Trends in Technology Administration in Student Affairs

Leslie Dare, Ed.D.Amanda G. ThomasCarrie L. Zelna, Ph. D.

Student AffairsDivision of

Trends in Technology Administrationin Student Affairs

NASPA Annual ConferenceTampa, FL

March 21, 2005

Presentation Agenda

•Overview of Project•Survey Objectives•Methodology•Survey Results•Implications•Questions & Answers

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?


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).


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).


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/


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

– Categorical Data• Frequencies

– Continuous• Univariate: Means, Skewness, Kurtosis, min, max,

confidence intervals (.05), etc

Descriptive Statistics

• Determine if there is a statistical difference in the means (ANOVA) or if there is an association between to variables (Chi Square).

• ANOVAs (categorical/continuous data) to determine difference in means– Assumptions: Univariate for Residuals (Normality of Errors)

and HOVTest (Equal Variance) Welch for Non-equal Variance

• Chi Squares (categorical/categorical data) to determine association and Cramer’s V to determine strength

Inferential Statistics

• 95% confidence interval for an alpha of .05. This value was used in inferential statistics to determine if the difference or association was statistically significant. P-value measures the probability of observing a value as extreme or more extreme than the one observed.

• ANOVA:– R-Squared is an indication of the strength of the relationship.

It is the amount of variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable. 0-1

• Chi Square:– Cramer’s V is based on the Chi Square statistic and indicates

the strength of the association. 0-1

What are we looking for?

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

41.7

58.3 58.25

41.75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pop (3942) Return (400)

Population and Return

PublicPrivate

05

1015202530354045

Pop (3941) Return (410)

Population and Return

DR Univ Ext DR Univ Inten Masters I Masters II Bac Lib Arts Bac Gen Bac/Associate Associate Specialized Tribal C&U

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

Questions1. Based on the response to the question on planning, indicate the type of technology staff. (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .32Missing: 5

51

24

83

29

58

18

59

85

0

1020

3040

5060

7080

90

Primarily SA(75)

Primarily tech(112)

Even Mixture(76)

No Tech Staff(144)

YesNo

40

116

56

37

55

69

13 200

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Institutions

Yes (249) No (157)

Plan


Questions1. Based on institution size, how many institutions engage in technology planning? (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .26Missing: 6

63

81

55 48

11

37

19

89

0102030405060708090


Yes(247) No (156)

Plan

1 FT position 1 Respon Committee No leadership

Questions1. Based on institution staffing, how many institutions engage in technology planning? (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .403Missing: 9

Questions1. Based on the response to the question on planning, how many include assessment as

part of the planning process? (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .874 Missing: 4

190

5

56

175

135

0

50

100

150

200


Yes (195) No (73) NA (140)

Assessment Planning

PlanDo Not Plan

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

548

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

Questions1. Based on institution size, identify the technology leadership. (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .303Missing: 10

4

15

27 28 25

54

2118

12

44

14

4

52

71

7 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 FT Position (74) One Resp (118) Committee (74) No Leader (136)


Questions1. Based on institution size, indicate the background of technology staff. (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .277Missing: 6

20

41

9 7 10

34 3136

11

37

15 13

54

73

14

10

1020304050607080

Prim SA (77) Prim tech (111) Even mix (76) No tech staff(142)


Questions1. Based on institution type, indicate the background of technology staff. (Descriptive: Cross tabulation)2. Is there a relationship/association? (Chi 2): p-value: .001 Cramer’s V: .333Missing: 14

45

28

86

23

48

28

53

87

0102030405060708090

Primarily SA (73)

Primarily Tech(109)

Even Mixture (76)

No Tech Staff(140)

Public Private

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

Resources (Technologies)

What are examples of other technologies that are being used for:• Individual or departmental productivity• Delivering student services and

programs

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/departmental productivity than for delivering services and programs.

“Please let us know if there is any additional information you would like to share regarding the use of technology in Student Affairs at your institution.”

Section 6: Other

• Comments = 67• Main themes:

– Structure of Student Affairs and Technology (Current) (Many ways to set up Tech support)

– Auditing– New Versions– New Technology/Products

Section 6: Other

Structure Examples• All technology falls under Student Affairs• Contract with IT department• One Student Affairs unit: Data,servers, web interface,

desktop support, etc• 15 FT tech that supports staff and Student Groups-2300

help calls• IT office has staff dedicated to Student Affairs• SA works closely with IT department to meet needs-no

formal relationship• VP on tech committees

Section 6: Other

Implications

• 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

Assessment of DETS at NC State

Suggestions: Data, Literature, and Experience•Designate “technology leadership” as a responsibility in the Student Affairs organization (position, hat or committee)•Participate in campus-wide technology efforts (e.g., committees) •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

•Engage in deliberate technology planning (including budgeting and assessment) for the Student Affairs organization and units within the Student Affairs organization•Improve your own “Tech IQ” and comfort level

Trends in Technology Administrationin Student Affairs

Leslie A. Dare, Ed.D.Amanda G. ThomasCarrie L. Zelna, Ph.D.

Division of Student AffairsNC State UniversityCampus Box 7301Raleigh, NC 27695-7301

[email protected]

[email protected][email protected]

•This Presentation and Projecthttp://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/techadminsurvey/

•Distance Education & Technology Services (Student Affairs, NC State)http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/dets/

•Research & Assessment (Student Affairs, NC State)http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/sara/

•Division of Student Affairs (NC State)http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/