Tech Talk: Technology Implementation in Community College Student Services

1
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

2
Survey Development Procedures

• Going about figuring it out

3
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?

4
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?

5
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)

6
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

7
Survey Participants

• Who helped us figure it out?

8
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)

9
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)

10
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.
  

11
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

12
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)

13
Demographics - Size

• Potential responses included the Carnegie
  Classification sizes for twoyear institutions
• Less than 500
• 500 to 1,999
• 2,000 to 4,900
• 5,000 to 9,999
• 10,000 or more

14
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)

15
Demographics - Environment

• The possible responses included
• Urban
• Suburban
• Small Town
• Rural
• Other

16
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

17
Technology Area Implementation

• So, what do they have?

18
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

19
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

20
Admissions and Recruiting

• Technology-based recruiting tools
• Yes 74.5 No 19.6 Don't Know 4.9
• Online marketing materials
• Prospective students website 64.7
• Virtual tour 28.4
• Online applications
• Yes 90.2 No 8.8 Don't Know 0.0

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
Academic Placement, Orientation Assistance

• Computer-based academic placement
• Online 52.9
• Offline 50.0
• Computer-based student orientation
• Online 39.2
• Offline 8.8
• Academic Assistance
• Computer-based academic tutoring 62.7
• Computer-based study / Life skills training 34.3
• Advising via online chat 25.5
• Tutoring via online chat 18.6

27
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

28
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

29
Academic Advising

• Student academic records 90.2
• Academic placement records 90.2
• Web-based degree audits 61.8
• Transfer articulation records 60.8
• Student class schedules 93.1
• Automated advisor assignment 28.4
• Web-based self-scheduling 20.6

30
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

31
Registration

• Does your institution have?
• Computer-based methods of registration
• What would you expect the implementation levels
  to be?
• Low
• Medium
• High

32
Registration

• Computer-based methods of registration
• Online 85.3
• Offline 30.4

33
Registration

• Best Experiences
• Students can be more self-sufficient / 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

34
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

35
Student Email

• Email accounts for students
• Yes 65.7 No 28.4 Don't Know 0.0
• Level of email usage by students
• Low 40.3
• Medium 43.3
• High 11.9
• Dont Know 4.5

36
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

37
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

38
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 15.7
• Medium 30.4
• High 22.5
• Dont Know 3.9

39
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

40
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

41
Counseling

• Computer-based needs assessment 24.5
• Computer-based client intake 10.8
• Counseling via online or chat services 16.7

42
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

43
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

44
Career Services

• Self-assessment
• Online 50.0 Offline 55.9
• Career / major exploration
• Online 58.8 Offline 59.8
• Placement
• Online 33.3 Offline 67.6
• Client data tracking
• Online 21.6 Offline 16.7

45
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

46
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

47
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 38.8
• Medium 41.8
• High 11.9
• Dont Know 7.5

48
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

49
Technology Implementation Levels

• Exploring implementation areas across
  institutions

50
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

51
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

52
Low Implementation Institutions (12)
53
Popular Technology for Low Implementation
Institutions
54
Medium Implementation Institutions (41)
55
Additional Popular Technology for Medium
Implementation Institutions
56
High Implementation Institutions (33)
57
Additional Popular Technology for High
Implementation Institutions
58
Technology Not Addressed
59
Technology Ease and Effectiveness

• How is technology really addressing needs?

60
Ease / Effective Exploration Strategy

• Please tell us about your staffs experience with
  ____.
• Is it easy to use?
• Does it effectively meet your needs?
• Reponses were rated on a 5 point scale
• 1 Not at all
• 2 Somewhat
• 3 Moderately
• 4 Very
• 5 Extremely
• Or, Dont Know

61
Exploration Strategy, Cont.

• 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 a .05

62
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.

63
Overall Future Challenges

• What overall challenges willcommunity colleges
  face down the line?

64
Most Cited Challenges

• Resources (30)
• Cost / Funding (19)
• Time (4)
• Infrastructure (4)
• Other (3)
• Specific Area (25)
• Advising (8)
• Distance Education (6)
• Email (3)
• Counseling (2)
• Other (6)

65
Most Cited Challenges

• Training (19)
• Staff / Faculty (11)
• Students (6)
• Not specified (2)
• Staying current with technology changes (18)
• Expectations / consumer market (10)
• Others
• Data entry / conversions / compatibility (8)
• Student use / awareness (6)
• Access / literacy (6)
• Security (5)
• Quality / high tech-high touch (3)

66
Thank you for listening!

• For questions or additional information, contact
• Julia Panke Makela
• Assistant Director, NCSD National Office
• jpmakela_at_uiuc.edu
• [phone]

67
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