CIO PlanIT

Current State Analysis

Office of the Chief Information Officer
PlanIT> Current State> Faculty Survey

Faculty Survey

Executive Summary

A random sample of 304 faculty members was surveyed about information technology at the university. Ninety per cent (90%) of the sample rated themselves as average to expert computer users. Sixty-five per cent (65%) indicated they were somewhat familiar or very familiar with information technology resources at OSU. The overall level of satisfaction with information technology resources was positive, with 72% satisfied, 16% neutral, and 11% dissatisfied. Confidence in the university's ability to meet faculty members' technology needs was somewhat lower, with 67% satisfied, 17% neutral and 12% dissatisfied. With respect to the helpfulness and responsiveness of technical support services staff, 63% of the sample were satisfied, 20% neutral, and 11% dissatisfied. Faculty members expressed concern about the lack of access to technology in the classrooms, desire increased on-site technical support, and report a need for increased information and training relative to available information technology resources. Over one-third of the sample disagree with the notion they can access all their computing needs from home.

Faculty Survey Results

A series of questions pertained to faculty satisfaction with specific information technology areas and services. Satisfaction ratings are summarized in the following table:

Information Technology Area or Service	Very Dissatisfied or Somewhat Unsatisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied	Do Not Use or Do Not Know
OSU web.net	3.3%	2%	12.2%	82.5%
HomeNet dial up internet access	13.8%	2.3%	26.7%	57.2%
Web-based student/faculty/staff directory	10.2%	3.9%	49.3%	36.6%
Computing short courses	4.3%	2.6%	15.2%	78%
OIT walk-in customer service	1.9%	3.6%	23%	71.3%
UNITS telephone services	9.9%	7.6%	70.1%	12.5%
Audio or visual services	4.6%	2.3%	38.2%	54.9%
Campus technology user groups	1%	2.3%	5.2%	91.4%
Software to Go	2.6%	2.3%	37.2%	57.9%
Central OSU e-mail (osu.edu)	5.5%	2%	83.3%	9.2%
College or departmental e-mail	3.7%	2.6%	59.3%	34.7%
Consultation on set-up and configuration of computers	6%	1.6%	45.1%	47.4%
Academic statistical computing consultation	3.3%	3%	11.9%	81.9%
UNIX	2.3%	1%	11.1%	85.6%
Web and visual design and support services	5.6%	3%	12.2%	79.3%

An open-ended question elicited suggestions for additions to the Software to Go offerings. The most frequent suggestions (in order -- ranging from about 15 to four suggestions each) were graphics, statistical analysis, bibliography/reference management, web development, Photoshop, Acrobat suite, and mathematical software packages. A relatively small number of discipline-specific applications were mentioned.

Central OSU e-mail is widely used with 253 reporting satisfaction, six being neutral and 17 expressing some level of dissatisfaction. College or departmental e-mail is less widely used than central OSU e-mail and the general satisfaction picture for both services is similar. For web and visual design and support services, 37 faculty users are satisfied, nine are neutral, and 17 are dissatisfied -- with 11 of this latter group very dissatisfied. This particular finding merits further inquiry with some exceptions (e.g., UNITS telephone services and audio or visual services), the general trend is that faculty use of information technology services is somewhat lower compared to the undergraduate and graduate/ professional samples. Further, faculty tend to be somewhat more dissatisfied when compared to the student samples.

A series of questions asked about the frequency with which faculty used various applications in their work at the university. Their responses are listed below, in order of decreasing frequency:

Application	Never or Seldom	About half the time	Most of the time or All of the time
Word-processing (e.g., Word)	6.2%	6.3%	87.2%
E-mail software (e.g., Outlook)	10.2%	3%	86.8%
Internet/web access (e.g., Navigator)	8.5%	6.6%	84.5%
Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint)	37.5%	16.1%	45.8%
Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)	46.7%	22.7%	30.3%
Publishing (e.g., Acrobat)	53.9%	21.7%	24%
Calendar/scheduling (e.g., GroupWise)	76.3%	3.6%	18.8%
Statistical Analysis (e.g., SPSS)	70.4%	13.2%	16.1%
Graphics (e.g., Photoshop)	67.1%	16.1%	16.1%
Web editors (e.g., FrontPage)	82.6%	9.9%	6.2%
Video or digital image editing	85.5%	8.9%	4.9%
Simulations (e.g., CAD)	89.2%	4.9%	4.6%
Packaged Courseware (e.g., WebCT)	83.6%	1.6%	2.6%
Multimedia (e.g., Director)	82.9%	3.9%	2.3%
Database (e.g., Filemaker)	90.5%	4.9%	2.3%
Project management (e.g., Project)	95%	2.6%	.6%

Note: Percentages across rows may not add up to 100% due to "not familiar" and "do not know" responses.

Use of applications other than those listed above was reported by 41% of faculty (N=124). MATLAB

and other mathematical applications (N = approximately 20) were most frequently mentioned, followed by bibliography/reference managers, Nudist (qualitative analysis), LaTeX (scientific document production), drawing, 3-D modeling, plotting, and GIS software. Individual references were made to such applications as Braille translation, music notation, and international language spell checking software.

A series of items related to the frequency of faculty usage of media in their work at the university. Responses are summarized in order in the table below:

Media	Never or Seldom	About half the time	Most of the time or All of the time
Computer-projected presentations	42.4%	17.4%	39.5%
Overhead transparency projection	51%	16.4%	32.6%
Web-based text and graphics	66.8%	14.1%	16.5%
Video and audio tapes	73.3%	18.4%	8.2%
Computer-generated animation/graphics	82.6%	11.2%	6.2%
Non-web-based digital video or audio	85.5%	7.9%	4.6%
Web-based audio and video	88.8%	6.6%	3.6%
3-D modeling	89.5%	5.3%	3.6%
Parallel/high performance computers	85.6%	3%	5%
Filmstrips and projected movies	91.7%	5.6%	2.3%
Videoconferencing	97.7%	2%	.3%
Web-based conferencing	97.7%	1.6%	0%

Note: Percentages across rows do not add up to 100% due to "not familiar" and "do not know" responses.

When asked about use of presentation media other than those listed above, 44 faculty members responded. Of these, 12 mentioned the use of slide projectors, seven mentioned chalkboards and the remaining responses were too varied to categorize. Forty-our per cent (44%) of the faculty sample indicated there were no barriers to using applications or presentation media, whereas 55% indicated there were barriers.

An open-ended question inquired about the nature of these barriers. Faculty respondents (N = 166) present a very clear and cohesive picture of barriers. Classrooms lack the necessary equipment (e.g., computers for students, LCD projectors for faculty) and connectivity. Equipment is difficult to secure and transport, and in some cases, equipment is outdated, viewed as unreliable and there are compatibility issues (e.g., platform). While lack of access to equipment and connectivity loom large, faculty are clear that they also need training (N = over 30), and that they are challenged for time to become proficient or remain current with technology (N = over 15). Further barriers include funding or cost issues (N = 16) and lack of convenient technical support (N = 9).

A block of questions assessed the extent of faculty interest in using the web for various activities, provided they could more easily obtain support and services. Their projections are summarized in the following table:

Projected Web Use With easy access to support and services	Never or Seldom	About half the time	Most of the time or All of the time
To conduct research	36.2%	23.7%	37.5%
To present work to others around the world	43.1%	24.7%	30%
To facilitate collaboration with people at the university	42.7%	26.6%	27.7%
For on-line materials archives	43.8%	19.4%	34.5%
To present work to others at the university	44.4%	22.4%	30.3%
For on-line course reserves	42.5%	16.8%	35.2%
To facilitate collaboration with people around the world	45%	23.4%	28.6%
Discipline-specific software	48%	20.1%	29.3%
To gather information via on-line quizzes, etc.	56.9%	19.4%	20.7%
To conduct simulations, modeling, or visualizations	68.1%	13.2%	15.8%
For GIS or other spatial displays of information	70.4%	11.2%	14.8%
To perform compositions, dances, or other music/art activities	92.7%	2%	2.9%

Note: Percentages across rows do not add up to 100% due to "do not know" responses.

Compared to the graduate/professional student sample, faculty are more interested in using the web for collaboration within the university and to share their work internationally. An open-ended question inquired about how else faculty would like to use the web, if they could more easily obtain support and service. Eighty-three (83) in the faculty sample responded to this question. The most frequently appearing response was to incorporate web material into classroom teaching (N = approximately 20), followed by distance education, and videoconferencing and web conversations (e.g., interviewing international grad school applicants). Three faculty members mentioned IP telephony.

An open-ended question pertained to facilities or technical capabilities that were missing from classrooms. Fifty-three per cent (53%) of the sample responded. Faculty are clear that internet connectivity, computer projection equipment (e.g., LCDs), and student computers are missing. Twenty-eight (28) faculty simply responded by saying that all the technology mentioned in the survey was needed in the classrooms. A relatively small number of faculty mentioned the need for headphones, screen readers and adaptive technology.

Asked if they any problems using technology classrooms on campus (e.g., difficulty reserving, the physical environment, on-site technical support), 37% of the sample said "yes." The problems cited by respondents paralleled the examples in the question. The most frequently mentioned problem (N = 31) was lack of or insufficient on-site support, followed by equipment that was not working, and difficulty reserving or securing technology classrooms. A number of faculty noted that the classroom environments were not positive (e.g., cramped, poor lighting).

A series of questions dealt with faculty access to information technology, and information technology's contributions to faculty professional development, to recruitment and retention of faculty, to faculty productivity, and to student success. The responses of the faculty sample are summarized in the following table:

I am able to...	Strongly agree or Somewhat agree	Neither agree or disagree	Strongly disagree or Somewhat disagree
Do everything I want using OSU information technology resources	65.1%	11.8%	22.1%
Access all OSU computing resources I need from my office or lab	74.4%	7.6%	16.1%
Access all OSU computing resources I need from my home	44.7%	13.5%	38.5%
Collaborate with colleagues and students, though we may have different computers	63.8%	10.9%	20.4%
Use information technology to contribute to my professional development	82.9%	7.9%	8.2%
OSU information technology...	Strongly agree or Somewhat agree	Neither agree or disagree	Strongly disagree or Somewhat disagree
Was a factor in my coming to OSU	3.6%	15.1%	79.2%
Was a factor in my staying at OSU	21.7%	19.7%	56.9%
Helps increase my impact or productivity	69.7%	13.5%	16.1%
Is important to my students' success	78.9%	8.2%	9.9%
Is not seen as useful to me	9.6%	7.9%	81.9%

Note: Percentages across rows do not add up to 100% due to "do not know" responses.

A block of questions inquired about faculty concerns related to information technology and these concerns are noted in the table below:

How are you concerned ...	Not at all concerned or Slightly concerned	Moderately concerned	Very concerned or Extremely concerned
With the security of your electronic data	46.7%	25%	28%
About the privacy of your communications	44.8%	23%	31.9%
With the cost of technology	50.3%	25%	22.1%
About the reliability of technology	44.4%	22%	32.5%
With ethical use of electronic information and technology	38.2%	26%	24.5%
With the time it takes to learn and use technology	39.8%	30.9%	28.6%
With lack of necessary technical support	46%	23%	29.9%
With accessibility for people with disabilities	46.4%	25.3%	16.8%
With cross-platform problems such as between MACs and PCs	57.2%	19.4%	21.8%

Note: Percentages across rows do not add up to 100% due to "do not know" responses.

Twenty-two per cent(22%) of the sample indicated they had concerns in addition to those listed in the table immediately above. Many of these concerns could not be grouped into consistent themes. However, the need to upgrade hardware, software and infrastructure were mentioned by several faculty, as well as the need for increased and trained support staff. Several faculty mentioned cost and funding concerns, and a small number of faculty noted concerns such as system reliability, virus protection, and the capacity limits (e.g., file size) of e-mail.

Two hundred seventy six (276) faculty members responded to an open-ended question about how they would describe information technology at OSU if they were talking to a faculty member at another university. Over 35 respondents indicated they would describe information technology as "okay," "satisfactory," or "adequate." Over 65 would describe it as "up-to-date," "good," "pretty/quite/very good" or "excellent." Approximately a dozen would use terms such as "ahead" or "cutting edge." About 20 faculty would describe OSU's information technology as "behind" or "needs improvement." A number of additional comments (N = over 15) indicate faculty perceptions that the university is trying to improve information technology, but may be "not quite there yet." Technical support is generally viewed as positive (N = approximately 25) with eight faculty indicating they would report problems with support. Nine comments suggest that technology varies by college or department. Three faculty would suggest that the central Office of Information Technology is more of an impediment than a help.

Faculty were also asked to imagine talking to that same faculty member from another university three years from now and to describe what they would like to be able to tell that faculty member. Over 65 faculty reported they would like to say that information at OSU was "leading" or "cutting edge." About 45 noted that technology would be easily accessible and easy to use with more than ample support -- in fact, seven faculty members noted a desire for "complete access to all technology." Nearly 30 faculty would like to be able to say that we had top-notch technical support and services. Over 20 suggested that OSU would have "kept current" and a slightly smaller number used terms such as "made progress" and "improved." Over ten faculty would like to be able to say that they were still satisfied and that information technology was more than adequate or good. Likewise, over ten would like to see increased accessibility in the classroom and more technology classrooms. A similar number expressed a desire that they would have had more training and learning opportunities in order to use what was available.

The following descriptions (ranging from an N of 5 -- 8) were also given: "information technology enhanced teaching," "infrastructure had been overhauled (to increase power and speed)," "access from home was easier," "cross-platform problems had been resolved," "videoconferencing capacity had increased," and there existed "wireless connectivity."

Sixty-five percent (65%) of the faculty sample indicated they were very or somewhat familiar with information technology resources at the university. Nearly a quarter of the sample reported they were somewhat unfamiliar or very unfamiliar. Half the sample described themselves as "above average" or "expert" computer users, 41% said "average," with the remainder "below average" or "beginner."

Seventy-one per cent (71%) of the sample agreed that experience with technology in their disciplines helped them and their students understand discipline-specific fundamentals. Fifteen per cent (15%) disagreed with this notion and 13% were neutral. Eight-three per cent (83%) of the faculty interviewed agreed that majors in their discipline should be required to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge regarding discipline-specific computer applications. Nine per cent (9%) disagreed and 8% were neutral.

With respect to committing resources to computer-supported instruction, 42% indicated the university was spending "too little," 32% said "just enough," and 2% indicated "too much." For this item, 24% responded they did not know.

Three items pertained to the impact of distance learning and computer-mediated instruction and the results are summarized in the following table:

Distance learning and computer-mediated instruction impact on...	Adds to	Subtracts from	Does not affect
Quality of pedagogy in your discipline*	49.3%	18.1%	23.4%
Access to educational opportunities in your discipline	72.4%	2%	21.7%
The wise use of resources in your discipline	50%	6.9%	34.9%

* 4.3% of the sample used the "Depends" rating for this item. The "Depends" rating was not observed or used with the two remaining items.

Note: Percentages across rows do not add up to 100% due to "do not know" responses.

When asked to rate the helpfulness and responsiveness of IT support services staff at the university, 63% of the sample expressed satisfaction, 20% were neutral, 9% somewhat dissatisfied, and 2% strongly dissatisfied. Seven per cent (7%) reported they did not know. When asked if they were satisfied with the ability of information technology resources at OSU to meet their technology needs, 67% expressed satisfaction, 17% were neutral, and 12% dissatisfied with ten of these respondents strongly dissatisfied. 4% reported they did not know.

For overall level of satisfaction with information technology at the university, 72% reported satisfaction, 16% were neutral, and 11% reported dissatisfaction with three of these respondents being strongly dissatisfied.

Return to PlanIT home