Technology+Audit

=Needs to be udpated with current data=

=Technology Audit=

March 17, 2003
 * Introduction**

As the largest college at Alabama State University, the College of Education is composed of 1098 undergraduate and graduate students. There are 44 full-time faculty members in the college (16 males, 28 females). The College is decentralized with faculty offices, classrooms, and computer labs dispersed in various campus buildings. This technology audit is designed to glean data about the level of computer technology available to full-time faculty and students, their perceived level of technology assess and training, and their attitudes and beliefs toward technology. A survey was developed with 25 closed-ended and several open-ended questions. The open-ended was designed to elicit demographic information about respondents. These questions addressed respondents’ perceived technology ability level, how often they utilized technology, and where they have access. It also included questions about their recent technology training and educational background. Finally, they also inquired into their hardware and software access and availability, the importance of available computer programs to accomplish their work, and their attitudes and beliefs as a faculty about technology. Besides eliciting additional comments, the open-ended questions were designed to determine what technology is necessary for faculty to accomplish their work and what needs to be done to enhance student learning. In an effort to get a clear picture about the technology available to faculty and students in the College of Education, a walk through of computers labs identified as belonging to the College was done. Discussions about lab hours, hardware and software, and individual lab needs were held with faculty, students, and lab assistants during these visits. Also, conversations were held with several faculty members to clarify and glean additional information. The survey was disseminated and returned during a College of Education faculty meeting. The closed-ended data were systematically entered into predetermined categories in the //SPSS Program// (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Using descriptive statistical methods, the data were analyzed using frequency distributions, standard deviations, means, and percentages. The open-ended statements were coded and analyzed using the //QSR NUDIST// //Program// to ascertain commonalities and emergent categories.
 * Method**


 * Findings**

Of the 44 members of the College of Education faculty, 33 (75%) completed the survey. Forty-two were male (n =14) and 57% were female (n= 19). They were full-time faculty members in the Instructional Support Programs (33.3%); Foundations and Psychology (21.2%); Curriculum and Instruction (24.2); and Health, Physical Education and Recreation (18.2%) departments. When responding to the question pertaining to job classification, participants indicated that they were assistant professors (33.3%), associate professors (30.3%), and professors (30.3%). One respondent indicated that he was an “acting chair,” and another stated that she was a director. The data concerning respondents’ level of computer competency, their recent in-service training, and the number of undergraduate and graduate preparation hours in computer technology is arrayed in Table 1. When asked to indicate the level of their computer proficiency, an overwhelming number indicated that they were either a “very competent user” or a “competent user” (84.8%). Three respondents described themselves as “expert user(s)” and two indicated that they were “non-user(s).” Of the respondents, 39% (n =13) indicated that they had no computer technology “in-service” or 30% (n= 10) indicated that they had between “1-3 hours” of training during the last academic year. Only ten (30.3%) members of the faculty indicated that they had between 4-21+ hours of technology in-service during the last year. Over half of the respondents indicated that they did not have any undergraduate hours in computer technology (51.5%); however, 36.3% indicated that they had between 1-12 hours. Although 36.4% (n =12) of the respondents indicated that they had not completed any graduate coursework in computer technology, 61% (n= 20) reported that they had between 1 and 21+ hours.
 * =Table 1.= ||
 * =Competency and Training= ||



Competency expert user 3 6.1 2.45 .75
 * //n//**
 * ==M== ||
 * SD**
 * ==M== ||
 * SD**
 * SD**

very competent user 11 51.5





competent user 17 33.3





non-user 2 9.1



In-service Training None 13 39 2.12 1.24

1-3 hrs 10 30





4-12 hrs 6 18.2





13-21 hrs 1 3.0





21+ hrs 3 9.1



Undergraduate Hours None 17 51.5 1.94 1.32

1-3 hrs 4 12.1





4-12 hrs 8 24.2





13-21 hrs 0 0





21+ hrs 3 9.1



Graduate Hours None 12 36.4 2.24 1.35

1-3 hrs 6 18.2





4-12 hrs 9 27.3





13-21 hrs 2 6.1





21+ hrs 3 9.1





Table 2 arrays the data pertaining to where participants access computer technology and their level of usage. The great majority indicated that they have access in their university office, their home, and a computer lab (75.8%). Interestingly, two respondents (6.1%) indicated that they have no access to computer technology. An overwhelming majority of the respondents indicated that they used computer technology “all of the time” or “almost every day” (87.9%). Only 9.1% (n = 3) indicated that they used it “once in a while” or “never.”


 * =Table 2.= ||
 * =Computer Access and Usage= ||



Access Never Use 2 6.1 4.61 1.66
 * //n//**
 * //M//**
 * SD**
 * //M//**
 * SD**
 * //M//**
 * SD**
 * SD**

University Office 5 15.2





Home 1 3.0





Computer Lab 0 0





University Office & Home 13 39.4





University Office, Home & Computer Lab 12 36.4



Usage all the time 20 60.6 4.27 1.26

almost every day 9 27.3





once a week 0 0





once in a while 2 6.1





never 1 3.0





Table 3 presents the data dealing with the brand of computer and operating systems respondents have in their university offices. The data show that 63.6% (n =21) of the respondents have an older model Gateway Computers and 24.2% (n= 8) have the newer Dell Computers. Two others stated that they have a Macintosh and a Dell computer in their office. The data indicated that faculty is using a variety of operating systems. The majority are using Windows 2000, Windows 98, or Windows 95 (66.6%).
 * =Table 3.= ||  ||
 * =Office Computer= ||  ||



Brand Dell 8 24.2 2.03 1.31
 * //n//**
 * ===//M//=== ||
 * SD**
 * ===//M//=== ||
 * SD**
 * SD**

Gateway 21 63.6





PC/Macintosh 2 6.1





Dell/Gateway 1 3.0





No Computer 1 3.0



Operating System Windows XP 5 15.2 3.24 2.09

Windows 2000 8 24.2





Windows 98 7 21.2





Windows 95 7 21.2





Windows XP/Macintosh OS 3 9.1





Windows XP/Windows 2000 2 6.1





No Operating System 1 3.0





The data pertaining to the access to hardware is arrayed in Table 4. The data show that the majority of the faculty have a desktop computer (91%), and access to an inkjet (51.5%) or laser printer (60.6%) in their office. Sixty-three percent of the faculty indicated that they also have access to a notebook computer (63.6%). Respondents indicated that they do not have access to an overhead projected (27.4%) in the office or classroom. Moreover, 57% indicated that do not have access to a television with a VCR in the classroom that they use to teach, and 43% indicated that they do not have access to a mobile television with a VCR.


 * Table 4.**
 * Hardware Availability**
 * Hardware Availability**
 * Hardware Availability**
 * Hardware Availability**


 * Yes**
 * No**
 * No**
 * No**

Inkjet printer 17 51.5 16 48.5 Laser printer 20 60.6 12 36.4 Networked printer 9 27.3 23 69.7 Desktop Computer 30 90.9 2 6.1 Laptop Computer 21 63.6 11 33.3 Scanner 12 36.4 20 60.6 Multimedia Projector (LCD) 18 54.5 13 39.4 Elmo Presentation Station 4 12.1 27 81.8 Mobile Television with VCR 18 54.5 14 42.4 Television with VCR in Classroom 13 39.4 19 57.6 Overhead Projector 23 69.7 9 27.4
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**

Respondents were asked to indicate the computer software that is available in their offices (Table 5). Ninety-one percent of the respondents indicated that they have the Microsoft Office Suite (Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, Outlook, and Access) on their computers. They indicated that they have access to an Internet Web browser (82%), email (97%), and the University Student Database System (72.7%). However, only 27.3% of the respondents indicated that they have access to any statistical software program. The following is a listing of additional programs that faculty indicated that they have on their office computers: ACE Database, Adobe Acrobat (n =3), DNS Fix, Endnote (n= 3), Adobe Photoshop (n = 3), Multimedia Author, and Norton Utilities.


 * =Table 5.= ||
 * =Software Available in Office= ||


 * ==//YES//== ||
 * NO**

Microsoft Office Suite 30 90.9 2 6.1 Statistical Software 9 27.3 23 69.7 Email/GroupWise 32 97 1 3.0 27 81.8 5 15.2 University Student Database System 24 72.7 8 24.2
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * //n//**
 * ===**Internet Explorer/Netscape**=== ||
 * ===**Internet Explorer/Netscape**=== ||

Using a four-point Likert Scale, respondents were asked to rate the importance of computer programs to their work (Table 6). An overwhelming majority rated word-processing (85%), email (85%), Internet Explorer/Netscape (82%), and the University Student Database System (88%) as “essential” to their work. Also, respondents indicated that spreadsheet (70%), database (70%), and presentation/PowerPoint (82%) programs are “essential” or “important” to their work. Interestingly, only 24.3% of the respondents indicated that the ACE Database is “essential” or “important” to their work and 78.8% had “no response.”


 * Table 6.**
 * Software Importance**
 * Software Importance**
 * Software Importance**
 * Software Importance**

Word-processing 84.8 0 6.1 0 9.1 3.53 1.23 Spreadsheet 48.5 21.2 15.2 6.1 3 2.94 1.32 Database 57.6 12.1 12.1 6.1 12.1 2.97 1.45 Presentation/PowerPoint 57.6 24.2 3.0 3.0 12.1 3.12 1.36 Statistical Software 30.3 27.3 18.2 9.1 15.2 2.48 1.41 Email/GroupWise 84.8 6.1 3.0 0 6.1 3.64 1.02 Internet Explorer/Netscape 81.8 6.1 3.0 0 9.1 3.52 1.20 University Student Database System 87.9 0 3.0 0 9.1 3.58 1.20 ACE Database 15.2 9.1 0 0 75.8 .88 1.56
 * E**
 * I**
 * N**
 * NN**
 * NR**
 * //SD//**
 * N**
 * NN**
 * NR**
 * //SD//**
 * NN**
 * NR**
 * //SD//**
 * NR**
 * //SD//**
 * //SD//**
 * //SD//**
 * //SD//**
 * //SD//**
 * Note. E =Essential, I=Important, N =Needed, NN=Not Needed, NR = No Response ||
 * Note. E =Essential, I=Important, N =Needed, NN=Not Needed, NR = No Response ||

Faculty beliefs about computer technology are arrayed in Table 7. Using a four-point Likert Scale, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they “strongly agree” in six out of the ten areas of inquiry. In response to the question concerning the need for COE’s computer labs to be centralized in a single building, 67.6% indicated that they “strongly agreed” or “agreed.” However, 36.4% indicated that they “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed.” When respondents were asked about the adequacy of the University’s technology policies, 51.5% indicated that they were not adequate. Respondents were somewhat equally divided when asked about the adequacy of the COE’s policies; however, 12.1% had no response. An overwhelming majority indicated that a technology specialist should “be hired to support the technology needs of the College.”


 * Table 7.**
 * Faculty Beliefs and Attitudes ||
 * Faculty Beliefs and Attitudes ||
 * Faculty Beliefs and Attitudes ||

Equitable distribution of computer technology is vitally important. 93.9 3.0 0 0 1.00 .250 All students need access to computers. 93.9 3.0 0 0 1.00 .250 Administrators and staff need training in current technologies. 90.9 6.1 0 0 1.03 .305 Faculty needs training in how to integrate technology into their teaching. 84.8 12.1 0 0 1.09 .384 Faculty, administrators, and staff need access to current technology. 93.9 3.0 0 0 1.00 .250 Technology must be continually updated. 93.9 3.0 0 0 1.00 .250 University technology policies are adequate. 30.3 12.1 24.2 27.3 2.36 1.34 College of Education’s technology policies are adequate. 21.2 24.2 27.3 15.2 2.12 1.27 A technology specialist needs to be hired to support the technology needs of the College. 84.8 6.1 3.0 3.0 1.18 .683 College of Education labs should be centralized in a single building. 42.4 15.2 21.2 15.2 1.97 1.23 =Strongly Agree, A= Agree, D =Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree
 * SA**
 * A**
 * D**
 * SD**
 * //M//**
 * //SD//**
 * SD**
 * //M//**
 * //SD//**
 * //M//**
 * //SD//**
 * //SD//**
 * Note. SA**
 * Note. SA**
 * Note. SA**

Open-ended Responses

Respondents were asked to respond to two open-ended questions. The first question inquired into their computer technology that would enhance their overall job performance. The second asked them to suggest strategies that would enhance student learning. With regards to hardware, a respondent emphasized that “more technology is needed!” Concerns were raised about the age of the hardware and the need for new technology. Although high tech issues were the primary concern of respondents, some indicated that there is a high need for “low tech” equipment (i.e., overhead projectors). Not only did respondents specifically mention the high tech basics (i.e., computers, LCD projectors, scanners, etc.), they also indicated the desire to have access to state-of-the-art technology like “Smart Board,” wireless technology, and having classrooms wired for Internet access. One respondent indicated that there is a need for more “laptops and portable projectors for presentations in classrooms. Another stated that “more portable technology” should be made available “for loan to classes and students.” Finally, to fund hardware, one faculty member suggests that “another technology grant” should be written. Besides having “classrooms wired to connect to the Internet,” respondents were raised the issue of being able to access technology in buildings where they teach, especially after 5:30 p.m. One raised concern about having to “transport equipment” to the classroom where she teaches. Another pointed out that “technology equipment (needs to be) in a central location in the J.R. Acadome to be used in the classroom, it takes to much time to check it out, wait for your turn, and to get the equipment returned to Councill Hall.” Besides the need to “improve the computer lab equipment,” most comments related to student access. One respondent indicated that there is a need for a computer lab for the Business Education program, and another suggests that a general lab be located in the Acadome. Another indicated that computer labs should be opened 24 hours to students. More specifically, one respondent suggested the following: “have education computer labs open with more flexible and extended hours (nights after 8:00 p.m. and weekend hours). Our nontraditional students need ACCESS to labs on campus nights and weekend!” Software concerns mentioned by respondents pertained to the need for “consistent access to updated equipment and software.” One faculty member commented that the “Curriculum library (be) modeled on K-12 Dewey System with Athena,” and students should have access to Accelerated Reader for evaluation purposes in the Library. There was a great many concerns about technology support raised by respondents. Several individuals mentioned the inability to download software on the newer Dell computers because of the firewall. Respondents indicated the need for “more technical support with problems,” “much better technology support with installation of equipment and software,” and “much less (network) restriction.” Several faculty members stated that MIS needs to hire more technical staff to support the college and university and a technology specialist should be available to assist both students and faculty with technology needs. Respondents also commented about the need for more technology staff development. Several individuals commented that they would like more “training,” “workshops,” “on the job training,” and “professional development” about computer technology. One respondent indicated that training should be in small groups or done individually. More specifically, one commented that she would like to learn “strategies to integrate more technology in my teaching.” Besides reiterating the need for more hardware and software; increasing the number of COE labs; and providing better support, respondents, in response to the question dealing with enhancing student learning, primarily focused on issues of modeling technology usage and technology integration into the curriculum. One faculty member commented that there needs to be “effective (technology) integration into a wide range of courses,” because “performance assessments (are) requiring the use of appropriate technology.” Another believes “all teachers in the COE need to be involved with teaching with technology.” Finally, one respondent indicated that faculty should “infuse technology into student’s assignments,” and instructors should be “able to demonstrate or model using technology in their classroom teaching.” There are over 26 Academic Affairs labs on campus. Five are specifically identified as College of Education labs. __Instructional Technology Lab.__ This is a PC lab that is located in the Levi Watkins Learning Center (536). Besides 64-inch television, the lab has 36 workstations, a scanner, and a laser printer. There are several broken computers and the lab is in need of painting and new furniture. Although the restricted hours for teaching are posted, the hours that it is opened for general use needs to be listed. __Instructional Technology Macintosh Lab (Room 546).__ This is a MAC Lab with 20 workstations. The lab was locked so it was impossible to view the room. It is restricted for class use only. __Interactive Classroom Computer Lab (CH 325).__ This is a PC lab that is that is restricted for class use only. There are 18 Gateway Computers are networked to laser printer. Teacher Education Center Lab (PH215). This lab has 28 PC and 4 Macintosh computers that are networked to three laser printers. The lab is open for general student use. __Portfolio Lab (McGee 212).__ This is the newest computer lab. There are 28 new Dell Computers networked to three laser printers and one scanner. There are 17 machines with SPSS. The room is in the need of painting and new furniture. The lab hours need to be posted.
 * __Computer Labs__**


 * Discussion and Recommendations**

Technology in the 21st century is moving at lightning speed and the College of Education believes that school personnel must have the tools necessary meet the needs of the students they serve. However, when it comes to technology, the College of Education is about “a half mile down a ten mile road.” The survey revealed that faculty perceived themselves as being knowledgeable about computer technology. They believe that equitable distribution and access is essential for students, faculty, and administrators. The faculty indicated that they are fervent users of computer technology. They believe that it is crucial to integrate computer technology into their teaching; therefore, it must be available in their offices, labs, and classrooms. The data reveals that faculty perceive themselves to be competent in the areas of computer technology; however, less than half of the faculty has had technology training in the college background and only a limited number had in-service training in the last year. Given the rapid pace of technology growth, it is imperative that they have the appropriate training so that they can keep current and become knowledgeable about the state-of-the-art technologies. Moreover, the faculty must able to model technology knowledge, skills, and dispositions for our candidates so that they will be prepared to integrate these skills into their teaching. Therefore, the following actions should be considered as the College of Education develops their Technology Plan:
 * __Belief and Attitudes__**
 * __In-service Training__**
 * The COE should develop a systematic technology in-service program for faculty and staff during both the academic year and summer. Topics for these workshops should be developed with faculty and staff input and the activities should be concrete and hands-on.
 * Funding for technology staff development should be included in COE’s Technology Plan.
 * Faculty should be encouraged to participate in staff development activities through various department and college incentive programs. These programs should be developed and included as part of the COE’s Technology Plan.
 * Faculty should be encouraged to improve the technology skills by including it as part of annual evaluation system.
 * Alternative forms of staff development activities should be used. First, providing on-campus workshops for those interested in various software products or integration of technology activities. Second, opportunities should be provided so that faculty may attend off-campus technology workshops or meetings. Third, individual faculty attending these off-campus workshops or meetings should be encouraged to return and share what they have learned with their colleagues through program, department, or college workshops.

__Hardware.__ The survey results indicate that a commitment must be made by the College of Education and University to make even the most basic technology available to faculty and students. For instance, every classroom must be equipped with at least with an overhead projector and a television with a VCR. Although the data revealed that an overwhelming majority of the faculty have access to a desktop computer and a printer in their office, most are using computers and printers that are more than four years old. Also, some faculty indicated that their computers are in the need of repair. One faculty member that was interviewed commented that he is using his personal laptop computer because his desktop computer does not work. He indicated that he cannot access the network when advising students. Finally, some computers have been purchased for faculty and labs but they are in boxes waiting for MIS to set them up. Faculty also indicated that having access to technology is problematic because they must often travel across campus to retrieve and return technology, which is time-consuming. They are also concerned that they are unable to access technology in buildings where they teach. Access is especially difficult when they teach evening and weekend classes. Faculty would like to have state-of-the-art technology available to them in their classrooms along with network access. Software. The survey data indicate that access to current software is available primarily because MIS provides the Microsoft Office Suite, antivirus software, Internet Explore, and email software. Faculty indicated that they have been able to purchase some other software programs. Faculty (76%) indicated that having statistical software as being important to their work; however, only 27% have access to the software on their computers. Although 24% of the faculty indicated that the ACE Database was “essential” or “important,” 76% has no response. One could assume that faculty is unaware of the database or it is not available to them. Interestingly, a presentation was made in a recent faculty meeting demonstrating the ACE Database program. Therefore, the following actions should be considered as the College of Education develops their Technology Plan:
 * __Hardware and Software Issues__**
 * An overhead projector and television set with VCR should be in every classroom throughout the University.
 * A systematic plan should be developed to insure that faculty has access to state-of-the-art hardware and software in their offices, classrooms, and in all COE’s labs.
 * A three-year rotation cycle should be established for purchasing hardware and software for faculty computers.
 * A three-year rotation should be established for purchasing hardware and software for classrooms and computer labs.
 * Faculty should be surveyed to determine their specific program hardware and software needs.
 * The new COE building should be wired for Internet access and also “wireless technology.
 * A prioritized list of college, department, and program hardware and software needs can be developed so that decisions will be data driven.


 * __Support__**

The survey data indicates that faculty is dissatisfied with the technology support because of the lack of personnel and funding. MIS lacks the staff to provide on-going support of the College of Education. New hardware is imaged by MIS before it is setup in offices and labs. Some faculty reported that computers are in boxes for months before they are setup in offices and labs. Because of the imaging process and the new firewall, faculty is unable to install programs on their computers. MIS staff indicated this policy is in place to prevent computer piracy and viruses. The faculty overwhelmingly felt that a COE technology specialist should be hire to provide support.
 * The College of Education should fund and hire a technology specialist.
 * MIS should lessen the security on the faculty computers. They should address the problem of piracy by dealing directly with the violators and with computer viruses by installing the appropriate antivirus software.