EDUCAUSE C enter for A pplied r eArch
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Reproduction by permission only.
T oday’s undergraduate college and university students are referred to by many as digital na-tives . When they were in elementary school, Tapscott (1998) labeled theirs the Net Genera-tion. The names are apt, as they describe a gment of the West’s population that grew up with one or more computers in their homes and with (often) a broadband connection to the Internet. The 18- to 24-year-olds have enjoyed access to the world’s digital resources via the World Wide Web since elemen-tary school. Indeed, the evidence is that U.S. teenagers, not simply college and university prospects, u the Internet (87 percent), u it daily (51 percent), play games online (81 percent), get news online (76 percent), and u the Internet to communicate with one another. Today’s teens u instant messag-ing (IM) extensively, and not just to nd text messages. Teens who u IM u it to link to Web sites (50 percent), nd photos or docu-ments (45 percent), and exchange music or video files (31 percent) (Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005).It is reasonable to speculate that college-bound teens enjoy even better access to com-puters, the Internet, broadband, cell phones, and other accoutrements of wired life. We take it to be lf-evident that college-bound digital natives are in fact digital cognoscenti, sophisticates , and perhaps even digital con-耳朵的英文怎么读
卡通乌龟图片noisurs who will arrive at our nations’ insti-
tutions of higher learning with digital gadgets
of every imaginable shape and function, with
insatiable appetites for all things digital, and
with (limited) patience for the charming but
antiquated artifacts of the analog academic
world. Such artifacts might include our clock
towers and ivy-covered gates, but also our
lecture halls, textbooks, whiteboards, and
even our professors!
A great unspoken fear in the halls of higher
education is that the digital sophisticates
will come to our institutions to find aging
technologies, legacy systems, congested (or
吩bandwidth-shaped) networks, and decidedly
unsophisticated purveyors of institutional in-
formation technology (IT) rvices—or, even
wor, a technologically unsophisticated
faculty who will curb their enthusiasm for all
things digital. It is, to borrow someone el’s
great epithet (Levine & Cureton, 1998), an-
other opportunity for hope and fear to collide,
only in this instance it could be student hopes
colliding with institutional fears!
The 2004 ECAR study of students and
technology was a giant first step in fulfilling
ECAR’s earliest and most ambitious vision.
Robert Albrecht, Mary Beth Baker, Diana
Oblinger, and I had the audacity to imagine
Foreword什么竹难书
that ECAR, our modest start-up, might someday institute an ongoing survey of the IT practices, preferences, preparedness, and performance of collegiate students. It took ECAR Fellows Robert Kvavik and Judy Caruso, working with many others, to bring this dream to fruition. The ECAR study is a simple one. In an era of spam e-mail, dwindling attention spans, and excessive market rearch,
ECAR investigators knew that we would at best have a limited opportunity to engage—electroni-cally or otherwi—with freshman and nior-year students. We would have to navigate institutional review board (IRB) scrutiny and approval process not once, but repeatedly. We would have to depend on the generosity and shared vision of our colleagues through-out higher education to broker the necessary cooperation of CIOs, registrars, provosts, and many others. In 2004, 13 courageous universi-ties took a plunge and important ground was broken. In 2005, this number swelled to 63 colleges and universities.
By 2006, a solid foundation had been laid. In all, 96 colleges and universities participated in the 2006 ECAR study, and invitations to participate went to more than 277,000. In all, 28,724 students accepted our invitation to participate. Their respons provide a rich source of data and insight into the behaviors and expectations of a critical cohort—our future leaders. Lest our excitement outrun the limits of our methods, we hasten to add that our findings are conclusive only as regards students at the 96 participating colleges and universities. The colleges and universities do not per reflect the diversity of U.S. colleges and universities, and in particular underrepre-nt two-year institutions.
Notwithstanding limitations of sampling and nonrespondent bias, ECAR findings in 2006 cloly remble tho found in 2004 and tho in other studies. If and as partici-pation in the ECAR study
grows, we hope to make broader inferences. In ECAR tradition, we tortured the data and the data tortured us. In the end, what emerges is an increas-ingly robust understanding of how students engage with information and communications technologies.
The 2006 ECAR study findings to a great extent corroborate the findings uncovered in 2005. Key among tho findings:
◆Respondents own a variety of information
and communication technologies and u them regularly to communicate, find and exchange information on the Internet, do class work, and to recreate.
◆While many respondents fit the enthu-
siastic Net Gen characterization of un-dergraduates, many do not. There is an “underclass” of students who do not have access to great IT, who do not claim to be proficient in many purpoful us of IT, and who in fact don’t even like IT.
◆Overall, responding undergraduates prefer
a “moderate” amount of technology in
their cours.
◆Responding freshmen and niors report
different skill levels and different prefer-ences for technology in support of cour activities.
◆There are differences by gender in the pat-
terns of ownership and u of, preference for, and skill with IT. Many of the differ-ences can be accounted for by differences in how males and females are distributed, by academic major.
◆The choice of a respondent’s academic ma-
jor is cloly associated with the student’s perceived skills in certain IT applications and with the student’s reported preference for technology in cours.
◆Respondents are overwhelmingly positive
about cour management systems.
◆Respondents overall believe that IT is en-
蓝牙耳机充电祭奠佳句hancing their communication, collaboration, rearch, feedback from faculty, control of cour activity, and learning. Respondents with higher IT skills and who think of them-lves as early adopters of IT are significantly more bullish about the outcomes.
ECAR has many people to thank. First, it is always a privilege and an honor to work with members of the ECAR fellowship. Coauthors Judith B. Caruso and Gail Salaway are simply extraordinary. Judy has, among many other things, managed the many-headed hydra of campus IRB approvals, making this study pos-sible. Gail is simultaneously the spark plug and one of the finest analysts I have ever known. Mark Nelson retains our link to the academic literature and to current rearch methods. His leadership on the qualitative analysis of hundreds of pages of respondent commentary yielded a treasury of richly textured findings. If the data are ECAR’s precious stones and our analysts the stonecutters, Mark’s qualitative analysis and Judy’s work with focus groups and other qualitative sources are the polish that adds fire and brilliance to the story.
The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Stu-dents and Information Technology, 2006 can only be dedicated to one person. In fact, no ECAR study has ever been thus dedicated.
I am honored to dedicate this study to our colleague and friend Robert B. Kvavik, author or coauthor of numerous important ECAR studies, including the 2004 and 2005 ECAR studies of students. Bob, a career-long faculty member and nior administrator at the Uni-versity of Minnesota, once again answered the call of duty and left ECAR in mid-2006 to become vice president for planning for that great institution. Everyone in the ECAR com-munity knows that Bob is a giant. Bob joined ECAR as a nior fellow in 2002, making it possible for ECAR to undertake heavyweight rearch. Before then, we were on a tenuous track of trying to spark the interest of com-mercial rearch firms in matters related to higher education. Bob said then and always, “We can do better.” Bob is my evil twin, or perhaps I am his. Together, we are nearly fanatical about quality and always, always push for more. This shared and stubborn com-mitment to excellence has forged a bond of friendship that was formed in the crucible of sharp give-and-take over findings of fact and interpretations of data. I believe that ECAR studies are as good as they are in part due to this true collegiality. Bob is loved and admired by the fellows. He is our mentor and friend. The community of ECAR-subscribing institu-tions—now 425 strong—owes Bob a lot.
As I write this, I imagine Bob saying only one thing: “Make it 500 subscribers, Richard.”
I could never say enough for or to Bob to ex-press my thanks. Thankfully, I’ll have a lifetime of opport结算单模板
漫画女孩简笔画unities ahead to do this.
Bob, of cour, reviewed every chapter in this study, worked with us on survey design, and helped us through complex analys, when we were unsure of what the data were telling us. This work is not only difficult in the usual analytical and logistical ways; it also pos a big administrative challenge. Quite rightly, the study of students demands and receives the full measure of protections under a variety of state and federal regulations. In particular, rearch on students often falls under the purview of college and university institutional review boards. IRB approval is never a foregone conclusion and is rarely easily obtained. For this study, approval was received from every institution that participated. At each institution, one individual handled the necessary and often complex coordination associated with obtaining the necessary ap-provals to move forward. The people are named—with our considerable thanks—in Appendix B.
In addition, a variety of campus operating leaders shepherded the process of developing randomized samplings of their freshman and nior populations and deploying the survey to resulting sample members. We owe this large cadre of active supporters a lot.
Finally, though not remotely comprehen-sively, I’d like to thank tho individuals who coordinated and/or participated in our on-site focus groups. In addition, James Jonas, infor-
EDUCAUSE C enter for A pplied r eArch
mation rvices/electronic resources librarian at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and analyst Ronald L. Huesman Jr., of the University of Minnesota, were exceptionally helpful. The opportunity for us to speak directly to instruc-tional technologists and to students enlarged our understanding of the student experience of IT tremendously. And it was fun.
ECAR Fellow Toby Sitko continues to man-age the interface between temperamental rearchers and a complex production process with great grace and skill. She, Greg Dobbin, and Nancy Hays coordinate with an outstand-ing cast of editors, typographers, and print-ers. Complex work demands and derves the rigor they apply, and ECAR subscribers derve texts that are as beautiful as they are clear. Thank you to all of my colleagues at EDUCAUSE and to all of you subscribers. I am unimaginably lucky to work with you and to rve you.
Richard N. Katz
Boulder, Colorado
