Charles Sturt University
2014 Educational Technology Student Survey
Report
September 2014
Division of Student Learning
Contents
1. Executive Summary.................................................................................. 3
2. Background and Methodology ................................................................. 5
2a. Research Design ...................................................................................................... 5
2b. Respondent Profile .................................................................................................. 7
3. Research Findings .................................................................................. 11
3a. Technology Access ................................................................................................. 11
3b. Awareness and Use of Educational Technologies ................................................... 23
3c. Views and Experiences of Educational Technologies at CSU .................................... 27
4. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 55
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
2
1. Executive Summary
This survey represents the second tranche of the Division of Student Learning’s Education
Technology Survey exploring access, usage and experiences around educational technology among
CSU students. The survey opened on Monday 24 March 14 and closed on Thursday 30 April 14.
1,576 students completed the survey, with the “typical” respondent profile being a female,
undergraduate, Distance Education student of Australian cultural background. This profile
corresponds well with the “typical” CSU student. There is evidence to suggest that the sample was
not unduly biased by students with a particular interest in technology.
An online questionnaire was utilised, which can viewed at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=YX172pP0C2XvqywNpsamdsEinE_2fe8MdmI0mlkCPLd
E0_3d
The survey found that students are typically supportive of a) educational technology as a means for
enhancing their learning experience and b) CSU’s use of such technologies. Indeed, there appears to
be demand among students for CSU to extend the use educational technology, particularly among
Distance Education students who identified 15 technological features that are used much less
frequently than would be preferred.
Key findings informing these conclusions are:
 40% of students prefer online learning above face-to-face learning in their on campus
subjects, while 50% of students would like to have more subjects fully online;
 84% of students indicated they would be likely or very likely to use a Learning Analytics tool
that would help them improving their learning;
 in 2010, 70% of students who visited a CSU campus did not use our wireless network. This
proportion has fallen to just 17% in the current survey;
 more than 90% of students agree that educational technology makes learning more flexible,
while just under 80% agree that educational technology increases their satisfaction with
learning; and
 approximately 80% of students are satisfied with the range of technologies available for
studying and communication at CSU (compared with 79% in 2010) and nearly 75% believe
that their lecturers are good at using educational technology for teaching in 2010;
 around 90% agree that the use of educational technology is likely to be important to their
future career/workplace; and
 there is an increasing trend in the proportion of students who prefer online learning over
paper-based learning in their distance subjects.
The findings above are reinforced by students’ self-reported behaviour which shows that over the
past four years (2010 – 2014) there has been a substantial shift toward students spending more time
performing computer-based study.
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
3
In future developments relating to educational technologies and their implementation,
communication and support at CSU, it should be considered that:
 an increasing proportion of students are utilising wireless broadband, 3G and Smart Phones
as their primary internet access (18% of students in 2010 to 51.4% in 2014);
 around two-thirds of students are already accessing CSU services via mobile device with
many students integrating study purposes into their everyday use of these devices;
 the majority of On Campus students do not regularly use library searches; and
 male students (56%) are more likely to be early adopters of new technologies than females
students (31%). Furthermore, while students aged between 22 and 40 years are the most
likely to be early adopters (with around 40% of students in this age range being classified as
early adopters), even among students aged over 60 years the number of early adopters was
equal to the number of late adopters
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
4
2. Background and Methodology
In 2010, CSU’s Division of Student Learning launched an Education Technology Survey to explore
access, usage and experiences around educational technology among staff and students. In
March/April 2014, a slightly scaled down version of this survey was repeated with students only and
the current report reflects the findings of this survey. Comparisons of 2010 and 2014 data will be
provided where relevant – this commentary is highlighted.
It is DSL’s intention to conduct this survey every two years to monitor trends in students’ behaviours
and attitudes regarding technology in education.
The survey objective was to establish a baseline for and monitor student access, use, skills and
expectations with regards educational technology at CSU.
2a. Research Design
The survey utilised an online questionnaire, which can viewed at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=YX172pP0C2XvqywNpsamdsEinE_2fe8MdmI0mlkCPLd
E0_3d
The questionnaire consisted of 5 main elements:
1. Demographics – Personal
2. Demographics – Institutional
3. Technology Access
4. Use and Awareness:
a. Features Currently Used
b. Features I Would Like to Use to Support My Learning
5. Views and Experiences
A copy of the introductory script provided to students can be found in Appendix A.
The survey opened on Monday 24 March 14 and closed on Thursday 30 April 14. In that time, 1,576
students completed the survey.
An incentive for participation was offered, which involved all students who completed the survey
(and who filled out a separate contact form) being placed in the draw to win one of two iPods.
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
5
Ethics approval was provided by the DSL Ethics Committee. The researchers on the project included:

Assoc Prof Philip Uys (Principal Investigator);

Assoc Prof Barney Dalgarno (Associate Investigator);

Dr Andrea Crampton (Associate Investigator);

Jacquie Tinkler (Associate Investigator); and

Simon Welsh (Associate Investigator).
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
6
2b. Respondent Profile
A total of 1,576 students completed the survey. Figures 2.1 to 2.6 show the profile of students
across a range of dimensions. Based on these figures, the current survey sample differs from the
CSU student population profile in the following areas.
1. An over-representation of Science students, with a corresponding under-representation of
Arts and Business students and a decrease in the proportion of Education students
compared with the 2010 Education Technology Survey
2. An over-representation of Post-Graduate students – however, such students still only
represent approximately 30% of the sample and are reduced as a proportion of the total
sample compared with the 2010 Educational Technology Survey
Overall, the typical (or “most likely”) respondent profile is a student who is:

female;

enrolled in an under-graduate course;

studying by distance; and

a domestic student of Australian cultural background.
This profile corresponds well with the “typical” CSU student.
Figure 2.1 – Respondent Profile by Study Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
7
Figure 2.2 – Respondent Profile by Faculty
Figure 2.3 – Respondent Profile by Gender
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
8
Figure 2.4 – Respondent Profile by Cultural Background
Figure 2.5 – Respondent Profile by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
9
Figure 2.6 – Respondent Profile by Domesticity
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
10
3. Key Research Findings
Please note: throughout this report a range of cross-tabulations are provided to
explore differences in responses by factors like gender, Faculty, level of study,
cultural background and so forth. For brevity, only those explorations that
yielded meaningful or interesting differences have been included.
3a. Accessing Educational Technologies
This section explores from where and how (e.g. what devices are used) students are accessing CSU
educational technologies and online services. Key findings are as follows.
Time Spent on Computer-Based Study

The modal category for time spent each week on computer-based study was 11-20 hours, as
reported by 33.7% of students. However, there was variation around this with around 27%
of students spending less than 11 hours per week on computer-based study and 39%
spending more than 20 hours per week (see Figure 3a.1). This represents a substantial shift
toward students spending more time performing computer-based study compared with the
2010 survey results. In 2010, it was found that 59% of students spent less than 11 hours per
week on computer-based study (c/f 27% here) and only 14.6% spent more than 20 hours per
week on computer-based study (c/f 39% here). In 2010, the model category for time spent
on computer-based study each week was 6-10 hours (c/f 11-20 hours here).

On Campus and Mixed Mode students are more likely to spend in excess of 20 hours per
week on computer-based study compared with Distance students (see Figure 3a.2). While
this may seem counter-intuitive it is likely related to differing study loads between Distance
and On Campus/Mixed Mode students, with over 80% of Distance students being enrolled
part-time

Hours per week spent on computer-based study increase as students progress through their
undergraduate courses, before dropping in post-graduate courses (see Figure 3a.3)
Location of Online Study

The vast majority of students are usually in their place of residence when studying online
(see Figure 3a.4)

Distance students are more likely to study online while at work than On Campus or Mixed
Mode students (see Figure 3a.5), while Post Graduate (Research) students were the most
likely overall to study online while at work

The use of the Library/Learning Commons as a place of study has increased, being utilised by
less than 4% of students in the 2010 survey compared with nearly 9% herein. Furthermore,
as a space for online study, the Library/Learning Commons is more prevalent among
Undergraduate students than Post Graduate students (see Figure 3a.6)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
11
Off Campus Internet Access

Overall, off campus internet access among students is predominantly wireless broadband
(40%) or ADSL (35%) (see Figure 3a.7). Caution should be taken when considering this result
as students were asked for their primary means of internet access – which may be
interpreted as the connection used most often. Thus, it would not necessarily be correct to
assume that those students using wireless broadband do not have other means of internet
access, rather that wireless broadband is simply the internet connection they use most
commonly. In 2010, wireless broadband/3G dongle was the primary means of off campus
internet access for only 18% of students, while ADSL was used by 64% of students (c/f 35%
here). The decline from 2010 to 2014 in usage of ADSL as the primary means of interact
access appears to have occurred due to corresponding growth in wireless broadband/3G
dongle (up more than 26% to 44%) and Smart Phones (now accounting for nearly 7%).
Again, this does not necessarily mean that wireless broadband connections are totally
replacing ADSL, rather that the usage of wireless broadband as the most preferred offcampus internet connection (perhaps in concert with an ADSL connection) is increasing

Distance students are a) more likely to have ADSL and wired broadband than On Campus
and/or Mixed Mode students and b) much less likely to use smart phones as their primary
internet access compared with On Campus and/or Mixed Mode students (see Figure 3a.8)

Domestic students are more likely to have ADSL than International students, with the latter
being twice as likely to use smart phones as their primary internet access compared with
Domestic students (see Figure 3a.9)

Indigenous students are less likely to have ADSL and more likely to use wireless broadband
and smart phones compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts (see Figure 3a.10)
Use of Personal Devices

Smart phones (iPhone and Android) are the most commonly used personal device on
campus. Interestingly, while there is a significant personal dimension to their use, most
students using these devices report that smart phones are being used for a combination of
personal and study/learning purposes. Even off campus, students report strong mixed use
of smart phones to address both personal and study purposes (see Figures 3a.12 and 3a.13)

Students using tablets on campus are more likely to be using the device for study purposes
than if using a smart phone or mobile phone (see Figure 3a.12)
Use of CSU Wireless Network

17% of students who actually visit a CSU campus report not using the CSU wireless network
(see Figure 3a.14), a considerable decrease on 2010 figures, where 70% of students who
come to a campus did not use the CSU wireless network. For over a third of these students,
it is the inability to set up network access and get it working that prevents them using the
network (see Figure 3a.15)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
12
Mobile Access of CSU Services

Just over a third of students report that they do not access any CSU services by mobile
device. Of the two-thirds of students who are accessing services by mobile, nearly all are
accessing their Subject Outlines and many are accessing multiple services (see Figure 3a.16).
In 2010, it was found that only 40% of students had access to an internet-enabled mobile
phone. Here we see that the use of such devices has become a critical means of accessing
CSU services/resources for most of our students
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
13
Figure 3a.1 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week
Figure 3a.2 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
14
Figure 3a.3 – Time Spent on Computer-based Study per Week by Level of Study
Figure 3a.4 – Location of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
15
Figure 3a.5 – Location of Study by Mode
Figure 3a.6 – Location of Study by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
16
Figure 3a.7 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access
Figure 3a.8 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
17
Figure 3a.9 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Domesticity
Figure 3a.10 – Primary Off-Campus Internet Access by Cultural Background
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
18
Figure 3a.11 – Use of Own Devices On-Campus by Mode
Figure 3a.12 – Devices and Their Usage On-Campus
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
19
Figure 3a.13 – Devices and Their Usage Off-Campus
Figure 3a.14 – Use of CSU Wireless Network (students who visit CSU campuses only)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
20
Figure 3a.15 – Reasons for Not Using CSU Wireless Network (students who visit CSU campuses
only)
Figure 3a.16 – Mobile Access of CSU Services
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
21
Figure 3a.17 – Special Requirements When Using a Computer
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
22
3b. Awareness and Use of Educational Technologies
This section explores the CSU educational technologies that students are using and how they are
using them. Key findings are as follows:
Laptop Usage

The majority of On Campus students are bringing a laptop to class at least once per week
(see Figure 3b.1)
Learning and Research Tools


The “Top Five” most used learning and research tools were:
o
Interact
o
Mobile phone
o
Word processing
o
Mobile internet
o
Social networking (see Figure 3b.2)
The “Bottom Five” least used learning and research tools were:
o
Student response systems
o
Social bookmarking
o
RSS feeds
o
Vodcasts
o
Website creation software (see Figure 3b.2)

While regular usage of primo (library catalogue) and library database searches increase as
student progress though their courses and into Post Graduate study (see Figures 3b.8 &
3b.9), the majority of On Campus students do not regularly use these searches (see Figures
3b. 3 & 3b.4). Furthermore, over 5% of On Campus students have never heard of library
catalogue/primo or database searches or aren’t sure what they are (see Figures 3b.3 & 3b.4)

A small percentage of 1st and 3rd year Undergraduate students had never heard of Interact
(see Figure 3b.6)

Post Graduate students are using web-conferencing (Online Meeting, i.e. Adobe Connect)
more than Undergraduates (see Figure 3b.7), while Distance students are using this
technology more than their On Campus counterparts (see Figure 3b.5)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
23
Figure 3b.1 – Frequency with which Laptops are Brought to Class
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
24
Figure 3b.2 – Usage of Learning and Research Tools
Figure 3b.3 – Usage of Library Catalogue/Primo Search by Mode
Figure 3b.4 – Usage of Library Database by Mode
Figure 3b.5 – Usage of Webconferencing (e.g. Online Meeting) by Mode
Figure 3b.6 – Usage of Interact by Level of Study
Figure 3b.7 – Usage of Webconferencing (e.g. Online Meeting) by Level of Study
Figure 3b.8 – Usage of Library Catalogue/Primo Search by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
27
Figure 3b.9 – Usage of Library Database by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
28
3c. Views and Experiences of Educational Technologies at CSU
This section explores students’ attitudes, perceptions, preferences and experiences around
educational technologies and their use at CSU. Key findings are as follows.
Attitudes Toward New Technology

Generally, there is a favourable attitude toward new technology among students, with
approximately 39% being categorised as early adopters (i.e. indicating that they enjoy being
among the first to embrace new technologies), while only 11% might be categorised as late
adopters (i.e. being among the last to embrace new technologies and/or being sceptical of
such technologies) (see Figure 3c.1). These results are fairly consistent with the 2010
findings but may represent a small shift toward more favourable attitudes to new
technology among students. For example, in 2010, 32% of students could be categorised as
early adopters, compared with 39% herein

No major differences were observed in attitudes toward new technology between
indigenous and non-indigenous Australian students (see Figure 3c.2)

Male students are more likely to be early adopters than females with around 56% of male
students being in this category compared with 31% of females (see Figure 3c.3)

Post Graduate Research students may be more likely than other student groupings to
identify as early adopters, with around 48% doing so (see Figure 3c.4)

On Campus students are more likely to have an extremely positive attitude toward new
technology than Distance students. 17% of On Campus students described themselves as
loving new technologies and being among the first to experiment with and use them (the
most technology-favourable response available) compared with 11% of Distance students
(see Figure 3c.5)

Students aged between 22 and 40 years are the most likely to be early adopters, with 22-25
year olds being the single age bracket most favourable to new technologies. Students aged
over 60 years were the least favourable, but even here the number of early adopters was
found to be equal to the number of late adopters (see Figure 3c.6)
Perceived Benefits of Educational Technology

The most often cited perceived benefits of educational technology are “Personal
Management (to be able to study at times and in places convenient for me)” selected by
38% of students, and “Access (being able to attend on-campus classes that would have
otherwise been missed)” selected by 33% of students (see Figure 3c.7). This suggests a
subtle re-ordering of priorities compared with the 2010 survey results, where “Access” was
the most commonly selected benefit (just under 38% of students), with “Personal
Management” selected by only 27% (c/f 38% here). This may suggest that “Access” is
becoming more of an expectation than a benefit per se.

Indigenous students show a different pattern of responses compared with non-indigenous
Australian students, where:
o
“Personal Management” is clearly the most important benefit of educational
technology (41% and twice the frequency of any other benefit)
o
“Improving My Learning” and “Access” were selected by an equal proportion of
indigenous students as the key benefit – whereas for non-indigenous students
“Access” was selected as the key benefit by more than twice the proportion of those
selecting “Improving My Learning”
o
“Communication with teachers and classmates” was more prevalent as a key benefit
among indigenous students (see Figure 3c.8)

Students from non-Australian cultural backgrounds also showed greater emphasis on
“Improving My Learning” as the key benefit of educational technology compared with nonindigenous Australian students (see Figure 3c.8)

International students are much more likely than Domestic students to rate “Improving My
Learning” as the most important benefit of educational technology – indeed, “Improving My
Learning” was the most prevalent benefit overall for International students (see Figure 3c.9)

Male students place a greater emphasis on “Improving My Learning” as the most important
benefit of educational technology than female students (approx 23% of males compared
with 14% of females) (see Figure 3c.10)

On Campus and Mixed Mode students place a much greater emphasis on “Improving My
Learning” compared with Distance students – the former being almost twice as likely to
identify this as a key benefit of education technology (see Figure 3c.11)
Attitudes Toward Learning Analytics

Overall, students exhibit a very favourable attitude toward Learning Analytics (defined as
“an online tool that enabled you to monitor your learning and studying in advance of
assessment tasks and relative to your peers”) with 84% indicating they would be likely or
very likely to use such a tool (see Figure 3c.12)

There were some interesting variations in the reported likelihood of usage between student
groups, including:
o
Domestic students being more strongly positive than International students – 52%
very likely vs 44% respectively (see Figure 3c.13)
o
Female students being more strongly positive than male students – 53% very likely
vs 48% very likely respectively (see Figure 3c.14)
o
First and second year Undergraduate students being more strongly positive than
third year and Post Graduate students – 58-59% very likely vs 39-48% respectively
(see Figure 3c.15)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
30
o
Distance students are slightly more cautious than Internal students – 13% uncertain
if they would use Learning Analytics vs 7-8% respectively (see Figure 3c.16)
Attitudes toward Education Technology at CSU

Overall, students exhibit a positive attitude toward educational technology at CSU – typically
supporting statements that suggest our technologies are adequate in their scope, well used,
well supported and aid student learning

In describing their attitudes toward and perceptions of educational technology at CSU, the
“Top Five” statements that were most strongly supported (i.e. agree or better) by students
were:

o
Educational technology makes my learning more flexible (>90% agree)
o
The use of educational technology is likely to be important for my future
career/workplace (approx 90% agree)
o
I am confident using educational technology for my study (approx 90% agree)
o
I feel confident about succeeding in online learning (just over 80% agree)
o
Educational technology makes it easier for me to interact with my fellow students
(just under 80% agree) (see Figure 3c.17)
Conversely, the “Bottom Five” least supported statements about educational technology at
CSU a cited below. It is important to note that for most of these statements the proportion
of students who actually supported them (i.e. agreed or better) is equal to or greater than
the proportion who did not support the statement (i.e. disagreed or worse):
o
My lecturers seem out of touch with the educational technologies that I use (approx
55% disagree)
o
I prefer online learning above face-to-face learning in my on campus subjects
(approx 40% disagree). Interestingly, however, around 40% of students also agree
with this statement
o
I would like to have more of my subjects fully online (just over 30% disagree ... while
50% actually agree with this statement)
o
I use Turnitin for electronic plagiarism checking (just under 30% disagree ... while
around 55% agree)
o
I prefer online learning above paper-based learning in my distance subjects (approx
25% disagree ... while around 55% agree). This suggests a strengthening in the
preference for online materials versus printed materials compared with the 2010
results. In 2010, only 38.5% of students supported the statement that they
preferred online materials in their distance subjects compared with 55% herein. (see
Figure 3c.17)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
31


In addition to the “Top Five” above, encouraging results were also achieved in relation to
these key statements about educational technology at CSU:
o
I am satisfied with the range of technologies available for studying and
communication (approx 80% agree)
o
Educational technology increases my satisfaction with learning (just under 80%
agree)
o
My lecturers are good at using educational technology for teaching (approx 75%
agree)
o
My teachers meet the expectations I have about online communication (just over
70% agree) (see Figure 3c.17)
Some interesting differences in responses to these statements were observed between
student groups, including:
o
On Campus students were more likely to be critical of lecturers being “out of touch”
with the educational technology they use compared with Distance students. Over a
third of On Campus students agreed that their lecturers were out of touch on this
point (see Figure 3c.18). Similarly, male students (approx 33% agree) are more
critical of lecturers on this point than female students (approx 22% agree) (see
Figure 3c.19)
o
As may be expected, Distance students were much more supportive of having more
of their subjects fully online compared with On Campus or Mixed Mode students.
Interestingly, however, 20% of Distance students disagreed with the notion of
having more of their subjects fully online, while just over 30% of On Campus
students and over 35% of Mixed Mode students agreed with this notion (see Figure
3c.18). Gender differences were also observed on this item, with just over 55% of
male students agreeing with idea of more subjects being fully online, while around
43% of female students agreed with the same (see Figure 3c.19)
o
Male students were also more receptive than female students to the ideas of a)
having more subjects with online components (nearly 70% of male students
agreeing, compared with around 55% of female students) and b) preferring online
learning above paper-based learning in distance subjects (around 64% of male
students agreeing, compared with approx 51% of female students) (see Figure 3c.19)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
32
Experiences of CSU Learning Environments

Out of CSU Interact, classrooms, learning commons and outdoor areas, Interact emerged as
the most positively viewed learning environment at CSU. In excess of 85% of students
surveyed agreed that their overall experiences of a) Interact generally, b) its availability and
c) its functionality have been positive. Within that 85%, more than 20% of students “very
strongly agreed” with these items (see Figure 3c.20). Further analysis showed that, while
still positive, favourable attitudes toward experiences with Interact appear to “soften” as
students progress through their studies. That is, attitudes to Interact (generally and in
relation to availability and functionality) are strongly favourable among first year students
(typically 55-62% very strongly agree and strongly agree) and declining from there to be
least favourable among Post-graduate Research students (typically 33-43% very strongly
agree and strongly agree) – albeit the latter is still a positive result (see Figures 3c.21, 22 and
23). This pattern of results may be expected given that later-year students may have spent
more time over the course of their time at CSU using Interact than first year student ... and
the long you’re using such a system, the greater the chance of something going wrong

While classrooms, learning commons and outdoor areas did not receive as favourable
ratings as Interact, the results show that for the strong majority of students their
experiences with these learning environments are positive. Around 70% of students believe
that classroom configurations and learning commons aid their learning, while just under 60%
of students believe the same of our outdoor areas (see Figure 3c.20). As with Interact, some
differences were observed by level of study:

o
Strongly favourable attitudes toward classroom configuration aiding learning
become less prevalent as students progress through their studies. Among First Year
students we see around 38% very strongly or strong agreeing that classroom
configuration aids learning, this declines to around 28% by third year and approx
21% among Post-graduate Research students (see Figure 3c.24)
o
The view of learning commons aiding learning is most prevalent among second year
(over 80% agree) and third year students (around 75% agree) (see Figure 3c.26)
o
The view of outdoor areas aiding learning is reasonably consistent among
Undergraduate students (approx 59-63% agree), but is less widely held among Post
Graduate students (52% of coursework students agree and only 33% of research
students agree) (see Figure 3c.27)
Nearly 80% of students report that the predominant style of teaching that have experienced
in CSU classrooms is lecturing (see Figure 3c.20). Interestingly, this experience is most
prevalent among second year (nearly 85% agree) and third year students (just over 80%
agree) (see Figure 3c.25)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
33
Experiences and Preferences for Education Technology Usage by Teaching Staff




In Figure 3c.28, we see that students report the “Top Five” technological features, tools or
services used most frequently by lecturers are (in order):
o
Access to resources at any time or place that I have internet access
o
Announcements
o
Email notifications
o
Discussion forums
o
Access to lecturers
The “Bottom Five” features used least frequently by lecturers are (in order most “never”
ratings):
o
Audio comments for assignment feedback
o
ePortfolios
o
Assessments on mobile devices
o
Wikis
o
Campus information on mobile devices
In Figure 3c.29, we see that the “Top Five” features, tools or services that students would
like lecturers to use most frequently are (in order):
o
Access to resources at any time or place that I have internet access
o
Lecture notes
o
Announcements
o
Access to lecturers
o
Email notifications
Critically, Figure 3c.30 shows the comparison of technological feature/tool/service current
usage against preferred usage by student mode. Here we see that for Internal and Mixed
Mode students, the current usage of technological features broadly aligns with their
expectations, with perhaps some opportunities to increase the usage of:
o
Readings suitable for e-readers
o
Animations
o
Getting marked assignments back online
o
Tracking progress and grades
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
34
o
Lecturer feedback
o
Assessment on mobile devices
o
Audio comments for assignment feedback
Among Distance students, however, there are a number of marked differences between
current and expected usage of technological features with opportunities to significantly
enhance usage of:
o
Readings suitable for e-readers
o
Lecture notes
o
Audio clips
o
Interactive video teaching
o
Lecture recording
o
Getting marked assignments back online
o
Quizzes for learning/self-review/assessment
o
Quizzes for grading
o
Tracking progress and grades
o
Small group work using online tools
o
Opportunities to revisit work covered in lectures and seminars
o
Subject information on mobile devices
o
Subject readings on mobile devices
o
Assessments on mobile devices
o
Audio comments for assignment feedback
Experiences of Online Subject Components

Approximately 62% of Distance students report that all of their subjects are delivered totally
online, while, interestingly, around 4% report that none of their subjects have any online
components (other than the subject outline) (see Figure 3c.31)

Around half of On Campus students report that some of their subjects have a mandatory online
component, while 22% report that all of their subjects are delivered totally online (see Figure
3c.32)
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
35
Figure 3c.1 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
36
Figure 3c.2 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Cultural Background
Figure 3c.3 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Gender
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
37
Figure 3c.4 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Level of Study
Figure 3c.5 – Attitudes Toward New Technologies by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
38
Figure 3c.6 – Attitudes to New Technology by Age
Figure 3c.7 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
39
Figure 3c.8 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Cultural Background
Figure 3c.9 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Domesticity
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
40
Figure 3c.10 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Gender
Figure 3c.11 – Perceived Major Benefit of Educational Technology by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
41
Figure 3c.12 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics
Figure 3c.13 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Domesticity
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
42
Figure 3c.14 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Gender
Figure 3c.15 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
43
Figure 3c.16 – Attitude Toward Learning Analytics by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
44
Figure 3c.17 – Attitude Toward Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU
Figure 3c.18 – Attitude Toward Key Aspects of Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU
by Mode
Figure 3c.19 – Attitude Toward Key Aspects of Educational Technology and Its Application at CSU
by Gender
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
47
Figure 3c.20 – Students’ Experiences of CSU Learning Environments
Figure 3c.21 – Students’ Experiences of Interact Functionality by Level of Study
Figure 3c.22 – Students’ Experiences of Interact Availability by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
48
Figure 3c.23 – Students’ Overall Experiences of Interact by Level of Study
Figure 3c.24 – Students’ Experiences of Classroom Configuration by Level of Study
Figure 3c.25 – Students’ Experiences of In-Classroom Teaching by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
49
Figure 3c.26 – Students’ Experiences of the Learning Commons by Level of Study
Figure 3c.27 – Students’ Experiences of Outdoor Areas by Level of Study
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
50
Figure 3c.28 – Students’ Experiences of How Frequently Lecturers Use Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
51
Figure 3c.29 – Students’ Preferences for Lecturer Use of Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
52
Figure 3c.30 – Alignment between Students’ Experience and Preferences around Lecturer Use of
Certain Technological Features, Services or Tools by Mode
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
53
Figure 3c.31 – Students’ Experiences of Online Components in Distance Subjects
Figure 3c.32 – Students’ Experiences of Online Components in On-Campus Subjects
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
54
4. Conclusions
The key message of this research is that students are typically supportive of a) educational
technology as a means for enhancing their learning experience and b) CSU’s use of such
technologies. That is, students in this survey tend to exhibit a positive attitude toward educational
technology and indicate that our technologies are adequate in their scope, well used, well supported
and aid student learning. If we have a general weakness in this space it is that our students would
like to see us go further in using educational technology is new ways. Indeed, there does appear to
be significant opportunities to enhance the utilisation of technological features, services or tools for
our Distance students, with these students identifying 15 technological features that are used much
less frequently than would be preferred.
This positivity toward education technology is evident in these interesting findings:

40% of students agree with the statement that they prefer online learning above face-toface learning in their on campus subjects, while nearly 50% of all students would like to have
more subjects fully online;

students exhibit a very favourable attitude to Learning Analytics (defined as “an online tool
that enabled you to monitor your learning and studying in advance of assessment tasks and
relative to your peers”) with 84% indicating they would be likely or very likely to use such a
tool;

in 2010, 70% of students who visited a CSU campus did not use our wireless network. This
proportion has fallen to 17% in the current survey;

more than 90% of students agree that educational technology makes learning more flexible,
while just under 80% agree that educational technology increases their satisfaction with
learning; and

approximately 80% of students are satisfied with the range of technologies available for
studying and communication at CSU and nearly 75% believe that their lecturers are good at
using educational technology for teaching;

around 90% agree that the use of educational technology is likely to be important to their
future career/workplace; and

there is an increasing trend in the proportion of students who prefer online learning over
paper-based learning in their distance subjects – with that proportion growing from 38.5% in
2010 to 55% in 2014.
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
55
The findings above are reinforced by students’ self-reported behaviour which shows that over the
past four years (2010 – 2014) there has been a substantial shift toward students spending more time
performing computer-based study. In 2010, we found that 59% of students spent less than 11 hours
per week on computer-based study. In 2014, this proportion had decreased to 27% and 39% of
students now spend in excess of 20 hours per week on computer-based study (versus 14.6% in
2010).
While it could be argued that there may be a sampling bias inherent in this survey which led to
greater positivity toward educational technology (i.e. that those students more interested in
technology would be more inclined to participate), this assumption does not necessarily stand up to
scrutiny. For instance, almost half of students in the survey do not possess a desktop computer and
around 30% might be described as “late or cautious adopters” of technology (i.e. only use a
technology once it is well accepted by others and/or may be sceptical of new technology).
It is worth noting that, typically, male students showed a greater interest in and proclivity for
technology compared with female students. There were no clear trends in attitudes toward or
usage of educational technology general based on cultural background, however, two interesting
findings did emerge:

that indigenous students showed greater interest in Learning Analytics than non-indigenous
students; and

students from indigenous and non-Australian backgrounds were more likely to see
“improving my learning” as a key benefit of educational technology than students from nonindigenous Australian backgrounds (with the latter more strongly valuing educational
technology as tool for “personal management”).
In future technological developments for CSU, it should be considered that an increasing proportion
of students are utilising wireless broadband, 3G and Smart Phones as their primary internet access,
and that around two-thirds of students are already accessing CSU services via mobile device.
Furthermore, it was found that the vast majority of students with a Smart Phone or tablet report
using these devices for both personal and study purposes when on campus and/or off campus. This
result (particularly as it pertains to off campus usage) suggests that many students are integrating
study/learning behaviours into their everyday use of these devices.
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
56
Appendix A – Introductory Script
Dear Student
Computer and mobile technologies, and the way people use them, continue to change rapidly. The University
seeks to better understand how students use such technologies, especially in educational settings. Your
feedback through this survey will enable the University to more effectively meet the diverse and changing
needs of its students.
Your responses will be anonymous. Any publication as an outcome of this survey will not identify any
individual or any particular subject in any way. Survey Monkey uses the IP address of a computer to identify a
survey taker but your survey contribution remains anonymous.
Once you have completed the survey a separate page will be displayed where you will be able to participate in
a draw for one of two iPods. Again the email ID you provide will not be linked to the anonymous survey.
The survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete and you are encouraged to complete the full
questionnaire. If you wish to exit the survey at any time and return later to finish it on the same computer,
complete the current page you are working on and click the NEXT button. Clicking the NEXT button will save
your survey and you will be able to return to the same place at a later time using the same computer.
Ensure you have cookies enabled in your browser or the survey will not be saved when you close the webpage.
Ethics approval for this survey has been obtained from the Division of Student Learning Ethics Committee.
Providing information through this online survey is taken as an indication of voluntary consent to participate.
You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. Please contact Assoc Prof Philip
Uys if you wish withdraw after having completed part of the survey.
Any enquiries may be addressed to:
Associate Professor Philip Uys
Director Strategic Learning and Teaching Innovation
Division of Student Learning (DSL)
Charles Sturt University, PO Box 883, Orange, NSW 2800 Australia
Email: [email protected] http://www.csu.edu.au/division/lts/
Any complaints around ethical issues should be addressed to the Chair of the Division of Student Learning
Ethics Committee.
Contact: [email protected]
To access and complete the survey, please click NEXT below.
The survey runs from Monday 24 March to Wednesday 30 April 2014.
Thank you for your participation. Your response is essential for improving the effectiveness of educational
technologies at CSU.
CSU 2014 Educational Technology Student Survey Report
September 2014
57