SACSA/NASPA Region III Mid-Managers’ Institute, 2005

1. Student Affairs
Division of
Technology and
Student Affairs
NASPA
Mid-Managers Institute
June 6, 2005
Leslie Dare, Ed.D.
Director, DE & Tech Services
Division of Student Affairs – NC State University

2. Distance Education & Technology Services
•Help Division units serve distance learners
•Technology Planning & Resources

3. Presentation Agenda
•Overview of Technology: A Student Affairs Perspective
•Survey Results:
“Trends in Technology Administration in Student Affairs”
•Hands On Demonstration

4. Overview of Technology: SA Perspective
•Five Arenas of The Technological Environment
•Student Services & Programs
•Other Issues
•Recommendations for Student Affairs Administrators

5. Five Arenas of the
Technological Environment

6. Arenas of the Technology Environment
1. Information Dissemination
• World Wide Web
• CD-ROM
• Campus Cable
2. Transactional Interaction
• eBilling
• Course Registration
• Housing sign up
• Creating appointments for career counseling
• “Smart cards” for building and services access

7. Arenas of the Technology Environment
3. Communication
• Email
• Instant Messaging
• Video Conferencing
4. Entertainment
• Music and movie downloads from the Internet
(can be illegal; eats up bandwidth)
• Gaming
(Online; Xbox, Playstation)

8. Arenas of the Technology Environment
5. Education
• Learning Management Systems
(WebCT, Blackboard, WebAssign)
• Satellite
• Video
• Cable
Engstrom, C.M., & Kruger, K.W. (1997) Using technology to promote student learning: Opportunities for
today and tomorrow. New Directions for Student Services Series #78. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

9. Student Services
and
Programs

10. Student Services & Programs
1. Student Expectations
• Digital versions of all services
• Availability - 24/7 – “Right Here, Right Now”
2. Challenges
• Know-How
• Resources
• Keeping Up

11. Other Issues

12. Other Issues
1. Technology Fluency (aka “computer literacy”)
• For Students
• For Student Affairs staff
2. Legal & Ethical Issues
• Copyright
• Harassment
• Plagiarism
• Security/Privacy

13. Other Issues
3. Distance Education
• Growing exponentially overall
• Growing 11% annually at NC State
• How use technology to serve this population
• Fee issues related to technology
4. Accessibility
• Students with disabilities
• Access to resources: broadband Internet connections;
software

14. Other Issues
5. Top Ten Technology Resources to Watch & Learn
(by Leslie Dare…no particular order)
• Blogging
• thefacebook.com
• RSS
• Flash Drives
• Multipurpose Mobile Devices (cell/pda/mp3)
• Wi-Fi
• Bluetooth
• Mozilla Firefox
• Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VOIP)
• Instant Messaging

15. Other Issues
6. Top Ten Gadgets (by ZDNet – May 25, 2005)
• Sony PSP (video game console)
• Samsung MM-A80 (cell phone)
• Archos PocketMedia Assistant PMA430 (portable video player)
• Logitech Harmony 880 (universal remote)
• PalmOne LifeDrive (handheld)
• Canon Digital Rebel XT (digital camera)
• Samsung YEPP-YP T7Z (portable audio)
• Apple iPod Mini (portable audio)
• Motorola Razr V3 (cellphone)
• PalmOne Treo 650 (smartphone)
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Top_gadgets/4520-8900_16-1008327-1.html?tag=fs

16. Technology is Ubiquitous in Higher Ed
•The role of technology in higher education is widely studied
and embraced.
•Technology in higher education (especially related to
teaching and learning) is generally well funded and integrated
in administration, planning and decision making.
•Likewise, student affairs organizations should incorporate
technology considerations into all areas of planning.
Why Technology and Student Affairs?

17. Why Technology and Student Affairs?
Student Affairs is Not Keeping Pace
Three indicators suggest that this mainstreamed approach to
using technology as a tool is still not embraced.
1. Anecdotal evidence as observed by technology
practitioners in student affairs.
2. The lack of a current handbook or text on the topic of
technology in student affairs.
3. The absence of dedicated coursework on the topic in
most student affairs graduate programs.

18. What Sparked This Project
1. Student Affairs On-Line (studentaffairs.com) – Articles in general
2. Student Affairs On-Line –2004 Virtual Case Study Competition
(Create a course on Student Affairs and Technology)
3. How does what we are doing (at NC State) compare to others?
4. Barratt, W. (2001). Managing information technology in Student
Affairs: A report on policies, practices, staffing, and technology.
(NASPA, Seattle, WA).
Why Technology and Student Affairs?

19. What the Literature Tells Us
1. Vast literature about technology in higher education, particularly its
use and impact in the classroom. However, literature more specific
to technology in student affairs is only recently emerging and still
quite limited.
2. One common theme: balancing high tech with high touch
3. New audiences: serving distance learners via technology
4. The discussion is not “if” but “when;” and today isn’t soon enough
(source = just about any student).
Why Technology and Student Affairs?

20. Selected References
Barratt, W. (2003). Information Technology In Student Affairs. In S. Komives, D. Woodward, Jr.,
& Associates (Eds.), Student Services (pp. 379-96). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Dare, L., Thomas, A., & Zapata, L. Assessing the Co-Curricular Needs of Distance Learners: A
Student Affairs Perspective. Manuscript in progress.
Engstrom, C.M., & Kruger, K.W. (1997) Using technology to promote student learning:
Opportunities for today and tomorrow. New Directions for Student Services Series #78.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Goldsmith, H. Upcraft M. (2000). Technological Changes in Student Affairs Administration. In M.
Barr &., M. Desler (Eds.) The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration, 2nd Edition (pp.
216228). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Hirt, J., Cain, D., Bryant, B. & Williams, E. (2003). Cyberservices: What’s important and how are
we doing? NASPA Journal, 40 (2) 98118.
WICHE - Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (2003). Beyond the
Administrative Core: Creating Web-based Student Services for Online Learners.
http://www.wcet.info/projects/laap/
Why Technology and Student Affairs?

21. Survey Objectives
•To understand how other Student Affairs units are
administering technology.
•To see how our own efforts compare to other institutions.
•To create a benchmark against which we can compare
future survey results and contribute to the profession.

22. • Barratt (2001) looked at these four areas:
• Policies
• Practices
• Staffing
• Technology
• We adjusted this model, resulting in these areas:
• Planning (includes policies, assessment)
• Practices
• Staffing
• Resources (more general take on technologies)
Survey Topics

23. Methodology

24. Methodology – Sample
• Carnegie Classifications
• NASPA
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
ACPA
American College Personnel Association
• Institutional vs. Individual Membership

25. • Instrument review (sample available)
• Online survey
• Databases for institutions and survey
results
Methodology – Survey Creation

26. 1. Method
• Paper available
2. Correspondence
• Initial invitation
• Reconciling bounces
• Two follow-up messages
• Postcard
• Bulk email used for all correspondence
• Email, phone and fax used for troubleshooting
3. Listserv
• Requests = 100+
Methodology – Survey Distribution

27. • Sample-convenience not random
• Survey questions/options: New topic-lack of
qualitative foundation
• Due to the diversity within Student Affairs
programs, it was sometimes difficult to pick one
answer that captured what was happening in the
division.
• Diversity between Student Affairs units may
account for some differences (e.g., inclusion or
exclusion of Enrollment Management offices).
Limitations of the Research

28. Survey
Results

29. 1. Return Rate
2. Carnegie Classification
3. Public/Private
4. Student headcount
5. Position of individual completing survey
Section 1: Demographics

30. Return Rate
• Sample Size = 1154
• Return = 412
• Rate = 36%
Section 1: Demographics

31. 58
40
106
32
56
27
9
62
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Carnegie Classification
DR Univ Ext DR Univ Inten Masters I Masters II Bac Lib Arts
Bac Gen Bac/Associate Associate Specialized Tribal C&U

32. 233
167
0
50
100
150
200
250
Institution Type
Public Private

33. 95
187
69
57
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Student Headcount
1999 and under 2000 to 10999 11000 to 19999 20000 and above

34. 95
187
69
57
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Submitter
CSAO Technology leadership Help with technology Don't work with technology

35. Summary of Demographics
1. Sample not random-determine institution by institution
how to interpret
2. CSO filled out survey-considering how busy CSOs are,
the fact that they filled it out themselves may indicate a
special interest in the topic.
3. Sample: Larger number public institutions than in the
population
4. Sample: Carnegie rep is heavier for DE, DI, MI, MII, BLA,
BG

36. 1. Centralized, formalized planning
2. Assessment as component of planning
3. Student development theory or philosophy as component
of planning
4. Representation on institution-wide technology committees
Section 2: Planning

37. 252
158
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Centralized, Formal Technology Planning
Yes No

38. 195
73
140
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Assessment a Component of Tech Planning
Yes No Don't Plan

39. 8
85
201
57 60
0
50
100
150
200
250
Theory or Philosophical Approach in Planning
Never Rarely Sometimes Always Don't Plan

40. For those that indicated that they do
incorporate student development
theory into their technology planning,
please share how that is
accomplished on your campus.
Section 2: Planning

41. 7 23
137
243
0
50
100
150
200
250
Representation on Campus-Wide Tech Committees
Never Rarely Sometimes Always

42. Summary of Planning
•Larger schools (over 2000) tend to plan (statistical association)
•Planners tend to assess (statistical association)
•Those with tech leadership tend to plan (statistical association)
•85.14% of “Full Time Leadership” plan
•68.64% of “One Responsibility Leadership” plan
•74.32% of “Committee Leadership” plan
•Impact of background on planning
•68.00% of “Primarily SA Background Staff” plan
•74.11% of “Primarily Tech Background Staff” plan
•76.32% of “Even Mix Background Staff” plan

43. 1. Climate in Student Affairs re: technology
2. Services available solely via technology
Section 3: Practice

44. 5
48
221
137
0
50
100
150
200
250
Climate in Student Affairs
Poor Fair Good Excellent

45. 24
120
217
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Portion of Services Available Completely via Technology
None A few Some Majority

46. • People report either good or excellent climate for
technology in Student Affairs.
• Most institutions have at least “a few” services
available completely via technology.
Summary of Practice

47. 1. Technology leadership
2. Level of centralized technology staffing
3. Adequacy of technology staffing
4. Type of technology staffing
Section 4: Staffing

48. 74
120
74
137
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Technology Leadership
At least one full time position One of several responsibilities of one staff
A committee No identified technology leadership

49. 41
76
203
89
0
50
100
150
200
250
Technology Staffing
Centralized internal technology staff Centralized And Others
No centralized some scattered No technology staff

50. 43
171 164
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Adequacy of Tech Staffing
Poor Fair Good Excellent

51. 77
112
76
144
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Type of Technology Staffing
Primarily Student Affairs Primarily technical Even mix No technology staff

52. Q13(Staffing 3 Adequacy of the technology staffing
for SA)
Q11(Staffing 1 Identify technology
leadership)
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Total
At least one full time position 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
17
4.23
22.97
10.18
40
9.95
54.05
24.69
17
4.23
22.97
56.67
74
18.41
One of several responsibilities of
one staff
10
2.49
8.40
23.26
45
11.19
37.82
26.95
59
14.68
49.58
36.42
5
1.24
4.20
16.67
119
29.60
A committee 10
2.49
13.51
23.26
32
7.96
43.24
19.16
30
7.46
40.54
18.52
2
0.50
2.70
6.67
74
18.41
No identified technology leadership 23
5.72
17.04
53.49
73
18.16
54.07
43.71
33
8.21
24.44
20.37
6
1.49
4.44
20.00
135
33.58
Total 43
10.70
167
41.54
162
40.30
30
7.46
402
100.00
Frequency Missing = 10
Staffing by Adequacy of Staff
ANOVA p-value=.001 R-Sq =.1423

53. Summary of Staffing
•66% of responding institutions have some sort of technology
leadership.
•47% felt that the staffing is adequate.
•For those with technology staff, there seems to be more of a
technology background than a Student Affairs background
•27.4% are primarily tech and 18.8% are primarily Student Affairs
•Institutions with headcount of 11,000 and up tend to have primarily
staff with technical backgrounds.
•Institutions with headcount of 11,000 and up tend to have full-time
leadership; smaller institutions tend to have no leadership.

54. 1. Technology adoption rate
2. Use and satisfaction of various technologies
for individual or departmental productivity
3. Use and satisfaction of various technologies
for delivering student services and programs
Section 5: Resources (Technologies)

55. 82
252
71
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Integrating New Technologies
Late Adopter Mainstream Adopter Early Adopter

56. Very
Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Do not
use
Web - Basic delivery of information 4 55 263 84 3
Web - Online forms 11 90 226 65 11
Web - Video conferencing 9 60 119 20 194
Other video conferencing 8 54 105 22 204
Email 1 4 135 265 0
Listservs 3 12 226 149 16
Instant Messaging 2 27 104 37 232
Portals 5 54 146 34 154
Cable 4 33 190 71 96
Satisfaction/Use of Resources
(For Individual or Departmental Productivity)

57. Very
Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Do Not
Use
Satellite 7 22 112 27 229
Electronic Signatures 13 42 137 26 182
PDA 9 58 192 48 97
Fax 1 7 182 217 0
Landline Telephone 1 8 182 212 4
Cellular Telephone 4 25 191 151 34
Voice over IP 1 22 55 23 295
Pager 1 15 124 54 209
CDs with Content 6 43 151 49 154
VHS tapes with Content 6 23 120 21 230
Satisfaction/Use of Resources
(For Individual or Departmental Productivity)
continued

58. Very
Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Do
Not Use
Web - Basic delivery of information 5 70 229 96 4
Web - Online forms 11 95 201 80 14
Web - Video conferencing 5 50 90 19 230
Other video conferencing 4 45 86 14 244
Email 4 40 169 183 5
Listservs 3 49 181 85 80
Instant Messaging 3 29 89 35 241
Portals 9 55 125 44 160
Cable 6 33 175 66 114
Satisfaction/Use of Resources
(For Delivering Student Services or Programs)

59. Satisfaction/Use of Resources
(For Delivering Student Services or Programs)
continued
Very
Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Do not use
Satellite 2 18 91 21 258
Electronic Signatures 13 39 111 26 204
PDA 2 51 110 27 205
Fax 10 191 122 74 10
Landline telephone 5 17 207 148
20
Cellular telephone 4 29 179 101 84
Voice over IP 3 21 47 18 303
Pager 0 15 89 30 261
CDs with content
4 36 152 52 152
VHS tapes with content 2 20 127 27 219

60. Q15(Resources 1 How quickly integrate new
technologies)
Q11(Staffing 1 Identify technology
leadership) Late
adopter
Mainstream
adopter
Early
adopter
Total
At least one full time position 6
1.50
8.22
7.50
48
12.03
65.75
19.20
19
4.76
26.03
27.54
73
18.30
One of several responsibilities of
one staff
20
5.01
16.81
25.00
79
19.80
66.39
31.60
20
5.01
16.81
28.99
119
29.82
A committee 10
2.51
13.51
12.50
50
12.53
67.57
20.00
14
3.51
18.92
20.29
74
18.55
No identified technology leadership 44
11.03
33.08
55.00
73
18.30
54.89
29.20
16
4.01
12.03
23.19
133
33.33
Total 80
20.05
250
62.66
69
17.29
399
100.00
Frequency Missing = 13
Staffing by How Quickly Integrate New Technology
Significant p-value but very very low Rsq

61. Summary of Resources
•Institutions are generally satisfied with technology resources they are
using.
•The results for the two “laundry lists” of resource items are fairly
similar.
•There are some resources being used more for
individual/deparmental productivity than for delivering services and
programs.

62. • Structure of office
– support for additional staffing
– possible reorganization
• Encourage departments to consider both types of
backgrounds (Student Affairs and tech) in hiring decisions
• Need to more intentionally incorporate student
development theory/philosophy in technology planning
• Encourage departments to use division planning as a
model for their own planning
• Continue to gather and evaluate information regarding
other models
Implications for DETS at NC State

63. Recommendations
for
Student Affairs Administrators

64. Recommendations
1. Designate “technology leadership” as a responsibility for
someone in the Student Affairs organization
(position or hat)
2. Participate in campus-wide technology planning and
initiatives (committee representation)
3. Engage in deliberate technology planning (including
budgeting and assessment) for the Student Affairs
organization and units within the Student Affairs
organization

65. Recommendations
4. Recruit staff at all levels invested in using technology
5. Embrace some basic technology principles, such as:
• Technology should be used as a tool, and not just for
the sake of using it
• Equitable access to technology resources and training
should be provided to all staff;
• Digital interactions should complement but not replace
personal interactions with students
5. Improve your own “Tech IQ” and comfort level

66. Hands-On Demonstration

67. Questions & Answers

68. Technology in Student Affairs
Division of Student Affairs
NC State University
Campus Box 7301
Raleigh, NC 27695-7301
919.515.1329
leslie_dare@ncsu.edu
darebryan: AOL IM
ladarencsu: Yahoo IM
•This Presentation
http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/mmi05/
•Recent NASPA Presentations
http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/naspa05/
•Distance Education & Technology Services (Student Affairs, NC State)
http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/dets/
•Division of Student Affairs (NC State)
http://www.ncsu.edu/student_affairs/