Faculty need time to explore & improve technology skills.
Technology research tells us the best way to advance the integration of technology is to provide TIME.    64%  - The most pressing need of the faculty is expressed in their sense of conflict over time management.  Most members of the unit do not have sufficient time to stay current as technology changes.  Perhaps if training needs are closely addressed, this dissatisfaction may, in part, be reduced.

Check requests for Wireless.
There may be a lack of training or ability for unit members to access current wireless accounts.  Considering that there are several angles to consider, further study into this issue is warranted.  We need to have an understanding of what the footprint of the current wireless network is and what hardware/software is required for access.  Also, we should check to see what devices are able to access this network and how much use is being made of this system.  We would also need to develop a training program to teach potential users what they need to know in order to make use of this system.  We should further determine the exact nature of the problems users encounter to learn if they are with the system or elsewhere.

Check to see who is not using technology and why.
2% of the faculty indicated they were dead set against technology, choosing the response: "I am just not a technology person. Never was, never will be." This by itself seems negligible but when you consider the 2006 survey represents 73% of the COE faculty, it is conceivable many of those refusing to be surveyed may also feel this way. It will be important to find out more about the non-respondees and to pursue the reasons faculty chose this response. Often it can mean they have been somehow left behind or slower to adapt or embrace (Fine Arts report). Perhaps, too, they may have other preferred or better ways of reaching students and it may not be prudent to push them into it. If this is the case, could there be alternatives to dealing with technology integration we have not  yet considered?  e.g., Do all faculty need to integrate technology? If so, how much?  Do all courses lend themselves to technology integration? If so, how much is ideal? Do all students respond best when technology is integrated? If so, are there limits here, too?

Exactly who is using technology?
Each of these sub-questions provide interesting analysis.  When it comes to actual web enhancement, there is a significant core of better than 20% of the teaching staff that are not availing themselves of the web.  This is a significant chunk and we need to investigate where, exactly the instruction at SFA is NOT being moved on-line.  Our approach to dealing with this situation would be affected if the non-users are mostly adjunct, and other non-tenure track individuals, as compared to non-webers who are evenly distributed among the population.  Further analysis of the data will be necessary to determine if any correlation exists between rank & non-web use.

Regarding undergraduates.  This seems to be the strongest source of integration, yet, the amount of non-integration may still be considerable and/or significant given the current state of technology integration in all of life.

Regarding graduates.  This appears to be our weakest source of integration. Further examination of our graduate program/staff is recommended to see more clearly how this is being played out.  It would be interesting to investigate non-integrators and learn what the nature is of their thinking on these matters. 

Can't live by a single thread holding you there - add good tech staff.
OIT's Dr. Melane McCuller is often mentioned as a key person in the success faculty feel with respect to integrating technology; everyone knows that Melane will come to their rescue with the drop of a hat. We cannot afford for this to continue--we need more Melanes.  In both surveys, faculty often mention the need to have support when and where they need it and they also would like it in the form of a real live competent friendly one-on-one person. Many other faculty members in the various departments have mentioned they jump in to assist but it is clear, technology integration is dependent upon the competent available support for it.   We also cannot afford to lose our Melane, and no program(s) should be that dependent upon a single person.

Technology workshops are popular and more are requested.
More workshops are requested, both basic and advanced, to meet a variety of faculty needs, styles, etc.  This burden might be shared beyond OIT.

Routine upgrades are necessary.
Many faculty wrote in that routine upgrades should become a priority.

Policy/Quality Assurance Issue Needs - Continue professional development for faculty.
We should continue to ensure all faculty understand this important information. 82 to 84 participants responded to the following set of questions. Do you understand Internet copyright/plagiarism rules: 65.5% much agree, 31% agree, 2.45 disagree, and 1.25 somewhat disagree. Are you familiar with SFAs Internet acceptable use policy: 59.5% much agree, 32.1% somewhat agree, 4.8% somewhat disagree, and 3.6% disagree. Do you understand quality web page design: 45.2% somewhat agree, 23.8% much agree, and 15.5% selected either somewhat disagree or disagree. Do you understand SFAs network privacy/security policy: 45.1% much agree, 42.7% somewhat agree, and 6.1% selected either somewhat disagree or disagree.  Do you understand computer use and safety concerns: 39.8% somewhat agree; 38.6% much agree, 12.% somewhat disagree, and 9.6% disagree.

Additional less urgent needs.
37%    There are a significant number of unit members expressing some form of dissatisfaction with the portable computers they use.  First there is a huge need for software upgrading.  For many the portable computer itself is out-dated, 33%. The unit needs to have an on-going replacement policy for its portable computers.  We need to determine the difference between the need/envy concerns.  Yet, from the standpoint of factors affecting faculty retention, job satisfaction, & productivity, this might prove to be an important investment.

34%    From among the survey participants who addressed this issue, (presumably unit members with knowledge of the situation) there is a need to pay better attention to the availability of adaptive technologies for students.  We need to request data directly from students who require adaptive technology to find out if their needs are being met.

33%    A third of the survey participants indicated some problems with regard to the computers available to our students.  Although 67% of the participants felt that students have easy access to strong reliable computers, 39% could only agree somewhat.  Taken together, it appears that this issue is perhaps the one with the largest potential impact on the university as a whole.  It seems remarkable to us that a university of this size does not have a single computer lab available to its students 24/7/365!  Again, failure to meet such a basic need for students may have a significant impact on our ability to recruit and/or retain quality students.  To determine the best course of action, we recommend that the university conduct a study of current student computing needs and compare that data with how other universities are meeting similar needs for their students.

31%    A significant number of unit members appear dissatisfied with the technologies available in the classrooms where they teach.  A notable consideration here may be in the variation between teaching classrooms in the newest buildings and those in the oldest.  The cost of retro-fitting classrooms with modern technologies must be weighed against the benefits of designing new construction with tech-friendly engineering. 

30%    Almost half of the unit members have at least some issues with home-based internet connection.  As the unit focuses more attention on web-based instruction and other forms of technology enhancement, it is critical that high-speed access be made available to unit members.

Significant Technology/Access Needs Expressed
23%    Unit members expressed a need for better software in their office computers.  There may be some need to systematically upgrade software used regularly.

23%    Reliably functioning classroom technologies seems to be more of a problem than the rate of dissatisfaction might suggest.  The responses were particularly weak on the Agree side, with 43% of the respondents reporting only Somewhat Agree.  It is important to determine the nature of “non-functionality” evident in this data.  The problem may be equipment malfunctioning, outdated, improperly maintained, missing, partially missing, or even improperly operated.  A fuller understanding of the problem needs to be developed by further study before an action plan can be developed.

22% (N=54)    There appears to be a significant number of unit members with difficulties regarding adaptive technologies necessary to meet their needs.  Considering that this might be an issue for tort negligence, it is critical that we quickly determine the nature of the needs that are not being met so that appropriate measures might be taken immediately to resolve these issues.  The size of the group with unmet needs is irrelevant.  This is an area we are obligated to eliminate.

19%    Similar in importance to the question relating to portable computers, having a powerful, up-to-date office computer is a basic necessity for unit members.  Developing a plan and budgeting for ongoing computer updating & replacement must become part the normal cycle.  We must consider this issue unresolved when nearly one in five unit members have a sense that their office computer is out of date.

Technology/Access Needs Expressed
13%    The need for access to training emerged from the data as another angle to consider in relation to the whole technology training picture.  Who among the unit members considers their access to the current training options as limited or blocked?  What factors limit or block access to training?  We need to determine why training needs are unmet before guessing at remedies.  However, we must consider that not all unit members who desire training are able to engage in it as needed.  Steps to reduce or eliminate limitations or barriers (e.g., time) must be on our “to-do” list

Faculty Training Requests:
The survey attempted to elicit from the participants areas in which training might be most effectively employed.  We felt it was equally important to determine what sort of training was NOT needed.  Needs expressed in the range of 10% or less seemed insignificant in the face of the much higher groupings that emerged from the data.  Needs expressed in the range of 11% - 15% indicate the presence of a low, but serviceable population of potential trainees, all of which indicated Advanced training needs.  Special small groups or tutoring sessions with an emphasis on a highly flexible schedule should be adequate to meet these needs.  Needs expressed in the range of 16% - 25% indicate a significant training need for the unit.  Needs expressed in excess of one quarter of the population should become the target of immediate, aggressive, and urgent attention.  Analysis of the data for question 13 will be presented in declining order of significance, from most urgently needed to the least needed.

Urgent Training Needs Expressed
•    Basic Graphics/Photo editing            48%
•    Basic Hand-Held devices (PDAs)        41%
•    Advanced web page development        41%
•    Basic web page development            40%
•    Basic Desktop Publishing            39%
•    Advanced classroom technologies        36%
•    Basic P2V                    36%
•    Basic Database                33%
•    Basic Spreadsheets                31%
•    Advanced On-line Research tools        31%
•    Advanced Presentation Software        29%
•    Basic Textbook Companion CD        27%

Significant Training Needs Expressed
•    Advanced Graphics/Photo editing        23%
•    Basic Educational Software            22%
•    Basic Digital Cameras            21%
•    Advanced Spreadsheets            21%
•    Advanced Desktop Publishing        20%
•    Basic Chat room or Discussion Board        20%
•    Basic Scanner                    19%
•    Basic Grade book                19%
•    Advanced Word processing            18%
•    Advanced Database                18%
•    Basic On-Line Research tools        17%

Training Needs Expressed
•    Advanced Educational Software        15%
•    Advanced Scanner                15%
•    Advanced P2V                14%
•    Advanced MySFA                13%
•    Advanced Chat room or Discussion Board    12%
•    Advanced Digital Cameras            11%

Notable in the data is the contrast of need between MySFA, an intuitive, Graphical User Interfaced (GUI) based system option VS the arcane, UNIX code based P2V system.  Both of these systems provide many overlapping core services to the unit with each also offering additional non-overlapping options.  In the P2V environment, users must memorize multiple codes and numbers to conduct the most basic activities.  All inexperienced users must be trained just to begin making use of these services.  Even experienced, periodic users are forced to constantly refresh their memories.  This results in a significant on-going need for basic training with P2V.  In the MySFA environment, however, first time users can easily see and follow logical, easy to find links to accomplish all basic needs.  For P2V, which has been in existence for decades, there is an abundance of expressed need for both basic and advanced training.  More than half of the population expressed training needs with P2V.  By contrast, MySFA, which has been in existence less than 5 years elicits only advanced training needs.  Nearly 80% of the population expressed no training needs at all with MySFA.  There may be a generational element involved in this issue.  Historically speaking, the P2V system is what many of the “Older” unit members “grew-up-on,” whereas, the GUI environment of MySFA is the only environment the “Younger” unit members have ever known. This seems to indicate that the most elegant, and “forward thinking” solution would be to expedite the transition to full functioning within the GUI environment of MySFA for all of the Units’ computing needs and retire P2V.   One faculty member confided anonymously that they refuse to use P2V because it is “...an outdated dinosaur.  If I can’t do it with MySFA, it isn’t going to get done!”

It is recommended that these results be presented to the Office of Instructional Technology with a recommendation to develop a training schedule designed to meet the expressed needs.

Recommendations / Requests / Plans - Department Level:
Faculty requests for training will be shared with the chair of Standard 5, with the Office of Instructional Technology (OIT), and the Teaching Excellence Center (TEC).

OSP - Check to determine if any departments should consider requiring a technology course and/or electronic portfolio.

Secondary Ed & Ed Leadership - Continue to update faculty computers, add two projection systems, and a smart-board

Human Sciences - Constantly updating & rotating computers but smart boards would be a plus. 

Hospitality program - in need of an on-site commercial kitchen
Nutrition program - in need of a science lab for food testing. 
Adjustable lighting in some of the classrooms could be improved / lighting laboratory is needed for interior design. 
The Fashion Merchandising area is in need of a Historical Costume Laboratory as well as textile laboratory.

Fine Arts - Looking for more faculty to complete WebCT certification; look for university to take over maintenance of classroom technological equipment; more peer training.

Field Placements - More portable equipment will be purchased and training will be offered.

Distance Education and Standard 6  -  continuing to acquire IDEAL learning Environment rooms.

Continue implementation of COE computer Domain, Advanced Server for database and communications, and integration of new system management techniques.

Provide more services in Educational Media Center and more information to faculty and staff about services available through other University offices and departments.

Continue to work on being able to present College of Education courses online.  We currently have 60% of our courses available and anticipate 100% by August 2007.
 
There is an SFA Distance Education Committee that provides input on distance education policy and procedures.  One upcoming improvement is a new website dedicated solely for students to gather information on distance education programs, courses, and services.  Another upcoming improvement is a tool that will streamline the process of helping academic departments analyze academic programs in regards to their level of appropriateness for being offered online.
 

Further Study

Follow up
We need to look more closely at our graduates even though we have follow up surveys in place (professional development; specific use of technology)

Field
We need to know more about computer access in field placements.
Check further into PDS - Our unit has recently reestablished our Professional Development School (PDS) exchange with community schools, mentor teachers, and university field supervisors to take a closer collaborative look at ways we might improve learning in local schools. Technology will definitely be explored during these professional development exchanges.

Resources and Support
Regarding the perceived need for access to electronic library & curricular resources, there was strong indication these needs are being met.  However, it appeared noteworthy that almost a quarter of the respondents listed their level of met needs to be only “some.”  It appears that there may be some level of dissatisfaction in this regard.  Perhaps this question did not quite hit a sore spot… but it seems that with additional exploration, we might more accurately expose a hidden weakness.

A quick glance at the 2006 survey chart shows most technology problems are resolved very well at the university, college, and department levels. OIT was given the most credit for solving technology problems for faculty.  However, it is also clear there is room for improvement, especially at the university level. 23% of the 82 responding said that technology problems at the university level were resolved less than 20% of the time.

Although much improvement is evident between support in various departments from 2004 survey to 2006 survey (and after adding our new Technology Coordinator), this should continue to be monitored to eliminate virtually all frustrations experienced by faculty willing to improve technology integration and skills.  One faculty member suggested we begin to bring all support committees and offices into one arena for better collaboration and distribution of services to everyone. This would include funding for classrooms and faculty not yet on board who would like to be.

Macs were also cited as a problem to investigate; when hiring support, we must keep in mind the different operating systems and personal needs and preferences in the COE.

top