Methodology and Acknowledgments
Methodology
In 2019, 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 2019 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 15, 2019, and April 6, 2019, and 53,475 students from 160 institutional sites responded to the survey (see tables M1 and M2). 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*
| Institution Type | Institution Count | Invitations | Response Count | Group Response Rate | Percentage of Total Responses | US Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AA |
18 |
107,565 |
4,281 |
4% |
8% |
11% |
|
BA public |
20 |
30,981 |
1,074 |
3% |
2% |
3% |
|
BA private |
5 |
10,549 |
1,149 |
11% |
2% |
3% |
|
MA public |
24 |
132,548 |
9,260 |
7% |
17% |
23% |
|
MA private |
12 |
30,129 |
3,171 |
11% |
6% |
8% |
|
DR public |
31 |
357,419 |
19,720 |
6% |
37% |
49% |
|
DR private |
4 |
20,498 |
1,473 |
7% |
3% |
4% |
|
Specialized/other US |
4 |
8,352 |
468 |
6% |
1% |
1% |
|
Total US |
118 |
698,041 |
40,596 |
6% |
76% |
100% |
|
Outside US |
41 |
254,244 |
12,878 |
5% |
24% |
n/a |
|
Grand total |
160 |
952,285 |
53,475 |
6% |
100% |
n/a |
The quantitative findings in this report were developed using 40,596 survey responses from 118 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 0.001 level unless otherwise noted. Findings from past ECAR studies are also included, where applicable, to characterize longitudinal trends.
Table M2. Demographic breakdown of survey respondents
| Basic demographics | US Institutions | Non-US Institutions | All Institutions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Ages 18–24 |
83% |
75% |
81% |
|
Ages 25+ |
17% |
25% |
19% |
|
Male |
36% |
45% |
38% |
|
Female |
64% |
55% |
62% |
|
White |
59% |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Black/African American |
6% |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Hispanic/Latinx |
15% |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Asian/Pacific Islander |
10% |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Other or multiple races/ethnicities |
11% |
n/a |
n/a |
| Student profile | US Institutions | Non-US Institutions | All Institutions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Freshman or first year |
26% |
33% |
28% |
|
Sophomore or second year |
22% |
25% |
23% |
|
Junior or third year |
25% |
18% |
23% |
|
Senior or fourth year |
20% |
14% |
18% |
|
Other class standing |
7% |
10% |
8% |
|
Part time |
14% |
9% |
13% |
|
Full time |
86% |
91% |
87% |
|
On campus |
37% |
18% |
32% |
|
Off campus |
63% |
82% |
68% |
|
First-generation college student |
25% |
31% |
27% |
|
Eligible for Pell Grants |
34% |
n/a |
n/a |
| Major | US Institutions | Non-US Institutions | All Institutions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Agriculture and natural resources |
2% |
2% |
2% |
|
Biological/life sciences |
9% |
4% |
8% |
|
Business, management, marketing |
13% |
20% |
15% |
|
Communications/journalism |
4% |
2% |
3% |
|
Computer and information sciences |
8% |
10% |
8% |
|
Education, including physical education |
6% |
4% |
5% |
|
Engineering and architecture |
11% |
16% |
12% |
|
Fine and performing arts |
3% |
1% |
3% |
|
Health sciences, including professional programs |
14% |
9% |
13% |
|
Humanities |
3% |
5% |
3% |
|
Liberal arts/general studies |
3% |
1% |
3% |
|
Manufacturing, construction, repair, or transportation |
0% |
1% |
1% |
|
Physical sciences, including mathematical sciences |
3% |
3% |
3% |
|
Public administration, legal, social, and protective services |
2% |
4% |
2% |
|
Social sciences |
8% |
6% |
8% |
|
Other major |
10% |
11% |
10% |
|
Undecided |
2% |
1% |
2% |
Acknowledgments
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 2019 student study possible.
First, we would like to thank the 53,475 undergraduate students who completed the 2019 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 survey, 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 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:
- Lee Skallerup Bessette, Learning Design Specialist, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship, Georgetown University
- Jason Jones, Director of Educational Technology, Trinity College
- Wiebke Kuhn, Associate Director of the Biggio Center, Auburn University
- Virginia Lacefield, Enterprise Architect, University of Kentucky
- Josh Mitchell, Director of User Support and Instructional Technology, Montgomery County Community College
Finally, we want to acknowledge our EDUCAUSE colleagues for their contributions to these reports. 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 are grateful to D. Christopher Brooks for his leadership and guidance throughout all stages of this project. Joseph D. Galanek provided valuable feedback along the way, from analysis to final review. Thanks are also due to Susan Grajek and Mark McCormack for their careful reviews, insight, and advice in finalizing the report. 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 expertise; she renders our data and messages more accessible, vibrant, and impactful. Thank you to Leah Lang, who manages the ETRAC service and portal, for her commitment to providing a user-friendly experience for participants and ensuring that institutional participation remains high each year. Leslie Pearlman made our data dreams come true with expert facilitation of content creation, and Thomas Rosa administered the survey, cleaned and investigated copious amounts of data, and contributed to the methodology section of the report. We owe a debt of gratitude to Gregory Dobbin and the publications team for their attention to detail, command of the written word, and guidance during the editorial process. Lisa Gesner is a master of connecting the dots, shaping and broadcasting the message, and making our work available to the wider world.