Faculty and Student Survey Results

    
           For the purposes of this study the team designed two survey instruments,
  one for faculty/staff and one for students (see Appendix C).  These instruments
  were designed to assess opinions about computer hardware and software
  availability and need.  There were 2,174 faculty and 5,674 student survey
  instruments distributed.  Faculty and staff returned 655 surveys and students
  returned 2,398 surveys, yielding response rates of 30% and 42% respectively.  In
  most cases faculty and student survey questions were parallel in construction. 
  However, where the content was not applicable for both groups, individual items
  were designed to elicit responses unique to each group.   
  
     Faculty.  Survey forms were distributed to all faculty at each of the eight
  campuses.  Among the respondents there was good representation across all
  academic ranks. 
  
     Students.  Student survey forms were distributed to academic units at all
  eight campuses.  A sampling procedure was used to obtain responses from lower
  division (including Liberal Education Requirement courses), upper division, and
  graduate level courses.  Student responses were received from all academic units. 
  Upper division students were more heavily sampled than lower division students
  because it was assumed they would have a more complete perspective on
  computing issues within their academic disciplines.  Graduate students account for
  approximately 20% of Kent's student population and were proportionately sampled. 
  
     The total student population of the Kent Campus is divided approximately in
  thirds by those who live on campus, those in off-campus housing near the
  University, and those who commute.  Figure 3 illustrates student response rates by
  residence category.  The number of commuting students is significant to the study
  because of the importance of computer lab locations and hours of availability to
  these students. 
    
     The response profile of faculty and students from the Kent and Regional
  campuses was very similar.  Approximately 74 percent of the responses were
  obtained from the Kent Campus and approximately 26 percent of the responses
  were obtained from the Regional Campuses. 
  
     The survey response format presented questions which required faculty,
  staff, and students to indicate the intensity of their use of a perceived need for
  items listed after each question, selecting from a range of four terms: extensive,
  moderate, little, or none.  Graphs in Appendix F illustrate only the percent of valid
  responses for each item that was answered "extensive" or "moderate." 
  Faculty/staff responses are shown by the solid bar and student responses are shown
  by the shaded bar.  (Please note that the questions in items 12 through 16 were
  different for faculty and students, and that questions 59 through 61 were not
  appropriate for students.) 
  
  
Interpretive Observations 

     The following observations were selected for comment because two-thirds
  of the faculty or student responses were grouped into the two upper (Extensive or
  Moderate) or the two lower (Little or None) categories.  Such groupings were
  interpreted as total sample agreement or consensus.  In contrast, divergence of
  opinion that was expressed with a relatively even spread across all four categories
  engendered none of the following comments.

     These observations grow out of the team's subjective interpretation of the
  frequency counts produced in the faculty and student surveys of academic
  computing needs and capabilities at Kent State University.  The rotated bar graphs
  (Appendix F) provide a visual interpretation of these results. 
                    
     Faculty in the sample make substantially more use of all types of computers
  than do the sampled students.  Macintosh computers are the only exception to this
  trend--their use was about equal for students and faculty/staff.  MS-DOS personal
  computers are the predominant hardware of choice. 
   
     Faculty have more access to computers at home, whereas most student
  access is gained through University public computer labs.  Faculty largely use
  computers to conduct research and to support their professional writing efforts.
     
     Students indicated less use of computers for in-class assignments and
  examinations.  They expressed need for training in word processing, spreadsheets,
  data base applications, graphics, library access systems, use of external networks,
  and discipline-specific software and hardware to carry out their coursework.
       
     Faculty had no preferential concerns for the topic of training needed. 
  Perceived need for training in programming languages garnered the lowest
  response from both students and faculty.  Faculty and students both expressed a
  career need for training in word processing.  Faculty also expressed a need for
  training in library access systems and discipline-specific software.  They noted a
  need for workshops on word processing, modem use, and terminal use.  The
  faculty typically have more experience than students in computer usage and believe
  they need adequate computing tools to convey this knowledge to students. 
          
     Faculty overwhelmingly state they are giving little or no computer-oriented
  instruction and students indicated that they are receiving virtually no computer-
  oriented instruction.  These responses specifically covered word processing,
  spreadsheets, data base applications, electronic mail, library access systems, use of
  external networks, and discipline-specific software and hardware. 
                 
     Strong support was indicated by both faculty and students for the University
  to provide more academic unit computer labs, specialized software for majors,
  library access, exposure to computing for all majors in English composition, staff
  support and training for computer lab users, up-to-date computer technology,
  access to other libraries and data bases, and required and elective courses in
  computer literacy.  
   
     Both faculty and students strongly supported University investments for the
  Kent Campus network, training, and more computer labs in academic areas. 
  Faculty also supported expending funds for classrooms capable of projecting video
  images.  Neither faculty nor students thought students should be required to own
  their own computer and students were opposed to a new instructional fee to support
  computer hardware. 
     
 
 Summary of Written Comments     
 

     Many respondents took the opportunity to add written comments to their
  Academic Computing Survey questionnaires.  From these, several themes of
  concern and interest were identified.  Faculty comments are reviewed first.        
  
  Faculty Responses.  Many faculty are concerned that students do not learn the
  computer skills they will need to be competitive in the job market.  The current
  environment is seen as inadequate in terms of equipment, software, networking,
  staff support, and training.  That is, there is an expressed need for more computers
  in faculty offices, more labs, wired classrooms, better performance from the IBM
  mainframe, increased knowledgeable staffing in labs, more technical support, more
  support for Macintosh, an emphasis on computer literacy, and better and increased
  training for faculty and staff.  The have a strong desire to see the Kent Campus
  network infrastructure completed which will permit the connection of department
  networks to the campus network and the Internet.  Faculty expressed a general
  sense of frustration:  
  
I am at home a lot more than I'd like to be because I can work on my own computer there. 
 
I am concerned about the ability of Kent to attract and keep knowledgeable faculty and staff members due
 to our backward condition.  This campus does not train or reward its people for technical achievement, it
buys new 'experts.' 
       
 . . . Right now I am having problems getting a new software package up and .Right  now  I  am  having  problems getting a  new  software  package  up  and running.  I feel isolated and
exhausted.
       
There is also a sense of optimism and a strong recognition about the
potential of computing technology to help improve research and instructional
endeavors.  Many faculty indicated that they would incorporate discipline-specific
computing into their teaching if there was adequate support:
  
I would like to take advantage of the software, CD-ROM disks, and laser disks available to enhance
lectures and allow students opportunities for independent work outside of class.
       
Notwithstanding the benefits, some respondents noted the need to retain the
human element when creating a computer culture:
  
How will we guarantee people can talk to one another in a computer world? 
       
       Student Responses.   Students expressed frustration about inadequate facilities and
  support.  Although a few students were satisfied with what is currently available,
  many more indicated that there are too few labs, not enough lab hours (particularly
  for commuting students), too few knowledgeable staff to provide lab support, and
  frequent problems with malfunctioning equipment.  Available equipment and
  software is out-of-date and incompatible within and between labs.  Students want
  Macintosh and Windows to be more widely available and supported.  They want
  more use of computers in the classroom. 
   
In addition to local software and hardware needs, students expressed a
desire for network access to external resources.  They want to be able to get and
keep mainframe accounts for using e-mail and the Internet and they want increased
access to research data bases such as Lexis/Nexis and PsycLit.   
   
Another area of concern is training and computer literacy.  Many students
appear to support the notion of a required computer literacy class featuring hands-
on instruction and an emphasis on applications, as typified by this comment: 
  
Students who lack computer skills need a variety of application courses... .  These classes should focus
on applications, not fundamental principles of how a computer works.     
       
Students expressed considerable worry that, because the appropriate
software and hardware is not used or is not readily available, they are not learning
the skills they need in their majors and for their careers. 
  
The school expects us to compete in the real world without
much training in the latest technologies--client server, data
base, plus open systems and 461s.  [M.I.S. program] 
       
Television Production majors should be trained on computer video editing equipment and video FX
equipment like "Toaster."  I got screwed because you didn't prepare me for this type of equipment.  I will
be sorry.  Tape editing is soon to be dead; non-computer edit controllers are dead.     
       
     Students expressed strong opposition to increased costs, whether in the form
  of additional fees or required purchases, although there is some support for the idea
  of making computers available for students to purchase at a discount.  Many
  students challenged the University to revise spending priorities to reflect the
  importance of creating and maintaining a computing environment that will serve
  their current educational needs and future career expectations.  Sprinkled
  throughout the comments were indications of students having erroneous
  information that appeared to add to their dissatisfaction.  For example, inaccurate
  statements were made about computer lab locations, requirements for obtaining
  mainframe accounts, and remote access to the library catalog.