR’s findings for this year have been published in the ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012.
For the 2012 study, the primary objectives included “creat[ing] a profile of undergraduate students’ ownership and use of technology…, identify[ing] ways that technology helps [students] achieve their academic outcomes, and … assess[ing students'] perceptions of how well institutions and instructors use technology to enhance the academic experience.” The 2012 report’s Executive Summary (pp. 4-5) identified four general themes for this year’s findings and recommendations: in the academic environment, students
- prefer blended formats that include technology for promoting learner engagement;
- bring “both prolific and diverse” devices to college;
- “are selective about the communication modes they use” for their interactions with others (institutions, faculty, other students); and
- hold “strong and positive perceptions about how technology is being used and how it benefits them.”
Undergraduate students’ use of and views about technology help inform what technology is then used by faculty and staff. Given the constancy of change in regard to what technology is used, by whom, and what value is associated with it, it is helpful for decision makers to look not only at the 2012 ECAR report findings but also to compare them with previous years’ reports, so that current data can be considered within a larger context.
Virtually all of us at Ohio State are impacted by, if not enthusiastically interested in, what it means to be teaching with and using technology in today’s academic environments. By better understanding technology, we can apply it more strategically, thereby eliciting more constructive outcomes while avoiding possible pitfalls. For example, during our recent transition to an academic calendar that organizes the undergraduate curriculum by semesters rather than quarters, we were challenged to think differently about how that curriculum is translated into practice. This had implications for classroom scheduling logistics, now that undergraduates are likely to be on campus more frequently, throughout the work week. One way to respond to these changes and challenges could be through courses that have an online attendance option, whether for particular course content or via a format in which the classroom exists “anytime, anywhere.” The 2012 ECAR report highlighted students’ preference for courses with some online components, and students’ perception that the blended-learning approach best supports how they learn. Encouragingly, the majority of students also reported that their instructors use technology effectively. (p. 7)
Some 67% of undergraduates “said that technology helps them feel connected to what’s going on at the institution”, as well as to their instructors (59%) and other students (58%). (p. 10) Students most prefer e-mail, face-to-face interaction, and either the learning management system or the course for connecting with others about their academic experiences–and they view course and learning management systems as communication hubs, rather than merely a way to correspond about coursework. Yet even for students who have taken a course designed to take place entirely online, 8 out of 10 (81%) say that face-to-face interaction is very or extremely important. (p. 26)
Other findings included a continued increase in undergraduates’ technological device ownership; most undergraduates surveyed own a laptop, and 2012 saw the highest number yet of students who reported owning a handheld mobile device (e.g. e-reader, smartphone, tablet). The range of these mobile devices is diverse, whether in terms of type, brand, or operating system; thus, the report highlighted, there is a concomitantly “growing need for device neutrality of apps designed for these mobile technologies”–leading to a “tricky but critical” need to offer both device-neutral apps, and apps which have been optimized for specific platforms. (p. 12)
The 2012 ECAR report offered some cautionary notes as well. For example, a student’s ownership of more technology does not automatically correspond with that student’s feeling (or being) more connected. (p.10) Further, even though students may use a technology–such as social media–”regularly as part of their everyday lives, it does not necessarily mean they want that same technology integrated into their academic lives.” Students prefer to use e-mail to communicate with their instructors; they see social networks as useful more for connecting with friends than for their academic work. (p. 25)
Additionally, the report stated, we should refrain from assuming that “all students know how to use the technology they own and use as academic tools.” Instead, the report recommended that instructors “reconcile the technical literacy of their students and the technology they use/ask students to use.” To better assure instructors that student performance assessments accurately represent students’ subject matter knowledge, rather than their capacity to use technology for completing assignments, the report recommended that instructors provide or connect students with ways to develop the technical skills needed for coursework completion. In tandem with this recommendation, the report exhorted institutions to assess their students’ technical literacy upon matriculation, and–as with instructors–give students “opportunities for technical training or on-demand skills building. Training is more important to students than more or ‘better’ technology and is essential for their success in a world where these skills are expected,” the report noted. (p. 31)
Some related Digital Union blog posts:
Student Perspectives on Techology in Teaching
by Liv Gjestvang — December 14, 2011
OSU Student technology ownership
by Victoria Getis — August 8, 2011
OSU Student Opinion on Carmen
by Victoria Getis — January 11, 2011
2010 ECAR Study of Undergraduates and Information Technology
by Eric Schnell — November 1, 2010
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
ECAR Report Findings in 2012: Annual Study of Students and IT
For the 2012 study, the primary objectives included “creat[ing] a profile of undergraduate students’ ownership and use of technology…, identify[ing] ways that technology helps [students] achieve their academic outcomes, and … assess[ing students'] perceptions of how well institutions and instructors use technology to enhance the academic experience.” The 2012 report’s Executive Summary (pp. 4-5) identified four general themes for this year’s findings and recommendations: in the academic environment, students
Undergraduate students’ use of and views about technology help inform what technology is then used by faculty and staff. Given the constancy of change in regard to what technology is used, by whom, and what value is associated with it, it is helpful for decision makers to look not only at the 2012 ECAR report findings but also to compare them with previous years’ reports, so that current data can be considered within a larger context.
Virtually all of us at Ohio State are impacted by, if not enthusiastically interested in, what it means to be teaching with and using technology in today’s academic environments. By better understanding technology, we can apply it more strategically, thereby eliciting more constructive outcomes while avoiding possible pitfalls. For example, during our recent transition to an academic calendar that organizes the undergraduate curriculum by semesters rather than quarters, we were challenged to think differently about how that curriculum is translated into practice. This had implications for classroom scheduling logistics, now that undergraduates are likely to be on campus more frequently, throughout the work week. One way to respond to these changes and challenges could be through courses that have an online attendance option, whether for particular course content or via a format in which the classroom exists “anytime, anywhere.” The 2012 ECAR report highlighted students’ preference for courses with some online components, and students’ perception that the blended-learning approach best supports how they learn. Encouragingly, the majority of students also reported that their instructors use technology effectively. (p. 7)
Some 67% of undergraduates “said that technology helps them feel connected to what’s going on at the institution”, as well as to their instructors (59%) and other students (58%). (p. 10) Students most prefer e-mail, face-to-face interaction, and either the learning management system or the course for connecting with others about their academic experiences–and they view course and learning management systems as communication hubs, rather than merely a way to correspond about coursework. Yet even for students who have taken a course designed to take place entirely online, 8 out of 10 (81%) say that face-to-face interaction is very or extremely important. (p. 26)
Other findings included a continued increase in undergraduates’ technological device ownership; most undergraduates surveyed own a laptop, and 2012 saw the highest number yet of students who reported owning a handheld mobile device (e.g. e-reader, smartphone, tablet). The range of these mobile devices is diverse, whether in terms of type, brand, or operating system; thus, the report highlighted, there is a concomitantly “growing need for device neutrality of apps designed for these mobile technologies”–leading to a “tricky but critical” need to offer both device-neutral apps, and apps which have been optimized for specific platforms. (p. 12)
The 2012 ECAR report offered some cautionary notes as well. For example, a student’s ownership of more technology does not automatically correspond with that student’s feeling (or being) more connected. (p.10) Further, even though students may use a technology–such as social media–”regularly as part of their everyday lives, it does not necessarily mean they want that same technology integrated into their academic lives.” Students prefer to use e-mail to communicate with their instructors; they see social networks as useful more for connecting with friends than for their academic work. (p. 25)
Additionally, the report stated, we should refrain from assuming that “all students know how to use the technology they own and use as academic tools.” Instead, the report recommended that instructors “reconcile the technical literacy of their students and the technology they use/ask students to use.” To better assure instructors that student performance assessments accurately represent students’ subject matter knowledge, rather than their capacity to use technology for completing assignments, the report recommended that instructors provide or connect students with ways to develop the technical skills needed for coursework completion. In tandem with this recommendation, the report exhorted institutions to assess their students’ technical literacy upon matriculation, and–as with instructors–give students “opportunities for technical training or on-demand skills building. Training is more important to students than more or ‘better’ technology and is essential for their success in a world where these skills are expected,” the report noted. (p. 31)
Some related Digital Union blog posts:
Student Perspectives on Techology in Teaching
by Liv Gjestvang — December 14, 2011
OSU Student technology ownership
by Victoria Getis — August 8, 2011
OSU Student Opinion on Carmen
by Victoria Getis — January 11, 2011
2010 ECAR Study of Undergraduates and Information Technology
by Eric Schnell — November 1, 2010