The Advisory Committee on Academic Information Technologies (ACAIT), in cooperation with the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) and the Office of Information Technologies (OIT), conducted the Faculty Technology Survey in Spring 1999. The survey was conducted to determine faculty equipment and training needs for computer, multimedia, and other research and instructional technology at Portland State University. A subcommittee of the ACAIT generated survey items, reviewed drafts of the instrument, and solicited feedback from faculty in the School of Business Administration and other departments across campus. The full committee reviewed drafts of the instrument and offered input on the survey items before administering the instrument to faculty.

The survey was sent via campus mail to 706 Portland State University teaching and research faculty, including full- and part-time, tenured and fixed term, and adjunct faculty. Of the total, 295 (42%) responded.

Approximately half of the respondents were female (47%) and the majority were Caucasian (80%). Most respondents were full-time faculty members (93%) and full, associate, or assistant professors (80%). Half of the respondents had indefinite tenure and almost a third (32%) were fixed term faculty. (See Figures 1 & 2.)

Respondents and non-respondents were generally similar in their characteristics; however, part-time faculty were underrepresented among respondents.

Of those respondents who had personal computers in their offices (95%), most were experienced computer users who reported that the hardware and software available to them met their needs. A majority (84%) used a personal computer daily and chose PC/Windows (66%) and Macintosh (39%) as primary operating systems. When asked about using personal computers off-campus, 45% said they never did this, but 40% would like to connect to the PSU network. Fifty-three percent of those who connect to the PSU network dialed directly to PSU modems and 38% used an Internet service provider; 10% used both.

The majority of respondents (40%) use OIT Local Information Support Technicians (LIST) or internal department support personnel (35%) for on-campus computer or network support. A third of the respondents (35%) offered no opinions about their satisfaction with OIT LIST. Of those who did offer opinions, about half (48%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the services provided. Respondents were more satisfied with the OIT Help Desk; of those who had an opinion (72%), two thirds (66%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the support they had received from the Help Desk.

Responses regarding current familiarity with computers indicated that more faculty are familiar with using computers to analyze quantitative data (59%) than qualitative data (45%). When conducting statistical analyses, 79% of respondents used personal computers whereas 3% used Odin or the Statistics Lab.

The majority of respondents (> 90%) currently use word-processing, E-mail, and Web software. Of those respondents not currently using various software packages, the majority would like to use graphics, presentation, and desktop publishing software (80%, 76%, and 69% respectively). Faculty used programming software such as C++ and Visual Basic the least, and few stated they would like to use it. (See Figure 3.)

Most respondents (68%) were unfamiliar with the current uses of instructional technology (such as WebCT) for teaching. Faculty were asked in the survey to indicate which computer tasks they required of students in their courses. Most (79%) required word-processing, and roughly half required World Wide Web exploration and research (55%), electronic library resources (46%), and electronic mail (46%). Few respondents required the use of databases, programming, or the use of the Web for student course evaluations in their classes.

For those who plan to use instructional technology during the 1999-2000 academic year, many will use it in classroom instruction (59%), but few will use it in service to the community (24%). Approximately half of the respondents (46%) have attended workshops for faculty provided by the OIT and the Center for Academic Excellence. The majority of those who have not attended reported that they are likely to attend in the future (66%).

Of the variety of technologies available to faculty, most currently use classroom projection media (82%) and over half (64%) are satisfied with their skill level. Half of the faculty (51%) use electronic or Web libraries; most (72%) are interested in enhancing their skills in this area. Less than half of faculty use class presentation computer tools or put course syllabi or materials on the Web; over two thirds expressed an interest in enhancing these skills. Few currently use or are interested in using newsgroups, chat rooms, or the computer projection system in Hoffman Hall.

Most faculty reported that the best way to improve their skills was through one-to-one tutoring and coaching. Figure 4 shows faculty ratings of other ways to learn more about instructional technology.

To enhance learning with technology, faculty assigned the highest priority to the provision of grants in developing instructional materials (47%). Other high priorities included providing consulting assistance in how to choose and use technologies that advance specific learning goals (43%) and equipping more classrooms with multimedia projection equipment (40%). The lowest priority for faculty (58%) was to provide more facilities or equipment for computerized simulations.

Almost two thirds of the respondents (63%) offered suggestions for enhancing their use of electronic technology in research, teaching, or community service. In general, the respondents’ comments parallel the survey findings presented above. Their suggestions fall into four main categories: comments about equipment; facilities; training and services provided to faculty; and faculty support.

Although faculty indicated that the hardware and software in their offices generally meet their needs, in their comments they called for improvements to equipment, software, and network capabilities. Some are using old computers and need upgraded memory and software such as Windows 95 and Office 97.

Many faculty would like to improve their access to the network from home or other off-campus locations. Some simply want access. Others commented on the need for a more reliable network and a more efficient means of dialing into the network.

Other suggestions included providing a better E-mail or a single E-mail system, providing students with systematic access to Web-based course materials, and providing more on-line journals from the library.

Comments about facilities targeted the technology available in classrooms. Faculty would like classroom equipment to be fully operational every time they use it. Although faculty mentioned many forms of technology that they would like to have available in the classrooms (e.g., computer projection, Internet connection, multimedia, and video conferencing capabilities), many suggested that reliably functioning overhead projectors, TVs, and VCRs would be an immediate improvement.

In particular, faculty mentioned providing more frequent and regular equipment maintenance and delivering and installing requested equipment reliably and punctually:

Faculty also commented on improving student labs. Faculty stated that students need more access to computer labs and computer stations, and more access to software in the labs (i.e., specific software should be installed on more computers). For example,

One respondent mentioned that all labs and computer stations should become fully wheelchair accessible.

Many of the respondents’ comments indicate that one-to-one interaction with OIT staff is the preferred way to learn new skills and get help with technical questions or problems.

Faculty would like prompter responses to their requests for help and more specialized staff available to answer questions. One faculty member commented that his or her use of technology would be enhanced by

Three suggestions were repeated in many of the comments. First, make a directory of OIT staff expertise available to faculty so it is clear who could best help solve a problem. Second, provide written instructions or documentation for hardware, software, and network processes. Third, continue to provide support to Mac users.

Although faculty strongly favored one-to-one training and assistance, they also noted that workshops are useful. In general, faculty want well-trained presenters who emphasize tasks instead of software features:

The scheduling of workshops was also an issue for faculty. Some felt workshops should be offered fall through spring because faculty are unavailable in the summer; others felt summer was the best time to offer workshops. Some faculty suggested that offering workshops on-line would make participation easier. Faculty mentioned a variety of topics, but they repeatedly mentioned WebCT and courses on Web-based instruction.

Faculty would like the University to provide more support for developing skills and integrating technology into their work. Many faculty stated that time was the most important factor in enhancing their use of technology. In particular, reduced teaching loads or release time would make it easier for faculty to develop on-line courses and integrate high technology into instruction.

As one respondent put it,

Faculty also suggested that monetary support would be welcomed for equipment and upgrades and for developing course materials. As one respondent concluded,

Most faculty are experienced computer users who use word-processing, E-mail, and Web software. In the classroom, most faculty's use of technology is currently limited to projection media, but many expressed and interest in gaining more familiarity with additional technologies, especially Web skills. Faculty suggest that the best way to improve their skills is through one-to-one assistance.

The survey yielded useful information about the technology needs of faculty, however, all newly developed instruments require fine-tuning. The limitations encountered during the first administration of the Faculty Technology Survey provided lessons for future administrations and will aid in the development of an improved instrument. Please note that the survey represents only one source of data. For a more complete picture of faculty equipment needs, the results of this survey should be combined with multiple and diverse sources of information.