| Back to Title | Table of Contents | Summary Results |
1.0. INTRODUCTION
This report provides a description of the results from Faculty and Student surveys on technology in education. This study was conducted over the course of the Spring 1999 and Fall 1999 semesters. Inclusion of both Faculty and Student opinions was desirable in order to provide a more complete indication of the Hofstra Community as a whole. All Faculty were included in the survey sample with a response rate of 57%. The Student sample consisted of a random selection of 1,750 students (350 individuals queried per academic year). The response rate for the Student surveys was 38%. Three mailings for both Faculty and Student surveys were conducted during April and May 1999.
A copy of the faculty and Student surveys is provided in Appendix A. The survey items were developed based on an extensive literature review of technology and education, followed by a series of interviews and focus groups with Hofstra Faculty and Students. Both surveys consisted of questions addressing three main elements: traditional learning (defined as face-to-face lecture and discussion with professors who control the pace of instruction in a classroom setting), technology-based learning (traditional learning supplemented by one or more of the following: web assignments, CD-ROM assignments, on-line coursed materials, chat rooms, and discussion groups), and distance learning (courses mainly taking place outside of the classroom, with a separation of teacher and student in space and/or time with the pace of the instruction being shared by the student and instructor).
The Faculty and Student questionnaires were mainly comprised of similar questions, with adjustments made for Professor and Student aspects, respectively. Questions were broken up into different subsections: "Experience with Educational Technology;" "Experience with Distance Learning;" "Experience with Computers and Software Applications;" "Opinions about Traditional Learning;" "Technology-Enhanced Learning and Distance Learning;" "Background Information;" and "Written Comments." The Faculty survey had several additional questions under the subtitle of "Hofstra's Role in Distance Learning," whereas students were asked questions that reflected solely the learner perspective. Choices were provided for the majority of the questions; these were either one to five rating scales (e.g., ranging from not at all to very much), yes or no options, or choose one/best answer. These answers provided the statistical data used for the analysis of results described in this report. In addition, an opportunity for written comments was provided where applicable to expand further on aspects of distance and technology-enhanced learning not covered in any particular question.
1.1. Faculty Survey Sample
Figure 1. and Table 1. provide a description of the representativeness of Faculty respondents across the various University Divisions (Education, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Business, Communication, and New College) and departments. As illustrated in the Figure and Table, the survey sample was fairly representative of the Faculty population. Also consistent with the overall Faculty population, the distribution of Full-time and Part-time personnel in the sample was 47% and 53% respectively (see Figure 2.). The distribution across rank for Full-time Faculty members was as follows: Professor (31%), Associate Professor (34%), Assistant Professor (31%), and missing (4%).
1.2. Student Survey Sample
The Student respondents were sorted by the aforementioned departments (see Figure 3) reflecting their major course of study, with an eighth dimension added to represent those undeclared individuals. Business Students accounted for a third of the sample (35%) followed by Education (20%), Social Sciences (17%), Humanities (9%), Communication (8%), and Natural Sciences (6%). Five percent of the respondents were Undecided, and New College respondents accounted for 0.2% of the sample. The sample was fairly well distributed over the level of academic standing (see Figure 4), with Juniors, Sophomores, Seniors and Masters Students all between 18-23% of the sample; Freshman were a lower percentage, comprising 12% of the sample, while Doctorate candidates only made up 4% of the sample.
A summary of the results from both Faculty and Student surveys is provided in Section 2.0. The results are presented in accordance with the sequence of Faculty questions and overlapping (equivalent) Student questions, followed by unique Faculty questions and unique Student questions. Section 2.0 also provide links to the complete set of data tables and figures for each survey question. A brief summary of written comments from both Faculty and Students is provided in Section 3.0.
| Back to Title | Table of Contents | Summary Results |