The Educause Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) has released the 2016 Study of Undergraduate Students and Technology (Brooks, 2016). Since its first release in 2004, the ECAR report has been used by higher education administration to understand the infrastructure needed to support current and future students and faculty. The report also helps faculty understand how students currently use technology and their expectations for higher education.

According to Brooks (2016, p. 3), the report "makes the case for putting the student at the center of technology projects, policies, and pedagogies." This year the response to the survey was large, with 71,641 respondents from 183 institutions across 37 states and 12 different countries. The findings reported here are based on a representative sample of 10,000 students from US institutions.

The survey was divided into four major sections: importance of technology, technology experiences, preferences, and effects of technology on students. Under importance, the survey sought to provide evidence that the adoption of technologies in our digital world is woven into the fabric of modern society. Variables studied included technology disposition, attitudes, and usage patterns (measured using a semantic differential construct scale) and ownership and importance of devices.

Under disposition, respondents could choose a point between 1 and 100, from late adopter to early adopter or from reluctant to enthusiast. For ownership, they were asked about specific devices: laptops, smartphones, tablets, and wearables (note that desktop computers were not deemed relevant). Students were also asked specifically about usage for academic purposes and how important devices were to their academic success.

For the technology experiences section, variables included institutional infrastructure, instructor's technology skills, student attitudes toward technology, and the importance of classroom technologies in relation to future career choices. The technology preference section assessed preferences for learning environments and how they relate to technology. The final category, effects of technology on students, assessed student engagement (student to student, student to faculty, student to content), enrichment, and efficiency. Students were asked if the use of digital tools was a distraction in class, a question prompted by a 2015 finding about faculty concerns.

Now we know what the survey measured. So, what did it find?

IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGY

Student technology orientations were "significantly above the neutral position" (score of 50) on each of the semantic differential scales, with average scores of 66 for disposition, 75 for attitude, and 75 for usage. These high scores indicate that students tended to be early adopters and enthusiastic about technology, were more satisfied, and thought technology was beneficial and useful. Students were also high users of information technology, were always connected, and saw technology as central to their lives.

In terms of ownership, laptop ownership was 93 percent, smartphone ownership was 96 percent, and tablet ownership was 39 percent. Only 1 percent of students owned no devices, and 5 percent owned only one; 52 percent of students, on the other hand, owned all three: laptop, smartphone, and tablet. Ninety-three percent reported that the "laptop was the most important digital tool and was extremely important to their academic success" (Brooks, 2016, p. 13).

TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCES

Eighty percent of students rated their experiences with technology on campus as good or excellent, with 66 percent rating the reliability of wireless networks as good to excellent in library and classroom spaces. Wireless experiences in dormitories were less favorable.

Results were mixed regarding faculty use of technology, with 69 percent reporting that most or all of their faculty demonstrated adequate use of technology for course instruction. Most (61 percent) said their instructors did the basics (e.g., they used technology to connect to learning materials or promoted the use of collaborative tools). Fewer faculty used technology for cultivating critical thinking (49 percent) and maintaining student attention (48 percent). Only one third thought faculty "harness[ed] the power students have in their backpacks or pockets to deepen learning" (Brooks, 2016, p. 17).

TECHNOLOGY PREFERENCES

As in the past, blended learning environments (face-to-face/online) were preferred. There were four instances of how students viewed technology. First, technology was viewed as an enabler for engaging materials in nontraditional ways (e.g., streamed or recorded lectures). The downside is that younger students (36 percent), particularly in larger classes, were more likely to skip lectures when they were made available through alternative methods. For students who attended class, having materials online was seen as a safety net, providing flexibility when needed or a way to re-review materials.

Second, technology was viewed as "having a set of skills or literacies that students were expected to possess" (Brooks, 2016, p. 21). Most students felt they had the necessary skills but wanted more support with the use of generic and specific software, such as learning management systems.

Third and fourth, "students were split in terms of their perception of technology as something that empowers, excites, or engages them," and "students are ambivalent about whether technology increases the possibility of getting burned by invasions of their privacy" (Brooks, 2016, p. 22).

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTS

The majority of students noted technology engaged them to work with peers on class projects, to communicate with other students (e.g., asking questions, getting feedback), and to learn from peers and teach them as well. Fewer than 50 percent viewed technology in terms of engaging in personal relationships with other students.

With regard to student-faculty engagement, technology facilitated asking questions and receiving timely feedback, facilitated discussion of course topics, helped clarify faculty expectations, and made faculty more approachable. Technology was strongly related to student-content engagement. Around 80 percent stated technology facilitated their conduct of research for assignments, kept them informed about course announcements, and helped them prepare for class. Around 70 percent stated technology helped them examine topics outside of class, think and reflect on course materials, and analyze data.

More than 67 percent agreed or strongly agreed that technology enriched their academic experience in terms of successful completion of courses appropriate to the content delivered, enriched their learning experience relevant to the achievement of learning objectives, clarified basic concepts, made connections to knowledge in other courses and real-world experiences, and helped them think critically. Students also reported that technology offered tools that increased the efficiency of the learning experience: communicating basic messages, using academic terminology correctly, and providing immediate feedback.

It is interesting to note that technology also enabled students to serve as "student as teacher" in explaining ideas, helping others learn, and explaining new concepts and thought processes. In terms of distraction in the classroom, digital distractions (texting, 39 percent/social media, 37 percent) were more prevalent than analog distractions (e.g., talking to neighbor, 30 percent).

TAKEAWAYS FOR FACULTY

Here are some interpretations from Brooks (2016) that faculty need to think about:

* "Put simply, students who own technology own a lot of technology" (p. 10).

* "Faculty members who know how to effectively use technology for teaching and encourage their students to use relevant technologies effectively for learning are critical components in the overall technology experience of the contemporary American college student" (p. 18).

* "Students who claim to get more actively involved in courses that use technology or those students who have more instructors who encourage them to use their own technology devices during class to deepen learning by searching online for related concepts, examples, or demonstrations are more likely to prefer learning environments with more online components" (p. 23).

* "What our data show is that most students see technology as a powerful mechanism for increasing their levels of engagement in their academic work" (p. 27).

The bottom line? Technology is not going away, and as faculty, we need to harness the power of technology to facilitate higher level student outcomes. Faculty need to deepen their understanding of how to skillfully and meaningfully engage students through the use of technology in the classroom as well as in online learning environments. The use of technology to promote learning needs must be evidence-based to ensure that it will be beneficial to student learning.

Faculty need to find on-campus resources, such as instructional designers or faculty development opportunities, to redesign courses and learning activities. If you choose not to use technology effectively, then your students will not feel engaged or enriched by your teaching. Here are two great resources to start your journey in the effective use of technology for teaching.

1. Educause provides a wealth of information and knowledge for any educator. You can access many materials (webinars, PowerPoint slides, articles) about "the advancement of learning through the innovative application of technology" through the Educause Learning Initiative (https://www.educause.edu/eli). This is where my favorite resource, 7 Things You Need to Know, resides. It provides short synopses of emerging technologies and their potential for teaching and learning.

2. Online Learning Consortium (formerly the Sloan Consortium) is another exemplary resource, with offerings for online learning (e.g., webinars, research findings, articles). One of my favorite resources is "Technology Test Kitchen Recipes" (http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/technology-test-kitc). I am a cookbook aficionado (I own more than 120 cookbooks, as well as Bon Appetit magazines from 1979 to the present), so you can imagine why I love this idea. The 2014 and 2015 recipe collections contain effective practices using technologies that fall into the following categories: audio, video, collaborative tools, communications, presentation, and mobile apps. Each recipe contains the ingredients needed to use the tool as well as step-by-step directions for face-to-face as well as online courses.

As always, I hope you find this information valuable. If it motivates you to engage and enrich your students more effectively, and if you decide to adapt any recipes from the Technology Test Kitchen, please send me your results at mailto:[email protected].

REFERENCE