Transcript Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College

Tech Talk:
Technology Implementation in Community
College Student Services
A partnership project between
NCSD National Office & CampusWorks, Inc
Presented by: Julia Panke Makela
with support from
The NCSD Technology Advisory Committee
Survey Development & Procedures
Going about figuring it out
Technology Area Questions
• In what areas have student development professionals in
two-year colleges implemented technology tools?
• Are there differences in the areas technology tools by
implementation by demographics (e.g., size, location,
region)?
• Are these technology tools easy for staff to use?
• Do these technology tools effectively meet the needs of
staff?
3
Implementation Level Questions
• Can we uncover information about the level of technology
implementation by two-year institutions?
• What types of technology are found in two-year colleges
with low-level implementation? Moderate implementation?
Extensive implementation?
4
Method for Exploring Questions
• Established an NCSD Technology Advisory Committee
(TAC) to determine technology areas and specific questions
to address
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Evelyn Clements, NCSD Past President
Jim Grigsby, Germanna Community College (VA)
Gilbert Hermosillo, MiraCosta College (CA)
Mike Lopez, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MN)
Peg Morelli, James A. Rhodes State College (OH)
Darrow Neves, Middlesex Community College (MA)
Susan Roberts, Columbia-Greene Community College (NY)
Lori A. Sebranek, Madison Area Technical College (WI)
Sandra H. Thomas, John Wood Community College (IL)
Henry B. Villareal, College of San Mateo (CA)
5
Method for Exploring Questions
• Developed a survey covering:
– 11 technology areas
– respondent demographics
– overall concerns
• Conducted the survey online via Survey Monkey
• Used SPSS and Excel to run data comparisons at the
National Office, with feedback gathered from the NCSD
TAC
6
Survey Participants
Who helped us figure it out?
Participants
• Originally contacted:
– 589 Chief Student Services Officers
• 168 NCSD members
• 421 non-members
– One contact per community college, contacts obtained from
NCSD Membership List and Contact List
• Participated:
– 118 responded (20.0%)
– 102 (17.3%) provided usable surveys
• 49 NCSD members (29.2% of those contacted)
• 53 non-members (12.6% of those contacted)
8
Demographics – Participant Role
• The possible respondent categories included:
– President or Vice President of your Institution
– Dean or Vice President of Students, Student Affairs, or Student
Development
– Director of a Student Services Office (e.g. Admissions, Financial
Aid, Career Services
– Associate or Assistant Director of a Student Services Office
– Faculty or Instructor
– Chief Technology Officer, or IT Staff Member
– Other (please specify)
9
Demographics – Participant Role
• Target audience 1:
Dean or Vice President of
Students, Student Affairs,
or Student Development
• Target audience 2:
President or Vice President
of your Institution.
• Over 85% of respondents
fell in these categories.
10
Demographics –Region
• The possible responses included the NCSD regions:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Region 2: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
Region 3: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee
Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Region 11: Canada
11
Demographics –Region
• Largest response from:
– Region VI - Midwest (23%)
– Region IV - Southeast (23%)
– Region V - Southwest (11%)
• Smaller response from:
– Region III – Middle East Coast
(8%)
– Region VII – South (7%)
– Region VIII – Midwest / Central
(7%)
– Region I – Northeast (7%)
– Region X – Northwest (5%)
– Region II – Upper east coast (5%)
– Region IX– Central (4%)
12
Demographics - Size
• Potential responses included the Carnegie Classification
sizes for two–year institutions:
–
–
–
–
–
Less than 500
500 to 1,999
2,000 to 4,900
5,000 to 9,999
10,000 or more
13
Demographics - Size
• Responding institutions
were primarily from larger
institutions:
– 10,000 or more students
(36%)
– 5,000 – 9,999 students
(25%)
– 2,000 – 4,900 students
(26%)
14
Demographics - Environment
• The possible responses included:
–
–
–
–
–
Urban
Suburban
Small Town
Rural
Other
15
Demographics - Environment
• Responding institutional
environments were more evenly
distributed than their
geographic regions.
–
–
–
–
26% suburban
24% small towns
23% rural
21% urban
• 6% reported other
environments
16
Technology Area Implementation
So, what do they have?
11 Technology Areas
• Admissions and student
recruitment
• Financial aid
• Academic placement,
orientation, and assistance
• Academic advising
• Registration
• Student email
• Assistive technology for
people with disabilities
• Counseling
• Career services
• Student activities
• Other student services
18
Admissions and Recruiting
• Does your institution have?
– Technology-based recruiting tools
– Online marketing materials
• Prospective students website
• Virtual tour
– Online applications
• Before seeing the results… What would you expect the
implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
19
Admissions and Recruiting
• Technology-based recruiting tools
– Yes 74.5%
No 19.6%
Don't Know 4.9%
• Online marketing materials
– Prospective students website
– Virtual tour
64.7 %
28.4 %
• Online applications
– Yes 90.2 %
No 8.8 %
Don't Know 0.0%
20
Admissions and Recruiting
Best Experiences
• Online applications
• Fast, easy communication
• Websites, online registration
and online orientation
Biggest Challenges
• Inadequate technology
• Loss of face-to-face interactions
/ personal touch
• Technology glitches (e.g.
duplicate applications, system
crashes)
• Accuracy of information
• Time for data entry
21
Financial Aid
• Does your institution have?
– Online processing for financial aid applications
– Online view for application progress
– Online inquiry for application progress
• Before seeing the results… What would you expect the
implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
22
Financial Aid
• Online processing for financial aid applications
– Yes 84.3%
No 8.8 %
Don't Know 6.9%
• Online view for application progress
– Yes 64.7%
No 12.7%
Don't Know 8.8%
• Online inquiry for application progress
– Yes 66.7 %
No 11.8 %
Don't Know 8.8%
23
Financial Aid
Best Experiences
• Timeliness / speed at all phases
of the application process
• Ease of use
• Specific system feature
Biggest Challenges
• Loss of personal touch –
students want face-to-face for
financial matters
• Training
• Security / privacy / FERPA
• Ease of use
• Student usage
• Accuracy of input
• Student access and literacy
24
Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance
• Does your institution have?
– Computer-based academic placement
– Computer-based student orientation
– Academic assistance
• Computer-based academic tutoring
• Computer-based study / Life skills training
• Advising via online chat
• Tutoring via online chat
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
25
Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance
• Computer-based academic placement
– Online
– Offline
52.9%
50.0%
• Computer-based student orientation
– Online
– Offline
39.2%
8.8%
• Academic Assistance
–
–
–
–
Computer-based academic tutoring
Computer-based study / Life skills training
Advising via online chat
Tutoring via online chat
62.7%
34.3%
25.5%
18.6%
26
Academic Placement, Orientation & Assistance
Best Experiences
• Student reception and access
• Specific system feature
• Timely and effective
communication
Biggest Challenges
• Ensuring access
• Security / privacy / FERPA /
identity verification
• Staff time
• Low usage
• Training
• Cost
27
Academic Advising
• Does your institution have technology for…
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Student academic records
Academic placement records
Web-based degree audits
Transfer articulation records
Student class schedules
Automated advisor assignment
Web-based self-scheduling for student-advisor appointments
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
28
Academic Advising
• Student academic records
• Academic placement records
• Web-based degree audits
• Transfer articulation records
• Student class schedules
• Automated advisor assignment
• Web-based self-scheduling
90.2%
90.2%
61.8%
60.8%
93.1%
28.4%
20.6%
29
Academic Advising
Best Experiences
• Specific system feature, e.g.
degree audit, academic history
• Current, accurate information
• Ease of use
• Software system
• Use in distance advising
Biggest Challenges
• Current, accurate information
• Ease of use
• Integration with other systems
/ software
• Security
• Training
• Time and cost
• Improve specific feature, e.g.
transfer articulation check
• Flexibility for 2- yr. college
environments
30
Registration
• Does your institution have?
– Computer-based methods of registration
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
31
Registration
• Computer-based methods of registration
– Online 85.3%
– Offline 30.4%
32
Registration
Best Experiences
• Students can be more selfsufficient / personally
responsible for registration
process
• Real time access 24/7
• Saves time and space – more
efficient
• Specific system feature
Biggest Challenges
• Technology glitches
• Loss of personal touch –
face-to-face time is necessary for
some
• Student data entry error
• Training
• Inadequacy of user interface or
system features
• Cost and staff time
• Security
• Keeping the technology current
33
Student Email
• Does your institution have?
– Email accounts for students
• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of email usage
by students?
– Low, medium or high?
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
34
Student Email
• Email accounts for students
– Yes 65.7%
No 28.4%
Don't Know 0.0%
• Level of email usage by students
–
–
–
–
Low
Medium
High
Don’t Know
40.3%
43.3%
11.9%
4.5%
35
Student Email
Best Experiences
• Communication to individual
students and groups
Biggest Challenges
• Student use
– Other personal accounts
– How to assess?
– Is it effective?
•
•
•
•
Managing account assignment
Training
Spam
Managing the volume of emails
sent to students
• Creating a single password
36
Assistive Technology
• Does your institution have?
– Assistive technology for people with disabilities
• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by
students?
– Low, medium or high?
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
37
Assistive Technology
• Assistive technology for people with disabilities
– Yes 72.5%
No 9.8%
Don't Know 10.8%
• Level of assistive technology usage by students
–
–
–
–
Low
Medium
High
Don’t Know
15.7%
30.4%
22.5%
3.9%
38
Assistive Technology
Best Experiences
• Specific software, e.g.,
ZoomText, JAWS
• Student use and reported
satisfaction
• Access / effectiveness
Biggest Challenges
• Cost
• Staying current
• Training
• Space / hours of operation
• Access
• Knowledge of available
resources / use
• Standardization
• Anticipating needs
• Specific tool, e.g. books on
tape
39
Counseling
• Does your institution have?
– Computer-based needs assessment
– Computer-based client intake
– Counseling via online or chat services
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
40
Counseling
• Computer-based needs assessment
• Computer-based client intake
• Counseling via online or chat services
24.5%
10.8%
16.7%
41
Counseling
Best Experiences
• Distance counseling / various
locations
• Needs assessment
• Student reported satisfaction
Biggest Challenges
• Security / confidentiality /
verification of identity
• Use
• A need for more in this area
• Personal touch
42
Career Services
• Does your institution have?
–
–
–
–
Self-assessment
Career / major exploration
Placement
Client data tracking
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
43
Career Services
• Self-assessment
– Online 50.0%
Offline55.9%
• Career / major exploration
– Online 58.8%
Offline59.8%
• Placement
– Online 33.3%
Offline67.6%
• Client data tracking
– Online 21.6%
Offline16.7%
44
Career Services
Best Experiences
• Wealth of information
• Access
• Specific software, e.g., job
posting
Biggest Challenges
• Student use
• Personal touch
• Current info for local labor
market
45
Student Activities
• Does your institution have?
– Technology to encourage student clubs/groups to interact online
• If “Yes,” how would you describe the level of usage by
students?
– Low, medium or high?
• What would you expect the implementation levels to be?
– Low
– Medium
– High
46
Student Activities
• Technology to encourage student clubs/groups to interact
online
– Yes 38.2%
No 42.2%
Don't Know 5.9%
• Level of email usage by students
–
–
–
–
Low
Medium
High
Don’t Know
38.8%
41.8%
11.9%
7.5%
47
Student Activities
Best Experiences
• Improved communication
• Improved access for distance
students
• Use
• Student engagement
Biggest Challenges
• Inappropriate use
• A need for more in this area
• Use
• Staying current
48
Technology Implementation Levels
Exploring
implementation
areas across
institutions
Level Exploration Strategy
• 86 respondents completed all 11 sections of the survey, and
therefore could be included in overall trend analyses.
• Give institutions credit for ANY type of technology in an
area
• These 86 institutions reported having implemented
technology in:
– Minimum of 5 (45.5%) areas
– Maximum of 11 (100.0%) areas
– Average of 9 (81.8%) areas
50
Implementation Categories
• Institution were categorized as
follows:
– Low implementation
7 or fewer areas
– Medium implementation
8-9 areas
– High implementation
10-11 areas
• Number of institutions in each
category:
– 12 low implementation
– 41 medium implementation
– 33 high implementation
Number of
Areas
Percent of
Areas
Number of
Institutions
5
45.45%
2
6
54.55%
1
7
63.64%
9
8
72.73%
19
9
81.82%
22
10
90.91%
16
11
100.00%
17
51
Low Implementation Institutions (12)
Technology Area
Number of Institutions
Percent
Admissions
12
100.0%
Financial Aid
5
41.7%
Placement / Orientation
11
91.7%
Academic Advising
11
91.7%
Registration
9
75.0%
Student Email
5
41.7%
Assistive Tech
3
25.0%
Counseling
1
8.3%
Career Services
10
83.3%
Student Activities
1
8.3%
Other
11
91.7%
52
Popular Technology for
Low Implementation Institutions
100.0%
Percent Institutions
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Low Implementation
Admissions
Medium Implementation
Placement / Orientation
High Implementation
Academic Advising
Other
53
Medium Implementation Institutions (41)
Technology Area
Number of Institutions
Percent
Admissions
41
100.0%
Financial Aid
38
92.7%
Placement / Orientation
39
95.1%
Academic Advising
39
95.1%
Registration
39
95.1%
Student Email
25
61.0%
Assistive Tech
30
73.2%
Counseling
13
31.7%
Career Services
39
95.1%
Student Activities
6
14.6%
Other
41
100.0%
54
Additional Popular Technology for
Medium Implementation Institutions
100.0%
Percent Institutions
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Low Implementation
Medium Implementation
Financial Aid
Registration
High Implementation
Career Services
55
High Implementation Institutions (33)
Technology Area
Number of Institutions
Percent
Admissions
33
100.0%
Financial Aid
33
100.0%
Placement / Orientation
32
97.0%
Academic Advising
33
100.0%
Registration
33
100.0%
Student Email
29
87.9%
Assistive Tech
33
100.0%
Counseling
24
72.7%
Career Services
33
100.0%
Student Activities
31
93.9%
Other
33
100.0%
56
Additional Popular Technology for
High Implementation Institutions
100.0%
Percent Institutions
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Low Implementation
Medium Implementation
Assistive Tech
High Implementation
Student Activities
57
Technology Not Addressed
Low
Implement
Medium
Implement
High
Implement
Admissions
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Financial Aid
41.7%
92.7%
100.0%
Placement / Orientation
91.7%
95.1%
97.0%
Academic Advising
91.7%
95.1%
100.0%
Registration
75.0%
95.1%
100.0%
Student Email
41.7%
61.0%
87.9%
Assistive Tech
25.0%
73.2%
100.0%
Counseling
8.3%
31.7%
72.7%
Career Services
83.3%
95.1%
100.0%
Student Activities
8.3%
14.6%
93.9%
Other
91.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Technology Area
58
Technology Ease and Effectiveness
How is technology
really addressing
needs?
Ease / Effective Exploration Strategy
• Please tell us about your staff’s experience with ____.
– Is it easy to use?
– Does it effectively meet your needs?
• Reponses were rated on a 5 point scale
–
–
–
–
–
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Somewhat
Moderately
Very
Extremely
– Or, Don’t Know
60
Exploration Strategy, Con’t.
• For each set of ease / effectiveness questions, we created
difference scores
–
–
–
–
Respondent 1: Ease1 – Effectiveness1 = Difference1
Respondent 2: Ease2 – Effectiveness2 = Difference2
…
Respondent n: Easen – Effectivenessn = Differencen
• Then, the mean of the differences was found.
• A two-tailed t-test for the differences was computed at
α = .05
61
What differences do you see?
Not significant
• Marketing
• Financial aid applications
• Academic placement tools
• Academic advising applications
• Registration
• Assistive technology for people
with disabilities
• Online career services
Significant
• Recruiting tools
• Admissions applications
• Orientation tools
• Academic support tools
• Student email
• Counseling services
• Offline career services
• Student clubs and groups
For all, ease of use scores
were significantly higher than
effective scores.
62
Overall Future Challenges
What overall
challenges will
community colleges
face down the line?
Most Cited Challenges
1. Resources (30)
–
–
–
–
Cost / Funding (19)
Time (4)
Infrastructure (4)
Other (3)
2. Specific Area (25)
–
–
–
–
–
Advising (8)
Distance Education (6)
Email (3)
Counseling (2)
Other (6)
64
Most Cited Challenges
3. Training (19)
–
–
–
Staff / Faculty (11)
Students (6)
Not specified (2)
4. Staying current with technology changes (18)
5. Expectations / consumer market (10)
6. Others…
–
–
–
–
–
Data entry / conversions / compatibility (8)
Student use / awareness (6)
Access / literacy (6)
Security (5)
Quality / high tech-high touch (3)
65
Thank you for listening!
For questions or additional
information, contact:
Julia Panke Makela
Assistant Director,
NCSD National Office
[email protected]
(217) 244-0731
Special Thanks to CampusWorks, Inc
CampusWorks Inc. (CWI) is an information technology (IT)
management and strategic planning services firm dedicated
exclusively to technology support to higher education.
CampusWorks specializes in working within the community college
higher education arena and provides information technology
leadership and technical expertise to a number of North American
clients. You can learn more about them at:
www.campusworksinc.com