Methodology and Acknowledgments

In 2018, 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 2018 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 February 5 and April 23, 2018, and 64,536 students from 130 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.

Table M1. Summary of institutional participation and response rates, by institution type*

Carnegie Class	Institution Count	Invitations	Response Count	Group Response Rate	Percentage of Total Responses	US Percentage
AA	39	120,449	9,958	8%	15%	18%
BA public	1	2,756	360	13%	<1%	<1%
BA private	3	6,311	988	16%	2%	2%
MA public	24	121,656	13,319	11%	21%	25%
MA private	11	30,895	4,409	14%	7%	8%
DR public	30	328,124	23,115	7%	36%	43%
DR private	5	30,500	2,022	7%	3%	4%
Specialized US	1	670	114	17%	<1%	<1%
Total US	114	641,361	54,285	8%	84%	100%
Outside US	16	73,658	10,251	14%	16%	–
Grand total	130	715,019	64,536	9%	100%	–

* US institutions not in the Carnegie universe were classified according to the Carnegie Classification framework.

The quantitative findings in this report were developed using 54,285 survey responses from 114 US 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 .001 level unless otherwise noted. Findings from past ECAR studies were also included, where applicable, to characterize longitudinal trends.

Table M2. Demographic breakdown of survey respondents

	US Institutions	Non-US Institutions	All Institutions
Basic demographics
18–24	78%	80%	78%
25+	22%	20%	22%
Male	34%	54%	37%
Female	66%	46%	63%
White	58%	n/a	n/a
Black/African American	6%	n/a	n/a
Hispanic/Latino	17%	n/a	n/a
Asian/Pacific Islander	9%	n/a	n/a
Other or multiple races/ethnicities	10%	n/a	n/a
Student profile
Freshman or first year	25%	29%	26%
Sophomore or second year	24%	30%	25%
Junior or third year	23%	17%	22%
Senior or fourth year	19%	18%	19%
Other class standing	9%	7%	8%
Part time	18%	20%	18%
Full time	82%	80%	82%
On campus	28%	33%	29%
Off campus	72%	67%	71%
First-generation college student	29%	40%	31%
Eligible for Pell Grants	59%	n/a	n/a
Major
Agriculture and natural resources	2%	3%	2%
Biological/life sciences	8%	12%	9%
Business, management, marketing	13%	20%	14%
Communications/journalism	3%	<1%	3%
Computer and information sciences	7%	7%	7%
Education, including physical education	6%	8%	6%
Engineering and architecture	8%	16%	10%
Fine and performing arts	3%	1%	2%
Health sciences, including professional programs	18%	7%	16%
Humanities	2%	6%	3%
Liberal arts/general studies	5%	<1%	4%
Manufacturing, construction, repair, or transportation	<1%	<1%	<1%
Physical sciences, including mathematical sciences	2%	3%	2%
Public administration, legal, social, and protective services	2%	3%	2%
Social sciences	7%	4%	7%
Other major	10%	8%	9%
Undecided	2%	<1%	1%

The work that goes into producing the ETRAC reports each year is considerable. From planning through publication, the process takes nearly 15 months and would not be possible without the insight, cooperation, and support from various stakeholders in higher education. In this space, we pause to acknowledge the contributions of those who have made the 2018 student study possible.

First, we would like to thank the 64,536 undergraduate students who completed the 2018 survey, giving us the precious data we need to conduct our analyses. Second, we thank the 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,

Bryan Best, Associate Director, Learning Technologies, University of La Verne
Samantha Earp, CIO/Vice President for Information Technology, Smith College
Shawn Miller, Director, Learning Innovation, Duke University
Richard A. Sebastian, Director, OER Degree Initiative, Achieving the Dream, Inc.
George Veletsianos, Professor & Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning and Technology at Royal Roads 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 contribute significantly to ensuring the quality of this report. Considerable thanks go to Ben Shulman, whose attention to detail is surpassed only by his statistical acumen and whose contributions to making sure that our analyses are appropriate and accurate are invaluable. We also want to thank Kate Roesch for her data visualization and for creating figures that none of us could conceive or execute without her guidance; she renders our data and messages more accessible, vibrant, and impactful. We owe a debt of gratitude to Bradley Beth for expertly investigating erroneous data and providing ETRAC participants with their data on demand through the ETRAC Portal. We are also thankful for 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. Lisa Gesner is a master of connecting the dots, shaping and broadcasting the message, and making our work visible to the wider world. Finally, thanks are especially due to Susan Grajek and Mark McCormack for their careful reviews, leadership, and support in finalizing this project.