Students want different things from their institutions and instructors, but one thing is clear from their open-ended responses: students want more technology use that aids them in their work of being students and enables them to succeed in their academic work. The main finding from what students want from their institutions is reliable, strong, and more consistent Wi-Fi networks in dormitories and outside. Although a majority of students reported they were prepared to use productivity software on their entry to college, students also requested some training and support on using the MS Office suite and other software applications. Students also requested training and support in using institutional websites, particularly for crucial tasks such as course registration. Although these responses were often not specific enough to identify clear areas for recommendation, some students took advantage of the opportunity to request that their instructors allow increased application of technology—such as laptops—in the classroom. Yes, students want more use of technology. However, a more strategic means to enhance student success is supporting students in effective use of technology. More effective transcends more.

A positive finding from what students want their instructors to do with technology is that it aligns with what we know works for student success. Students primarily want instructors to post lectures and course content online so that they can review lectures, expand the array of study materials available, and identify key insights from instructors. Although students did not use terms such as "blended learning," "flipped classroom" (well, one student did), "early-alert systems," or "analytics," their open-ended responses for what their instructors could do with technology aligned positively with how higher education assessments are changing.1  Students recognize that posting lectures, notes, and other didactic materials online would free up valuable face-to-face time for more hands-on, experiential, or active learning activities in the classroom; that students' preferences align so well with research on the impact of blended learning and the flipped classroom model is compelling. Additionally, students want their instructors to keep their grades updated in their LMS so that they know where they stand in class. Again, the alignment of student preferences with research about the impact of frequent formative assessments to improve student learning outcomes is noteworthy.

• Institutions should prioritize investments in reliable, high-speed Wi-Fi networks across all areas of campus and ensure that students can use their devices (not just laptops) on their institution's network. Student ratings of their institution's wireless network performance are highly correlated with positive experiences of technology. Students expect that they will be able to rapidly and consistently connect all of their devices to a reliable and consistent Wi-Fi network across all areas of campus. Although students generally report positive Wi-Fi experiences, our findings suggest that dissatisfaction with institutional networks may stem from poor connectivity in dorms and outside. Additionally, our findings provide IT administrators a checklist of possible reasons why students may report general concerns about Wi-Fi, so that IT can better meet student expectations on ubiquitous and frictionless networks. This checklist of probable Wi-Fi challenges can assist institutions in proactively identifying students' pain points in network use. Appendix C contains a checklist of possible challenges with Wi-Fi networks when students report general concerns of "poor Wi-Fi" on campus or in dormitories.
• Institutions should assess incoming students' technological literacy and fluency. Although many students reported possessing the technology skills needed to use general applications as well as institutionally specific ones, not all students have had exposure to these tools and may find themselves in need of basic training on how to use them. Institutional assumptions that students are fluent with the technologies necessary for academic success may disadvantage first-generation and nontraditional students. Institutions can respond to the varying level of technology literacy by providing courses, workshops, orientations, trainings, and ongoing support to promote academic success.
• Institutions should assess usability of their institutional websites, including their LMS, to ensure their design aligns with what we know works for enabling users to rapidly access information. Institutional websites can often be more navigation-heavy than content-heavy. This makes it challenging to rapidly navigate the site via a mobile device and access information, register for classes, or check the LMS. Institutions should seek to create sites that are intuitive, content-heavy (with easily accessible menus), and aimed at users of mobile devices, particularly smartphones. Additionally, institutions should consider more intensive training or workshops to help incoming students use critical institutional websites, such as online registration and SIS.
• Institutions should increase efforts to incorporate more technology to enhance academic success. Students clearly want current and reliable technology incorporated into their campuses and their courses, as well as access to technology to enhance their academic success. Institutions should maintain and increase their integration of technology into their infrastructure and culture by:
  • Creating a strategic plan for investing and incorporating technology to enhance academic success. Identify stakeholders, responsibilities, and benchmarks that make sense in the context of an institution's capacity and resources.
  • Encouraging faculty experimentation with technology. Offer spaces such as workshops and peer-led training to enable faculty to learn about and practice technology integration.
  • Conceptualizing technology integration as a long-term investment. Aim to shift perception of technology investments as a means to increase and sustain student success.
  • Identifying empirically grounded approaches to incorporating technology. This opens opportunities to question "the way we've always done things" and identifies "what can we do" with "what we know works" in order for institutions to integrate technology to enhance student success.
• Institutions should help faculty determine how to strategically use their institution's LMS. Frequently updating grades via the LMS has been demonstrated to contribute to student success; it can also contribute to informing student support services and institutional analytics and can assist instructors in making midcourse corrections. Leveraging the LMS to create rich and engaging blended learning environments not only supplies students with the learning environments they demand but also aligns well with research that suggests blended learning is superior to environments that are either face-to-face only or online only. Finally, simply posting course content and class documents online goes a long way toward supporting student success by giving them what they need to take charge of their learning experiences and outcomes. Assisting faculty in leveraging the resources of the LMS can also include collaborative peer workshops that engage faculty in identifying what works and offering suggestions on best practices from faculty experienced in integrating the LMS into their courses.

Students want to succeed, and to assist them higher education institutions are embracing a holistic conceptualization of student success that includes students' experiences and needs. Students want their institutions to provide reliable, user-friendly technology and to offer ways to learn how to effectively use the technology provided. Students also want their instructors to leverage the functional, operational aspects of the LMS in ways that have been shown to positively affect student outcomes. By giving voice to students' technology needs, we show a strong alignment between what students want and what institutions know students need for their success—and a rewarding education experience.

Many thanks are due to the EDUCAUSE staff who made this report possible. Specifically, we want to acknowledge the contributions of Eden Dahlstrom, Susan Grajek, and Mark McCormack for their thoughtful and thorough feedback on multiple drafts of this report. Additionally, we want to acknowledge the statistical support we received from Ben Shulman and the data visualization contributions of Kate Roesch. Thanks also go to Jamie Reeves for overseeing the project timeline. Gregory Dobbin expertly provided editorial reviews.

Lastly, we want to thank the 43,559 student respondents who completed the 2017 EDUCAUSE Technology Research in the Academic Community (ETRAC) Student Survey. Without the data they provided, this and other ECAR reports on student and information technology would not be possible.