In 2017, ECAR conducted its latest annual study of undergraduate students and information technology to shed light on how IT affects the college/university experience. These studies have relied on students recruited from the enrollment of institutions that volunteer to participate in the project. After institutions secured local approval to participate in the 2017 study (e.g., successfully navigating the IRB process) and submitted sampling plan information, they received a link to the current year's survey. An institutional representative then sent the survey link to students in the institution's sample. Data were collected between January 30 and April 28, 2017, and 43,559 students from 124 institutional sites responded to the survey (see table M1). ECAR issued $50 or $100 Amazon.com gift cards to 39 randomly selected student respondents who opted in to an opportunity drawing offered as an incentive to participate in the survey. Colleges and universities use data from the EDUCAUSE Technology Research in the Academic Community (ETRAC) student and faculty surveys to develop and support their strategic objectives for educational technology. With ETRAC data, institutions can understand and benchmark what students and faculty need and expect from technology. There is no cost to participate. Campuses will have access to all research publications, the aggregate-level summary/benchmarking report, and the institution's raw (anonymous) response data.

The quantitative findings in this report were developed using 35,760 survey responses from 110 U.S. institutions. Responses were neither sampled nor weighted. Comparisons by student type and institution type are included in the findings when there are meaningful differences, and all statements of significance are at the 0.001 level unless otherwise noted. Findings from past ECAR studies were also included, where applicable, to characterize longitudinal trends.

The amount of effort that goes into producing the ETRAC reports each year is considerable. From planning through publication, the process takes nearly 15 months of close collaboration between EDUCAUSE staff and subject-matter experts (SMEs), requires the coordination of scores of college and university staff, and depends on the goodwill of thousands of students and instructors to take the time to share their experiences with and thoughts about technology in higher education. In this space, we pause to acknowledge the contributions of those who have made the 2017 faculty and student studies possible.

First, we would like to thank the 43,559 undergraduate students and 13,451 faculty who completed the 2017 surveys, giving us the precious data we need to conduct our analyses. Second, we thank the faculty and student survey administrators whose behind-the-scenes collaborative efforts to secure approval to administer the surveys, to create the sampling plans, and to distribute the survey links to the populations are mission critical to this project. Third, we thank by name the five individuals who contributed their experience, knowledge, and time as subject-matter experts and whose feedback, comments, and suggestions throughout the life cycle of this project improved the quality of this report immensely. They are, in alphabetical order,

• Jonathan D. Becker, Associate Professor, Educational Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University;
• Patsy D. Moskal, Associate Director, Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Central Florida;
• Christopher S. Rice, Principal Consultant, Christopher S. Rice Consulting;
• Richard A. Sebastian, Director, OER Degree Initiative, Achieving the Dream, Inc.; and
• David Andrew Wicks, Associate Professor and Chair of Digital Education Leadership, School of Education, Seattle Pacific University.

Finally, we want to acknowledge our EDUCAUSE colleagues for their contributions to these reports. Perhaps the biggest thank you goes to Jamie Reeves, whose commitment to this annual project is unsurpassed and whose organizational skills are par excellence. Considerable thanks go to Mike Roedema, whose deep historical knowledge of these survey projects repeatedly proves invaluable and whose keen eye for statistical interpretations keeps us researchers honest in our analyses. Thanks also are due to Susan Grajek and Mark McCormack for their careful reviews, insight, and guidance in finalizing this project. We also want to thank Kate Roesch for artistic vision and creating figures that neither of us could conceive or execute; Gregory Dobbin and the publications team for their attention to detail, command of the written word, and ability to nudge us into making the right editorial decisions; and Lisa Gesner for her extraordinary ability to connect all of the dots all of the time.