Charles Sturt University 2014 Educational Technology ...€¦ · CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report September 2014 3 1. Executive Summary This survey represents

Charles Sturt University

2014 Educational Technology Student Survey

Report

September 2014

Division of Student Learning

CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report September 2014 2

Contents

1. Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3

2. Background and Methodology ................................................................. 5

2a. Research Design ...................................................................................................... 5

2b. Respondent Profile .................................................................................................. 7

3. Research Findings .................................................................................. 11

3a. Technology Access ................................................................................................. 11

3b. Awareness and Use of Educational Technologies ................................................... 23

3c. Views and Experiences of Educational Technologies at CSU .................................... 27

4. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 55


1. Executive Summary

This survey represents the second tranche of the Division of Student Learning’s Education

Technology Survey exploring access, usage and experiences around educational technology among

CSU students. The survey opened on Monday 24 March 14 and closed on Thursday 30 April 14.

1,576 students completed the survey, with the “typical” respondent profile being a female,

undergraduate, Distance Education student of Australian cultural background. This profile

corresponds well with the “typical” CSU student. There is evidence to suggest that the sample was

not unduly biased by students with a particular interest in technology.

An online questionnaire was utilised, which can viewed at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=YX172pP0C2XvqywNpsamdsEinE_2fe8MdmI0mlkCPLd

E0_3d

The survey found that students are typically supportive of a) educational technology as a means for

enhancing their learning experience and b) CSU’s use of such technologies. Indeed, there appears to

be demand among students for CSU to extend the use educational technology, particularly among

Distance Education students who identified 15 technological features that are used much less

frequently than would be preferred.

Key findings informing these conclusions are:

40% of students prefer online learning above face-to-face learning in their on campus

subjects, while 50% of students would like to have more subjects fully online;

84% of students indicated they would be likely or very likely to use a Learning Analytics tool

that would help them improving their learning;

in 2010, 70% of students who visited a CSU campus did not use our wireless network. This

proportion has fallen to just 17% in the current survey;

more than 90% of students agree that educational technology makes learning more flexible,

while just under 80% agree that educational technology increases their satisfaction with

learning; and

approximately 80% of students are satisfied with the range of technologies available for

studying and communication at CSU (compared with 79% in 2010) and nearly 75% believe

that their lecturers are good at using educational technology for teaching in 2010;

around 90% agree that the use of educational technology is likely to be important to their

future career/workplace; and

there is an increasing trend in the proportion of students who prefer online learning over

paper-based learning in their distance subjects.

The findings above are reinforced by students’ self-reported behaviour which shows that over the

past four years (2010 – 2014) there has been a substantial shift toward students spending more time

performing computer-based study.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=YX172pP0C2XvqywNpsamdsEinE_2fe8MdmI0mlkCPLdE0_3d



In future developments relating to educational technologies and their implementation,

communication and support at CSU, it should be considered that:

an increasing proportion of students are utilising wireless broadband, 3G and Smart Phones

as their primary internet access (18% of students in 2010 to 51.4% in 2014);

around two-thirds of students are already accessing CSU services via mobile device with

many students integrating study purposes into their everyday use of these devices;

the majority of On Campus students do not regularly use library searches; and

male students (56%) are more likely to be early adopters of new technologies than females

students (31%). Furthermore, while students aged between 22 and 40 years are the most

likely to be early adopters (with around 40% of students in this age range being classified as

early adopters), even among students aged over 60 years the number of early adopters was

equal to the number of late adopters


2. Background and Methodology

In 2010, CSU’s Division of Student Learning launched an Education Technology Survey to explore

access, usage and experiences around educational technology among staff and students. In

March/April 2014, a slightly scaled down version of this survey was repeated with students only and

the current report reflects the findings of this survey. Comparisons of 2010 and 2014 data will be

provided where relevant – this commentary is highlighted.

It is DSL’s intention to conduct this survey every two years to monitor trends in students’ behaviours

and attitudes regarding technology in education.

The survey objective was to establish a baseline for and monitor student access, use, skills and

expectations with regards educational technology at CSU.

2a. Research Design The survey utilised an online questionnaire, which can viewed at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=YX172pP0C2XvqywNpsamdsEinE_2fe8MdmI0mlkCPLd

E0_3d

The questionnaire consisted of 5 main elements:

1. Demographics – Personal

2. Demographics – Institutional

3. Technology Access

4. Use and Awareness:

a. Features Currently Used

b. Features I Would Like to Use to Support My Learning

5. Views and Experiences

A copy of the introductory script provided to students can be found in Appendix A.

The survey opened on Monday 24 March 14 and closed on Thursday 30 April 14. In that time, 1,576

students completed the survey.

An incentive for participation was offered, which involved all students who completed the survey

(and who filled out a separate contact form) being placed in the draw to win one of two iPods.




Ethics approval was provided by the DSL Ethics Committee. The researchers on the project included:

Assoc Prof Philip Uys (Principal Investigator);

Assoc Prof Barney Dalgarno (Associate Investigator);

Dr Andrea Crampton (Associate Investigator);

Jacquie Tinkler (Associate Investigator); and

Simon Welsh (Associate Investigator).


2b. Respondent Profile

A total of 1,576 students completed the survey. Figures 2.1 to 2.6 show the profile of students

across a range of dimensions. Based on these figures, the current survey sample differs from the

CSU student population profile in the following areas.

1. An over-representation of Science students, with a corresponding under-representation of

Arts and Business students and a decrease in the proportion of Education students

compared with the 2010 Education Technology Survey

2. An over-representation of Post-Graduate students – however, such students still only

represent approximately 30% of the sample and are reduced as a proportion of the total

sample compared with the 2010 Educational Technology Survey

Overall, the typical (or “most likely”) respondent profile is a student who is:

female;

enrolled in an under-graduate course;

studying by distance; and

a domestic student of Australian cultural background.

This profile corresponds well with the “typical” CSU student.

Figure 2.1 – Respondent Profile by Study Mode


Figure 2.2 – Respondent Profile by Faculty

Figure 2.3 – Respondent Profile by Gender


Figure 2.4 – Respondent Profile by Cultural Background

Figure 2.5 – Respondent Profile by Level of Study


Figure 2.6 – Respondent Profile by Domesticity


3. Key Research Findings

3a. Accessing Educational Technologies

This section explores from where and how (e.g. what devices are used) students are accessing CSU

educational technologies and online services. Key findings are as follows.

Time Spent on Computer-Based Study

The modal category for time spent each week on computer-based study was 11-20 hours, as

reported by 33.7% of students. However, there was variation around this with around 27%

of students spending less than 11 hours per week on computer-based study and 39%

spending more than 20 hours per week (see Figure 3a.1). This represents a substantial shift

toward students spending more time performing computer-based study compared with the

2010 survey results. In 2010, it was found that 59% of students spent less than 11 hours per

week on computer-based study (c/f 27% here) and only 14.6% spent more than 20 hours per

week on computer-based study (c/f 39% here). In 2010, the model category for time spent

on computer-based study each week was 6-10 hours (c/f 11-20 hours here).

On Campus and Mixed Mode students are more likely to spend in excess of 20 hours per

week on computer-based study compared with Distance students (see Figure 3a.2). While

this may seem counter-intuitive it is likely related to differing study loads between Distance

and On Campus/Mixed Mode students, with over 80% of Distance students being enrolled

part-time

Hours per week spent on computer-based study increase as students progress through their

undergraduate courses, before dropping in post-graduate courses (see Figure 3a.3)

Location of Online Study

The vast majority of students are usually in their place of residence when studying online

(see Figure 3a.4)

Distance students are more likely to study online while at work than On Campus or Mixed

Mode students (see Figure 3a.5), while Post Graduate (Research) students were the most

likely overall to study online while at work

The use of the Library/Learning Commons as a place of study has increased, being utilised by

less than 4% of students in the 2010 survey compared with nearly 9% herein. Furthermore,

as a space for online study, the Library/Learning Commons is more prevalent among

Undergraduate students than Post Graduate students (see Figure 3a.6)

Please note: throughout this report a range of cross-tabulations are provided to

explore differences in responses by factors like gender, Faculty, level of study,

cultural background and so forth. For brevity, only those explorations that

yielded meaningful or interesting differences have been included.


Off Campus Internet Access

Overall, off campus internet access among students is predominantly wireless broadband

(40%) or ADSL (35%) (see Figure 3a.7). Caution should be taken when considering this result

as students were asked for their primary means of internet access – which may be

interpreted as the connection used most often. Thus, it would not necessarily be correct to

assume that those students using wireless broadband do not have other means of internet

access, rather that wireless broadband is simply the internet connection they use most

commonly. In 2010, wireless broadband/3G dongle was the primary means of off campus

internet access for only 18% of students, while ADSL was used by 64% of students (c/f 35%

here). The decline from 2010 to 2014 in usage of ADSL as the primary means of interact

access appears to have occurred due to corresponding growth in wireless broadband/3G

dongle (up more than 26% to 44%) and Smart Phones (now accounting for nearly 7%).

Again, this does not necessarily mean that wireless broadband connections are totally

replacing ADSL, rather that the usage of wireless broadband as the most preferred off-

campus internet connection (perhaps in concert with an ADSL connection) is increasing

Distance students are a) more likely to have ADSL and wired broadband than On Campus

and/or Mixed Mode students and b) much less likely to use smart phones as their primary

internet access compared with On Campus and/or Mixed Mode students (see Figure 3a.8)

Domestic students are more likely to have ADSL than International students, with the latter

being twice as likely to use smart phones as their primary internet access compared with

Domestic students (see Figure 3a.9)

Indigenous students are less likely to have ADSL and more likely to use wireless broadband

and smart phones compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts (see Figure 3a.10)

Use of Personal Devices

Smart phones (iPhone and Android) are the most commonly used personal device on

campus. Interestingly, while there is a significant personal dimension to their use, most

students using these devices report that smart phones are being used for a combination of

personal and study/learning purposes. Even off campus, students report strong mixed use

of smart phones to address both personal and study purposes (see Figures 3a.12 and 3a.13)

Students using tablets on campus are more likely to be using the device for study purposes

than if using a smart phone or mobile phone (see Figure 3a.12)

Use of CSU Wireless Network

17% of students who actually visit a CSU campus report not using the CSU wireless network

(see Figure 3a.14), a considerable decrease on 2010 figures, where 70% of students who

come to a campus did not use the CSU wireless network. For over a third of these students,

it is the inability to set up network access and get it working that prevents them using the

network (see Figure 3a.15)


Mobile Access of CSU Services

Just over a third of students report that they do not access any CSU services by mobile

device. Of the two-thirds of students who are accessing services by mobile, nearly all are

accessing their Subject Outlines and many are accessing multiple services (see Figure 3a.16).

In 2010, it was found that only 40% of students had access to an internet-enabled mobile

phone. Here we see that the use of such devices has become a critical means of accessing

CSU services/resources for most of our students


Figure 3a.1 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week

Figure 3a.2 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week by Mode


Figure 3a.3 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week by Level of Study

Figure 3a.4 – Location of Study


Figure 3a.5 – Location of Study by Mode

Figure 3a.6 – Location of Study by Level of Study


Figure 3a.7 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access

Figure 3a.8 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Mode


Figure 3a.9 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Domesticity

Figure 3a.10 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Cultural Background


Figure 3a.11 – Use of Own Devices On-Campus by Mode

Figure 3a.12 – Devices and Their Usage On-Campus


Figure 3a.13 – Devices and Their Usage Off-Campus

Figure 3a.14 – Use of CSU Wireless Network (students who visit CSU campuses only)


Figure 3a.15 – Reasons for Not Using CSU Wireless Network (students who visit CSU campuses

only)

Figure 3a.16 – Mobile Access of CSU Services


Figure 3a.17 – Special Requirements When Using a Computer


3b. Awareness and Use of Educational Technologies

This section explores the CSU educational technologies that students are using and how they are

using them. Key findings are as follows:

Laptop Usage

The majority of On Campus students are bringing a laptop to class at least once per week

(see Figure 3b.1)

Learning and Research Tools

The “Top Five” most used learning and research tools were:

o Interact

o Mobile phone

o Word processing

o Mobile internet

o Social networking (see Figure 3b.2)

The “Bottom Five” least used learning and research tools were:

o Student response systems

o Social bookmarking

o RSS feeds

o Vodcasts

o Website creation software (see Figure 3b.2)

While regular usage of primo (library catalogue) and library database searches increase as

student progress though their courses and into Post Graduate study (see Figures 3b.8 &

3b.9), the majority of On Campus students do not regularly use these searches (see Figures

3b. 3 & 3b.4). Furthermore, over 5% of On Campus students have never heard of library

catalogue/primo or database searches or aren’t sure what they are (see Figures 3b.3 & 3b.4)

A small percentage of 1st and 3rd year Undergraduate students had never heard of Interact

(see Figure 3b.6)

Post Graduate students are using web-conferencing (Online Meeting, i.e. Adobe Connect)

more than Undergraduates (see Figure 3b.7), while Distance students are using this

technology more than their On Campus counterparts (see Figure 3b.5)


Figure 3b.1 – Frequency with which Laptops are Brought to Class

Figure 3b.2 – Usage of Learning and Research Tools

Figure 3b.3 – Usage of Library Catalogue/Primo Search by Mode

Figure 3b.4 – Usage of Library Database by Mode

Figure 3b.5 – Usage of Webconferencing (e.g. Online Meeting) by Mode


Figure 3b.6 – Usage of Interact by Level of Study

Figure 3b.7 – Usage of Webconferencing (e.g. Online Meeting) by Level of Study

Figure 3b.8 – Usage of Library Catalogue/Primo Search by Level of Study


Figure 3b.9 – Usage of Library Database by Level of Study

3c. Views and Experiences of Educational Technologies at CSU

This section explores students’ attitudes, perceptions, preferences and experiences around

educational technologies and their use at CSU. Key findings are as follows.

Attitudes Toward New Technology

Generally, there is a favourable attitude toward new technology among students, with

approximately 39% being categorised as early adopters (i.e. indicating that they enjoy being

among the first to embrace new technologies), while only 11% might be categorised as late

adopters (i.e. being among the last to embrace new technologies and/or being sceptical of

such technologies) (see Figure 3c.1). These results are fairly consistent with the 2010

findings but may represent a small shift toward more favourable attitudes to new

technology among students. For example, in 2010, 32% of students could be categorised as

early adopters, compared with 39% herein

No major differences were observed in attitudes toward new technology between

indigenous and non-indigenous Australian students (see Figure 3c.2)

Male students are more likely to be early adopters than females with around 56% of male

students being in this category compared with 31% of females (see Figure 3c.3)

Post Graduate Research students may be more likely than other student groupings to

identify as early adopters, with around 48% doing so (see Figure 3c.4)

On Campus students are more likely to have an extremely positive attitude toward new

technology than Distance students. 17% of On Campus students described themselves as

loving new technologies and being among the first to experiment with and use them (the

most technology-favourable response available) compared with 11% of Distance students

(see Figure 3c.5)

Students aged between 22 and 40 years are the most likely to be early adopters, with 22-25

year olds being the single age bracket most favourable to new technologies. Students aged

over 60 years were the least favourable, but even here the number of early adopters was

found to be equal to the number of late adopters (see Figure 3c.6)

Perceived Benefits of Educational Technology

The most often cited perceived benefits of educational technology are “Personal

Management (to be able to study at times and in places convenient for me)” selected by

38% of students, and “Access (being able to attend on-campus classes that would have

otherwise been missed)” selected by 33% of students (see Figure 3c.7). This suggests a

subtle re-ordering of priorities compared with the 2010 survey results, where “Access” was

the most commonly selected benefit (just under 38% of students), with “Personal

Management” selected by only 27% (c/f 38% here). This may suggest that “Access” is

becoming more of an expectation than a benefit per se.


Indigenous students show a different pattern of responses compared with non-indigenous

Australian students, where:

o “Personal Management” is clearly the most important benefit of educational

technology (41% and twice the frequency of any other benefit)

o “Improving My Learning” and “Access” were selected by an equal proportion of

indigenous students as the key benefit – whereas for non-indigenous students

“Access” was selected as the key benefit by more than twice the proportion of those

selecting “Improving My Learning”

o “Communication with teachers and classmates” was more prevalent as a key benefit

among indigenous students (see Figure 3c.8)

Students from non-Australian cultural backgrounds also showed greater emphasis on

“Improving My Learning” as the key benefit of educational technology compared with non-

indigenous Australian students (see Figure 3c.8)

International students are much more likely than Domestic students to rate “Improving My

Learning” as the most important benefit of educational technology – indeed, “Improving My

Learning” was the most prevalent benefit overall for International students (see Figure 3c.9)

Male students place a greater emphasis on “Improving My Learning” as the most important

benefit of educational technology than female students (approx 23% of males compared

with 14% of females) (see Figure 3c.10)

On Campus and Mixed Mode students place a much greater emphasis on “Improving My

Learning” compared with Distance students – the former being almost twice as likely to

identify this as a key benefit of education technology (see Figure 3c.11)

Attitudes Toward Learning Analytics

Overall, students exhibit a very favourable attitude toward Learning Analytics (defined as

“an online tool that enabled you to monitor your learning and studying in advance of

assessment tasks and relative to your peers”) with 84% indicating they would be likely or

very likely to use such a tool (see Figure 3c.12)

There were some interesting variations in the reported likelihood of usage between student

groups, including:

o Domestic students being more strongly positive than International students – 52%

very likely vs 44% respectively (see Figure 3c.13)

o Female students being more strongly positive than male students – 53% very likely

vs 48% very likely respectively (see Figure 3c.14)

o First and second year Undergraduate students being more strongly positive than

third year and Post Graduate students – 58-59% very likely vs 39-48% respectively

(see Figure 3c.15)


o Distance students are slightly more cautious than Internal students – 13% uncertain

if they would use Learning Analytics vs 7-8% respectively (see Figure 3c.16)

Attitudes toward Education Technology at CSU

Overall, students exhibit a positive attitude toward educational technology at CSU – typically

supporting statements that suggest our technologies are adequate in their scope, well used,

well supported and aid student learning

In describing their attitudes toward and perceptions of educational technology at CSU, the

“Top Five” statements that were most strongly supported (i.e. agree or better) by students

were:

o Educational technology makes my learning more flexible (>90% agree)

o The use of educational technology is likely to be important for my future

career/workplace (approx 90% agree)

o I am confident using educational technology for my study (approx 90% agree)

o I feel confident about succeeding in online learning (just over 80% agree)

o Educational technology makes it easier for me to interact with my fellow students

(just under 80% agree) (see Figure 3c.17)

Conversely, the “Bottom Five” least supported statements about educational technology at

CSU a cited below. It is important to note that for most of these statements the proportion

of students who actually supported them (i.e. agreed or better) is equal to or greater than

the proportion who did not support the statement (i.e. disagreed or worse):

o My lecturers seem out of touch with the educational technologies that I use (approx

55% disagree)

o I prefer online learning above face-to-face learning in my on campus subjects

(approx 40% disagree). Interestingly, however, around 40% of students also agree

with this statement

o I would like to have more of my subjects fully online (just over 30% disagree ... while

50% actually agree with this statement)

o I use Turnitin for electronic plagiarism checking (just under 30% disagree ... while

around 55% agree)

o I prefer online learning above paper-based learning in my distance subjects (approx

25% disagree ... while around 55% agree). This suggests a strengthening in the

preference for online materials versus printed materials compared with the 2010

results. In 2010, only 38.5% of students supported the statement that they

preferred online materials in their distance subjects compared with 55% herein. (see

Figure 3c.17)


In addition to the “Top Five” above, encouraging results were also achieved in relation to

these key statements about educational technology at CSU:

o I am satisfied with the range of technologies available for studying and

communication (approx 80% agree)

o Educational technology increases my satisfaction with learning (just under 80%

agree)

o My lecturers are good at using educational technology for teaching (approx 75%

agree)

o My teachers meet the expectations I have about online communication (just over

70% agree) (see Figure 3c.17)

Some interesting differences in responses to these statements were observed between

student groups, including:

o On Campus students were more likely to be critical of lecturers being “out of touch”

with the educational technology they use compared with Distance students. Over a

third of On Campus students agreed that their lecturers were out of touch on this

point (see Figure 3c.18). Similarly, male students (approx 33% agree) are more

critical of lecturers on this point than female students (approx 22% agree) (see

Figure 3c.19)

o As may be expected, Distance students were much more supportive of having more

of their subjects fully online compared with On Campus or Mixed Mode students.

Interestingly, however, 20% of Distance students disagreed with the notion of

having more of their subjects fully online, while just over 30% of On Campus

students and over 35% of Mixed Mode students agreed with this notion (see Figure

3c.18). Gender differences were also observed on this item, with just over 55% of

male students agreeing with idea of more subjects being fully online, while around

43% of female students agreed with the same (see Figure 3c.19)

o Male students were also more receptive than female students to the ideas of a)

having more subjects with online components (nearly 70% of male students

agreeing, compared with around 55% of female students) and b) preferring online

learning above paper-based learning in distance subjects (around 64% of male

students agreeing, compared with approx 51% of female students) (see Figure 3c.19)


Experiences of CSU Learning Environments

Out of CSU Interact, classrooms, learning commons and outdoor areas, Interact emerged as

the most positively viewed learning environment at CSU. In excess of 85% of students

surveyed agreed that their overall experiences of a) Interact generally, b) its availability and

c) its functionality have been positive. Within that 85%, more than 20% of students “very

strongly agreed” with these items (see Figure 3c.20). Further analysis showed that, while

still positive, favourable attitudes toward experiences with Interact appear to “soften” as

students progress through their studies. That is, attitudes to Interact (generally and in

relation to availability and functionality) are strongly favourable among first year students

(typically 55-62% very strongly agree and strongly agree) and declining from there to be

least favourable among Post-graduate Research students (typically 33-43% very strongly

agree and strongly agree) – albeit the latter is still a positive result (see Figures 3c.21, 22 and

23). This pattern of results may be expected given that later-year students may have spent

more time over the course of their time at CSU using Interact than first year student ... and

the long you’re using such a system, the greater the chance of something going wrong

While classrooms, learning commons and outdoor areas did not receive as favourable

ratings as Interact, the results show that for the strong majority of students their

experiences with these learning environments are positive. Around 70% of students believe

that classroom configurations and learning commons aid their learning, while just under 60%

of students believe the same of our outdoor areas (see Figure 3c.20). As with Interact, some

differences were observed by level of study:

o Strongly favourable attitudes toward classroom configuration aiding learning

become less prevalent as students progress through their studies. Among First Year

students we see around 38% very strongly or strong agreeing that classroom

configuration aids learning, this declines to around 28% by third year and approx

21% among Post-graduate Research students (see Figure 3c.24)

o The view of learning commons aiding learning is most prevalent among second year

(over 80% agree) and third year students (around 75% agree) (see Figure 3c.26)

o The view of outdoor areas aiding learning is reasonably consistent among

Undergraduate students (approx 59-63% agree), but is less widely held among Post

Graduate students (52% of coursework students agree and only 33% of research

students agree) (see Figure 3c.27)

Nearly 80% of students report that the predominant style of teaching that have experienced

in CSU classrooms is lecturing (see Figure 3c.20). Interestingly, this experience is most

prevalent among second year (nearly 85% agree) and third year students (just over 80%

agree) (see Figure 3c.25)


Experiences and Preferences for Education Technology Usage by Teaching Staff

In Figure 3c.28, we see that students report the “Top Five” technological features, tools or

services used most frequently by lecturers are (in order):

o Access to resources at any time or place that I have internet access

o Announcements

o Email notifications

o Discussion forums

o Access to lecturers

The “Bottom Five” features used least frequently by lecturers are (in order most “never”

ratings):

o Audio comments for assignment feedback

o ePortfolios

o Assessments on mobile devices

o Wikis

o Campus information on mobile devices

In Figure 3c.29, we see that the “Top Five” features, tools or services that students would

like lecturers to use most frequently are (in order):

o Access to resources at any time or place that I have internet access

o Lecture notes

o Announcements

o Access to lecturers

o Email notifications

Critically, Figure 3c.30 shows the comparison of technological feature/tool/service current

usage against preferred usage by student mode. Here we see that for Internal and Mixed

Mode students, the current usage of technological features broadly aligns with their

expectations, with perhaps some opportunities to increase the usage of:

o Readings suitable for e-readers

o Animations

o Getting marked assignments back online

o Tracking progress and grades


o Lecturer feedback

o Assessment on mobile devices


Among Distance students, however, there are a number of marked differences between

current and expected usage of technological features with opportunities to significantly

enhance usage of:

o Readings suitable for e-readers

o Lecture notes

o Audio clips

o Interactive video teaching

o Lecture recording

o Getting marked assignments back online

o Quizzes for learning/self-review/assessment

o Quizzes for grading

o Tracking progress and grades

o Small group work using online tools

o Opportunities to revisit work covered in lectures and seminars

o Subject information on mobile devices

o Subject readings on mobile devices

o Assessments on mobile devices


Experiences of Online Subject Components

Approximately 62% of Distance students report that all of their subjects are delivered totally

online, while, interestingly, around 4% report that none of their subjects have any online

components (other than the subject outline) (see Figure 3c.31)

Around half of On Campus students report that some of their subjects have a mandatory online

component, while 22% report that all of their subjects are delivered totally online (see Figure

3c.32)


Figure 3c.1 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies


Figure 3c.2 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Cultural Background

Figure 3c.3 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Gender


Figure 3c.4 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Level of Study

Figure 3c.5 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Mode


Figure 3c.6 – Attitudes to New Technology by Age

Figure 3c.7 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology


Figure 3c.8 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Cultural Background

Figure 3c.9 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Domesticity


Figure 3c.10 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Gender

Figure 3c.11 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Mode


Figure 3c.12 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics

Figure 3c.13 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Domesticity


Figure 3c.14 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Gender

Figure 3c.15 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Level of Study


Figure 3c.16 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Mode

Figure 3c.17 – Attitude Toward Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU

Figure 3c.18 – Attitude Toward Key Aspects of Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU

by Mode


Figure 3c.19 – Attitude Toward Key Aspects of Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU

by Gender


Figure 3c.20 – Students’ Experiences of CSU Learning Environments

Figure 3c.21 – Students’ Experiences of Interact Functionality by Level of Study

Figure 3c.22 – Students’ Experiences of Interact Availability by Level of Study


Figure 3c.23 – Students’ Overall Experiences of Interact by Level of Study

Figure 3c.24 – Students’ Experiences of Classroom Configuration by Level of Study

Figure 3c.25 – Students’ Experiences of In-Classroom Teaching by Level of Study


Figure 3c.26 – Students’ Experiences of the Learning Commons by Level of Study

Figure 3c.27 – Students’ Experiences of Outdoor Areas by Level of Study


Figure 3c.28 – Students’ Experiences of How Frequently Lecturers Use Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools


Figure 3c.29 – Students’ Preferences for Lecturer Use of Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools


Figure 3c.30 – Alignment between Students’ Experience and Preferences around Lecturer Use of

Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools by Mode


Figure 3c.31 – Students’ Experiences of Online Components in Distance Subjects

Figure 3c.32 – Students’ Experiences of Online Components in On-Campus Subjects


4. Conclusions

The key message of this research is that students are typically supportive of a) educational

technology as a means for enhancing their learning experience and b) CSU’s use of such

technologies. That is, students in this survey tend to exhibit a positive attitude toward educational

technology and indicate that our technologies are adequate in their scope, well used, well supported

and aid student learning. If we have a general weakness in this space it is that our students would

like to see us go further in using educational technology is new ways. Indeed, there does appear to

be significant opportunities to enhance the utilisation of technological features, services or tools for

our Distance students, with these students identifying 15 technological features that are used much

less frequently than would be preferred.

This positivity toward education technology is evident in these interesting findings:

40% of students agree with the statement that they prefer online learning above face-to-

face learning in their on campus subjects, while nearly 50% of all students would like to have

more subjects fully online;

students exhibit a very favourable attitude to Learning Analytics (defined as “an online tool

that enabled you to monitor your learning and studying in advance of assessment tasks and

relative to your peers”) with 84% indicating they would be likely or very likely to use such a

tool;

in 2010, 70% of students who visited a CSU campus did not use our wireless network. This

proportion has fallen to 17% in the current survey;

more than 90% of students agree that educational technology makes learning more flexible,

while just under 80% agree that educational technology increases their satisfaction with

learning; and

approximately 80% of students are satisfied with the range of technologies available for

studying and communication at CSU and nearly 75% believe that their lecturers are good at

using educational technology for teaching;

around 90% agree that the use of educational technology is likely to be important to their

future career/workplace; and

there is an increasing trend in the proportion of students who prefer online learning over

paper-based learning in their distance subjects – with that proportion growing from 38.5% in

2010 to 55% in 2014.


The findings above are reinforced by students’ self-reported behaviour which shows that over the

past four years (2010 – 2014) there has been a substantial shift toward students spending more time

performing computer-based study. In 2010, we found that 59% of students spent less than 11 hours

per week on computer-based study. In 2014, this proportion had decreased to 27% and 39% of

students now spend in excess of 20 hours per week on computer-based study (versus 14.6% in

2010).

While it could be argued that there may be a sampling bias inherent in this survey which led to

greater positivity toward educational technology (i.e. that those students more interested in

technology would be more inclined to participate), this assumption does not necessarily stand up to

scrutiny. For instance, almost half of students in the survey do not possess a desktop computer and

around 30% might be described as “late or cautious adopters” of technology (i.e. only use a

technology once it is well accepted by others and/or may be sceptical of new technology).

It is worth noting that, typically, male students showed a greater interest in and proclivity for

technology compared with female students. There were no clear trends in attitudes toward or

usage of educational technology general based on cultural background, however, two interesting

findings did emerge:

that indigenous students showed greater interest in Learning Analytics than non-indigenous

students; and

students from indigenous and non-Australian backgrounds were more likely to see

“improving my learning” as a key benefit of educational technology than students from non-

indigenous Australian backgrounds (with the latter more strongly valuing educational

technology as tool for “personal management”).

In future technological developments for CSU, it should be considered that an increasing proportion

of students are utilising wireless broadband, 3G and Smart Phones as their primary internet access,

and that around two-thirds of students are already accessing CSU services via mobile device.

Furthermore, it was found that the vast majority of students with a Smart Phone or tablet report

using these devices for both personal and study purposes when on campus and/or off campus. This

result (particularly as it pertains to off campus usage) suggests that many students are integrating

study/learning behaviours into their everyday use of these devices.


Appendix A – Introductory Script

Dear Student

Computer and mobile technologies, and the way people use them, continue to change rapidly. The University

seeks to better understand how students use such technologies, especially in educational settings. Your

feedback through this survey will enable the University to more effectively meet the diverse and changing

needs of its students.

Your responses will be anonymous. Any publication as an outcome of this survey will not identify any

individual or any particular subject in any way. Survey Monkey uses the IP address of a computer to identify a

survey taker but your survey contribution remains anonymous.

Once you have completed the survey a separate page will be displayed where you will be able to participate in

a draw for one of two iPods. Again the email ID you provide will not be linked to the anonymous survey.

The survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete and you are encouraged to complete the full

questionnaire. If you wish to exit the survey at any time and return later to finish it on the same computer,

complete the current page you are working on and click the NEXT button. Clicking the NEXT button will save

your survey and you will be able to return to the same place at a later time using the same computer.

Ensure you have cookies enabled in your browser or the survey will not be saved when you close the webpage.

Ethics approval for this survey has been obtained from the Division of Student Learning Ethics Committee.

Providing information through this online survey is taken as an indication of voluntary consent to participate.

You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. Please contact Assoc Prof Philip

Uys if you wish withdraw after having completed part of the survey.

Any enquiries may be addressed to:

Associate Professor Philip Uys

Director Strategic Learning and Teaching Innovation

Division of Student Learning (DSL)

Charles Sturt University, PO Box 883, Orange, NSW 2800 Australia

Email: [email protected] http://www.csu.edu.au/division/lts/

Any complaints around ethical issues should be addressed to the Chair of the Division of Student Learning

Ethics Committee.

Contact: [email protected]

To access and complete the survey, please click NEXT below.

The survey runs from Monday 24 March to Wednesday 30 April 2014.

Thank you for your participation. Your response is essential for improving the effectiveness of educational

technologies at CSU.

Documents

Charles Sturt University 2014 Educational Technology ...€¦ · CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report September 2014 3 1. Executive Summary This survey represents