2004

UW-Madison

Student Computing Survey

Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Completion Date: August 2004

Prepared by: Jane K. Terpstra, Ed.S.

Terpstra@doit.wisc.edu

Division of Information Technology

University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

 

 

Table of Contents

                                                                                                                                 Page

An Overview: Survey Highlights                                                                                 4

Background                                                                                                                 9

Methodology                                                                                                                9

Notes on Data Analysis                                                                                            10

Frequency Runs and Analysis                                                                                11

Requested New or Improved Computing Services & Resources                       56

 

List of Figures

                                                                                                                                Page

Fig. 1a.  UW-Madison Student IT Product Ownership                                          11

Fig. 1b.  Students Reporting Their PDAs Network Connected                           11

Fig. 1c.   5-Year Comparison of Student IT Product Ownership              12

Fig. 1d.  Comparison of Student Computer Ownership

    by Class Standing                                                                         13

Fig. 2a.  Operating Systems that Students Use with IT

   Products Owned                                                                                        14

Fig. 2b.  Longitudinal Comparison of Operating Systems

   that Students Use                                                                           15

Fig. 3a.  Methods that Students Use to Access the Internet in 2004                  16

Fig 3b.   General Computer Labs that Students Use to Access

    the Internet                                                                                                 17

Fig. 3c.  Longitudinal Comparison of Methods Used to Access

               The Internet                                                                                     17

Fig. 4.    Satisfaction with Methods Used to Access the Internet             18

Fig. 5a.  Average Time Spent Online Reported by Students                               21

Fig. 5b.  Longitudinal Comparison of Mean & Median Hours

               Per Week Spent Online                                                                            22

Fig. 6a.  Percentages for Students Reporting Start Page Sites             23

Fig. 6b.  Longitudinal Comparison of Student Internet Start Page Sites            24

Fig. 7a.  Student WiscMail e-Mail Address Usage                                               25

Fig. 7b.  Comparison of Student WiscMail e-Mail Address Usage                    25

Fig. 8a.  Number of e-Mail Addresses Reported                                                  26

Fig. 8b.  Comparison of Reported Numbers of e-Mail Addresses                     26

Fig. 9.  Percentage Reporting One Primary e-Mail Address                               27

Fig. 10a.  Reported Domains of Primary e-Mail Address                                   28

Fig. 10b.  Comparison of Reported Domains of Primary e-Mail Address         28

Fig. 11a.  Reported Methods of Checking e-Mail                                     29

Fig. 11b.  Comparison of Reported Primary Methods of Checking e-Mail        29

Fig. 12a.  Percentage Reporting Use of WiscMail Spam Filter Service            30

Fig. 12b.  Reasons for Not Using WiscMail Spam Filter Service                       30

                                                                                                                                Page

Fig. 13a.  Percentage Reporting Use of Instant Messaging                                31

Fig. 13b.  Comparison of Instant Messaging Usage                                            31

Fig. 14.  Percentage Reporting a Class Using a Course

                Management System (CMS)                                                                   32

Fig 15.  Reported Ratings of CMS Experience                                                    32

Fig. 16a.  Overall Ratings of Computing Resources                                            33

Fig. 16b.  Longitudinal Comparison of Computing Resources                           33

Fig. 17a.  Comparison to Last Year’s Computing Resources                             34

Fig. 17b.  Comparisons Reported in 2004 and 2000 of

     Computing Resources                                                                            34

Fig. 18.  Percentage Reporting Awareness and Usage of Services                  36

Fig. 19.  Ratings of Computing Services                                                               39

Fig. 20.  Likelihood of Taking a Free Student-led Software Class                     40

Fig. 21.  Likelihood of Taking a Free Web-based Software Class                    40

Fig. 22.  Interest in Taking Topic-specific, Free Student-led Software

                Classes                                                                                                      41

Fig. 23. Interest in Taking Topic-specific, Free Web-based or

   Web-delivered Software Classes                                                            42

Fig. 24a.  Students’ Mean Allocations for New or Improved

                 Services                                                                                                    43       

Fig. 24b. Mean Allocations Among Off Campus Students

    for New and Improved Services                                                  44

Fig. 24c. Mean Allocations Among On Campus Students

               for New and Improved Services                                                   45

Fig. 25.  Changes Requested by Student Respondents for InfoLabs                 46

Fig. 26.  Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating Wireless

                Computing Usage                                                                         47

Fig. 27.  Locations Used for Wireless Computing                                                48

Fig. 28.  Student Respondents’ Likelihood of Campus Wireless

               Usage in the Next 12 Months                                                                    49

Fig. 29.  Methods that Would Encourage Wireless Hotspot Usage                   50

Fig. 30.  Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating Awareness

                Of Campus Policies on Appropriate Use                                              51

Fig. 31.  Indicated Student Respondents’ Sources of Information

                On Appropriate Usage                                                                             52

Fig. 32.  Student Respondents’ Preferred Methods of Notification

               Of Security and Virus Issues                                                                     53

Fig. 33.  Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating On Campus

               And Off Campus Living                                                                             54

Fig. 34. Major Disciplines Reported by Student Respondents in 2004 55
An Overview: Survey Highlights

 

Student IT Ownership Trends

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Access Trends

 

 

 

 

 

 

·        Approximately one-third of student respondents indicated that they used wireless computing.  Of these students, the majority (74%) use public campus locations.  Among students’ comments, most indicated a need for more information about wireless computing service, information about locations available, and access to check out laptops and wireless cards.

 

·        For the 2003-04 academic year, the amount of time students reported spending online varied widely, from 1 to 168 hours per week.  

 

·        The highest percentage of students reported their time online between 6 and 15 hours per week.  The next most reported amounts of time online were on either end of this range, 16-20 hours and 1-5 hours per week.

 

 

·        Two-thirds of student respondents report increasing usage of the My UW-Madison portal, MSN, and Google as their Internet start page, whereas they report decreasing usage of the UW-Madison Homepage site, Yahoo, and Hotmail.

 

·        About one-third of student respondents continue to select ‘Other’ as their Internet start page.  WiscMail and no specified Internet start page dominating the ‘Other’ responses entered by students. 

 

 

Student Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Trends

 

 

 

 

 

·        Most student respondents in 2004 indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with computing resources at UW-Madison.  However, a comparison with 2000 results indicates a downward shift in the percentage of students very satisfied with computing services. Ratings have shifted to satisfied or neutral.

 

·        Student respondents in 2004 indicated they were most satisfied with the following services: Norton Anti-virus Software, Help Desk by Phone and Walk-in, and DoIT Tech Store.

 

 

·        Students reported dissatisfaction with Help Desk by Web, Computer Kiosks, and Computer Wireless Network. 

 

 

·        Respondents indicated disinterest in Online Training (62%), TechNews (56%), and Computing @UW (50%).

 

Student Communication Trends

 

·        A majority of 2004 student respondents (87%) use their WiscMail e-mail address.  In comparison with 2003, students’ reliance on their WiscMail e-mail address is increasing while reliance on alternate e-mail addresses and e-mail forwarding is diminishing.

 

·        An overwhelming majority of students in 2004 (89%) reported functional reliance on one e-mail address.  The percentage of students using one, two, three, or more e-mail accounts has remained relatively constant over the past two years.

 

·        A majority of students in 2004 (59%) reported wisc.edu as the domain of their primary e-mail account. The percentage of students using other domains for their e-mail accounts has diminished over the past two years.

 

·        Among 2004 student respondents, less than one-third reported using the WiscMail Spam Filter service.  Of those who did not use this service, the majority of students was not aware of this service, didn’t need it, or didn’t want it.

 

·        A majority of student respondents in 2004 (70%) reported using some type of instant messaging.  In comparison with 2003 results, reported instant messaging usage is increasing.

 

Student Awareness and Usage Trends

 

·        Reported student awareness was fairly high for all services, with the exception of Computing @UW (37%), Online Training (38%), and TechNews (41%). 

 

·        A majority of student respondents in 2004 (62%) reported taking a class using a course management system (CMS).  Of the students who reported CMS usage for a class, the majority reported their experience in positive terms.  However, one-third reported their experience as neutral or negative.

 

·        All student respondents in 2004 reported using the anti-virus software provided to them at no cost.  The next most used services were Computer Kiosks, General Access Computer Labs (Infolabs), Help Desk by Phone, and Campus Wireless Network.

 

Students’ Expressed Future Needs

 

·        Given $100 to allocate, the highest allocation for new and improved services among off campus student respondents was More Wireless Connection ($15.61).  Other high allocations included More Computers in InfoLabs ($14.63), Faster Computer Network ($13.18), and Anti-virus Protection ($11.55).  The highest allocation for new and improved services among on campus students was Faster Network Connection ($26.54), followed by Anti-virus Protection ($20.43).

 

 

·        Other new and improved services listed by respondents, in order of prevalence, were improved wireless computing (more locations and faster), faster network connection, integrated and streamlined Web services (less confusing, less clicking, more visually appealing), improved kiosk service (more computers, faster connection, better maintenance), more printers and higher printer page limits, improved   e-mail and calendaring (eliminate multiple logins, integrate with other systems), and improved technical support (more experienced help when and where needed).

 

·        Approximately one-fourth of students who currently do not use wireless computing indicated they were likely to or hopeful to use this in the next 12 months.  A majority of these students I(62%) indicated that it would take purchase or check out of a laptop or other portable device to use wireless computing on campus.

 

·        For the InfoLabs, a highest percentage of student respondents indicated they would like More Open Hours (57%) and Larger Computer Tables (56%).

 

Policy & Security Awareness Trends

 

·        Approximately half of student respondents indicated that they had seen or heard about campus policies on appropriate usage.  Of these students, the majority indicated that they learned of the appropriate use policies via E-mail and WiscWorld / NetID Activation.

 

·        A majority of student respondents (79%) clearly prefer notification of security and virus issues by e-mail.

 

Demographics of Student Respondents

 

·        Three-fourths of student respondents indicated they live off campus; the remaining 25% indicated living on-campus.

 

·        The 2004 student respondents indicated wide variation in major disciplines and included undergraduate and graduate representation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background

 

The 2004 UW-Madison Student Computing Survey was designed to provide the Division of Information Technology (DoIT) with an assessment of how well it is meeting students’ needs and how it might better spend student information technology fees.  The Student Information Technology Initiative (SITI) Committee, chaired by Kathi Dwelle, sponsors the annual student computing survey.

 

 

Methodology

 

A random sample of 1,600 UW-Madison undergraduate, graduate, and special students was generated from UW-Madison Registrar records.  Nearly all of these students had an active email address.  A general questionnaire was developed to fulfill SITI assessment requirements and meet DoIT departmental needs.  Using Active Server Pages software, DoIT’s Business and Financial Applications group posted and administered the online questionnaire comprised of 34 questions.

 

Students in the sample received an email explaining the purpose of the research and providing each a unique URL link to the questionnaire, thus assuring only students receiving the message could access the Web-based questionnaire and only one submission per student was recorded.  Students could complete the survey at one time or any number of times using their unique URL.  Students had the option of unsubscribing from the sample by clicking a link within the cover email.  Students exercising this option were removed from future mailings about the survey.

 

The initial email solicitation was sent in April of 2004.  Several reminder messages were sent to non-respondents over the weeks that followed, with a closing date prior to the end of Spring Semester 2004. 

 

Five hundred thirteen (513) students responded with completed questionnaires, a 32% response rate.  This was lower than the 44% response rate of 2003, perhaps due to the timing of administration of the questionnaire.  An earlier release date in February of the Spring Semester, as used in 2003, may be preferable to the April release date used in 2004, when students are nearing the semester’s end.

 

The distribution of respondents’ reported academic class was compared with the University’s actual class distribution.  Weighting, which accounted for any disparity between the two distributions, was computed and applied to the data for a more accurate representation of the actual student population.

 

Notes on Data Analysis

 

The number of student respondents upon which percentages are calculated can vary from question to question.  Some simply skip a question; others are instructed to skip a certain question.  Therefore, the number of respondents is included in each summary data table in the Frequency Runs and Analysis section.

 

For some questions, students were encouraged to respond to several options within a question.  In these cases, column percentages within a table may sum to more than 100.  In the Frequency Runs and Analysis section, these cases are identified by the instructions, “[Check all that apply.”]

 

Means, medians, and standard deviations are reported where appropriate.  Means are arithmetic averages and measures of central tendency.  A median delineates the exact middle of a sequential distribution of numerical responses.  Standard deviations are measures of dispersion or variability.  The smaller the standard deviation, the less the students’ scores vary from the mean.  The larger the standard deviation, the more their scores varied, indicating more difference of opinion among respondents.

 

In most of the tables, items are presenting in some rank order.  Thus, most frequently cited responses, highest means, are presented at the top of the table and other items follow sequentially.

 

Some analysis in the tables compares data between different groups of respondents.  In these tables, the last column indicates whether the differences tested can be considered statistically significant.  The two levels of significance used, .05 and .01, indicate that differences are rarely (5% and 1%) a matter of chance, thus increasing confidence in the accuracy and significance of the differences.

 

When interpreting these data, consider that errors may occur among student respondents.  Understanding and interpretation of the questions and response options may vary.  Errors in response entries are possible through miss-keying.  In addition, lack of respondent motivation or persistence can lead to random entries.  To reduce such errors, the data have been cleaned, eliminating incomplete and highly inconsistent response sets.  However, some degree of error will always remain in collected data.

 

Frequency Runs and Analysis

 

Section 1 – IT Ownership

 

1. Which of the following information technology products do you own?  [Check all that apply.]


_______________________________________________________________

Fig. 1a. UW-Madison Student IT Product Ownership in 2004

 

 


Of those students who reported owning a personal digital assistant (PDA), the majority (84%) reported their PDAs were not network connected.

 

Fig. 1b.  Students Reporting Their PDAs Network Connected

 

 

 

As noted below, desktop computer ownership has declined over the past five years.  At the same time, laptop computer ownership has increased.  Ownership of personal digital assistants (PDAs) has remained relatively constant the past 3 years.  Cell phone ownership has dramatically increased (currently 78%) , whereas, regular phone usage has decreased over the past two years.

 

 
Longitudinal

Comparison

2000

(n=800)

2001

(n=798)

2002

(n=416)

2003

(n=673)

2004

(n=513)

Desktop Computer

67%

74%

70%

70%

60%

Laptop Computer

23%

26%

35%

39%

48%

Personal Digital Assistant

4%

12%

15%

18%

16%

Smart Phone

-

-

-

-

1%

Cell Phone

22%

31%

46%

64%

78%

Regular Phone

-

-

-

80%

59%

 


Fig. 1c.   5-Year Comparison of Student IT Product Ownership

 

 

 

 

 


 

Fig. 1d.   Comparison of Student Computer Ownership

by Class Standing in 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Which operating system(s) do you use on the computer(s) you own?  [Check all that apply.]

 

_______________________________________________________________


Fig. 2a.   Operating Systems that Students Use with IT Products Owned

in 2004

 

 

 

Operating systems that students report using have remained relatively constant over time.  The majority (97%) use Windows operating systems, while 8% report using Mac operating systems.  Linux maintains a 4% usage and Unix a 1% usage.

 
Longitudinal

Comparison

2000

(n=631)

2001

(n=720)

2002

(n=378)

2003

(n=629)

2004

(n=510)

Windows NT/2000/XP

5.5%

18%

34%

50%

73%

Windows 95/98/ME

84%

81%

68%

49%

24%

Macintosh OS

14%

10%

7%

9%

8%

Linux

5%

7%

5%

5%

4%

Unix

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Other

1%

3%

1%

3%

1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Fig. 2b.   Longitudinal Comparison of Operating Systems that Students Use

 

 

 

 

3. How do you routinely access or connect to the Internet?  [Check all that apply.]

 

_______________________________________________________________


 

Fig. 3a.   Methods that Students Use to Access the Internet

 

 

 

 

 

The highest percentage of student respondents in 2004 indicated that they accessed the Internet via Cable Modem (42%) and Computer Labs (34%).

 

Of the general computer labs used to access the Internet, the majority use College Library (38%) and Memorial Library (23%), the two largest labs.  Others with moderate usage include Union South, Wendt Library, and Steenbock Library.  The remaining sites report 3% or less usage.


________________________________________________________________

 

Fig. 3b.   General Computer Labs that Students Use to Access the Internet

 

 

 

Over time, students report accessing the Internet with far less reliance on WiscWorld, a relatively steady reliance on campus computer labs (Infolabs), and an increasing reliance on digital subscriber lines (DSL).  Students also relied on departmental computer labs, kiosks, and campus wireless. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 3c.   Longitudinal Comparison of Methods Used to Access the Internet

 

 

4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of…  [Using a nine-point scale ranging from extremely satisfied (9 points) to extremely dissatisfied (1 point.]

 

 

 

Method of Internet Access

2003 Mean*

N

std

dev

2004 Mean*

N

std

dev

t-stat

p-value

General Access Computer Labs (InfoLabs)

 

 

6.41

 

 

244

 

 

2.46

 

 

7.24

 

 

178

 

 

1.35

 

 

-4.05

 

 

<0.0001 **

Department Computer Labs

 

--

 

--

 

--

 

7.10

 

132

 

1.68

 

 

 

DSL

 

5.89

 

124

 

2.36

 

7.02

 

116

 

1.6

 

-4.29

 

<0.0001 **

Direct Network Connection

 

5.68

 

123

 

2.27

 

6.96

 

84

 

1.59

 

-4.54

 

<0.0001 **

 

Cable Modem

 

5.96

 

204

 

2.21

 

6.65

 

217

 

1.82

 

-3.52

 

0.0005 **

 

Campus Wireless

 

6.43

 

95

 

2.02

 

6.33

 

102

 

2.21

 

.35

 

0.7298 

 

WiscWorld

 

5.93

 

196

 

1.93

 

6.23

 

68

 

2.12

 

-1.05

 

0.2941

 

Kiosks

 

5.64

 

142

 

2.19

 

5.37

 

128

 

2.07

 

1.06

 

0.2909

 

ISP Modem

 

5.09

 

59

 

2.10

 

4.87

 

34

 

2.12

 

0.49

 

0.6268

 

* Higher mean scores indicate greater satisfaction, means weighted for class standing

** Indicates significant difference

________________________________________________________________

 

 

With respect to campus-provided access methods, UW-Madison student respondents in 2004 reported most satisfaction with access to the Internet in General Access Computer Labs (InfoLabs), Departmental Computer Labs (added to the survey in 2004), and Direct Network Connection (ResNet). Among the off-campus Internet connection options, students are most satisfied with DSL services, followed by Cable Modem.  ISP Modem connection received the highest percentage of dissatisfaction and neutral ratings among student respondents.

 

Comparing results from 2004 to 2003, InfoLabs, DSL, Direct Network Connection, and Cable Modem show significantly improved student satisfaction ratings.  There were no significant differences in satisfaction between 2003 and 2004 for Campus Wireless, WiscWorld, Kiosks, or ISP Modem access methods.

 

.

 

 

5. On average, how many hours per week have you spent online since the beginning of fall semester (September 1, 2003)?

 

_______________________________________________________________


Fig. 5a. Average Time Spent Online Reported by Students in 2003-04

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

For the 2003-04 academic year, the amount of time students reported spending online varied widely, from 1 to 168 hours per week.  The highest percentage of students reported their time online between 6 and 15 hours per week.  The next most reported amounts of time online were on either end of this range, 16-20 hours and 1-5 hours per week. 

 

_______________________________________________________________

Fig. 5b.   Longitudinal Comparison of

Mean and Median Hours per Week Spent Online

________________________________________________________________

 

 

Over the past 5 years, the mean hours per week that students reported spending online has varied.  However, the 2004 mean, weighted by class, of 26.5 hours per week is clearly the highest reported time spent online in this 5-year span. 

 

The 2004 mean and median hours reported compared with student respondents in 2000 show dramatic increases in time spent online by students (53.6% increase in mean reported time and 60% increase in median time).

 

6. What site do you use as your start page when connecting to the Internet?

 


Fig. 6a.   2004 Percentages for Students Reporting Start Page Sites

________________________________________________________________

 

[Other responses, in order of prevalence, included WiscMail, AOL, blank/none, ESPN, MSNBC, Fark.com, Netscape, CNN, and Wireless World DoIT.  In addition, there were other single entries for esoteric World Wide Web sites such as cubs.com, catholicculture.org, washingtonpost.com, girlsgonewild.com, and hoofers.org.]

 

 


Fig. 6b.   Longitudinal Comparison of Student Internet Start Page Sites

________________________________________________________________

 

 

About one-third of student respondents continue to select ‘Other’ as their Internet start page, with WiscMail and no specified Internet start page dominating the ‘Other’ responses entered by students over time. 

 

The other two-thirds of student respondents report increasing usage of My UW-Madison, MSN, and Google as their Internet start page; whereas they report decreasing usage of UW-Madison, Yahoo, and Hotmail.

 

7. Do you use your UW e-mail address?

 

 

Fig. 7a.   2004 Student WiscMail e-mail Address Usage

________________________________________________________________

 

A majority of 2004 student respondents (87%) use their WiscMail e-mail address.  In comparison with 2003, students’ reliance on their WiscMail e-mail address is increasing while reliance on alternate e-mail addresses and e-mail forwarding is diminishing.


 

Fig. 7b.   Comparison of Student WiscMail e-mail Address Usage ________________________________________________________________

8. How many e-mail addresses do you currently have?

 

 

 Fig. 8a. Number of E-mail Addresses Reported in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

Students reporting one e-mail address decreased slightly to 17% of student respondents in 2004, while half reported having two e-mail addresses and one-third reported having three or more.  The reported numbers of e-mail addresses has remained relatively constant over the past two years.

 


Fig. 8b.   Comparison of Reported Numbers of E-mail Addresses ________________________________________________________________

9. Do you have one e-mail account that you tend to use more than others?

 

 Fig. 9a. Percentage Reporting One Primary E-mail Address in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

An overwhelming majority of students in 2004 (89%) reported functional reliance on one e-mail address.  Thus, although they may have more than one e-mail address, they increasingly use one e-mail domain.

 

 

 

10.  What is the domain of your primary e-mail account?

 

 

 Fig. 10a. Reported Domains of Primary E-mail Address in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

A majority of students in 2004 (59%) reported wisc.edu as the domain of their primary e-mail account.  As noted below, the percentage of students using other domains for their e-mail accounts has diminished over the past two years.

 


 

 

Fig. 10b. Comparison of Reported Domains of Primary E-mail Address  ________________________________________________________________

11. How do you check your e-mail?

 

 Fig. 11a. Reported Methods of Checking E-mail in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

An overwhelming majority of students in 2004 reported checking their e-mail via a Web browser, either as their primary or secondary method.   Compared with 2003 student survey results, the percentage of students relying on e-mail program clients as their primary method of checking e-mail is diminishing.


 

 

Fig. 11b. Comparison of Reported Primary Methods of Checking E-mail

________________________________________________________________

12. Do you use the WiscMail Spam Filter service?

 

 Fig. 12a. Percentage Reporting Use of WiscMail Spam Filter Service in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

Among 2004 student respondents, less than one-third reported using the WiscMail Spam Filter service.  Of those who did not use this service, the majority either were not aware of this service, didn’t need it, or didn’t want it.  See results below:

 


Fig. 12b. Reasons for Not Using WiscMail Spam Filter Service Reported

in 2004

____________________________________________________________

 

13. Do you use instant messaging (e.g., MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, etc.)?

 

 Fig. 13a. Percentage Reporting Use of Instant Messaging in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 


A majority of student respondents in 2004 (70%) reported using some type of instant messaging.  In comparison with 2003 results, reported instant messaging usage is increasing.  See results below:

Fig. 13b. Comparison of Instant Messaging Usage

____________________________________________________________

 

14. Have you taken a class that used a course management system (CMS)?

15. You’ve taken a course that used a CMS, how would you describe your experience?

 

 

Fig. 14. Percentage Reporting a Class using a CMS in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 


A majority of student respondents in 2004 (62%) reported taking a class using a course management system.  Of the students who reported CMS usage for a class, the majority reported their experience in positive terms.  However, about one-third reported their experience as neutral or negative.  See below:

 

Fig. 15. Reported Ratings of CMS Experience in 2004 ____________________________________________________________

 

16.  Overall, how satisfied are you with computing resources at

       UW-Madison?


Fig. 16a. Overall Ratings of Computing Resources in 2004

____________________________________________________________

 

Most student respondents in 2004 indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with computing resources at UW-Madison.  However, a comparison with 2000 results indicates a downward shift in the percentage of students very satisfied with computing services. Ratings have shifted to satisfied or neutral.


Fig. 16b. Longitudinal Comparison of Computing Resources Ratings

____________________________________________________________

17. Compared to last year, what is your current satisfaction with computing services at UW-Madison?


Fig. 17a. Comparison to Last Year’s Computing Resources

________________________________________________________________________

 

About half of the 2004 student respondents indicated they were equally satisfied with computing services compared with 2003.  One fourth had not attended UW-Madison in 2003. Rating patterns have remained quite similar over time, comparing percentages in 2004 and 2000 (see below).


Fig. 17b. Comparison Reported in 2004 & 2000 of Computing Resources

________________________________________________________________________

The student respondents’ comments in 2004 indicated, in order of prevalence of responses, satisfaction with the increased speed of Internet connection, increased understanding of technology available, increased satisfaction with technical assistance, more and better computers available, fewer technology problems experienced, convenience of wireless connection and laptop usage on campus, convenience of My UW-Madison, and access to course materials through WebCT.

 

Those less satisfied in 2004 indicated, in order of prevalence of responses, problems adjusting to slower Internet connection experienced after moving from dorms to apartments, frustration with WiscMail, problems with kiosks, and desire for improved wireless connection.

 

18.  Are you aware of the following services?  Which have you used? 

 

 Fig. 18. Percentage Reporting Awareness and Usage of Services in 2004 ________________________________________________________________

 

Reported student awareness was fairly high for all services, with the exception of Computing @UW (37%), Online Training (38%), and TechNews (41%).  All student respondents in 2004 reported using the anti-virus software provided to them at no cost.  The next most used services were Computer Kiosks, Infolabs (General Access Computer Labs), Help Desk by Phone, and Campus Wireless Network.

19. For services used, please rate your satisfaction with each of the following services using the scale provided,.  [Satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert scale.  The table below presents the average ratings from this scale, with higher ratings indicating greater satisfaction.  [Keep in mind that the number of students using each service varies; these numbers are noted below.]

 

Fig. 19. Ratings of Computing Services in 2004

____________________________________________________________

 

Student respondents in 2004 indicated they were most satisfied with the following services: Norton Anti-virus Software, Help Desk by Phone and Walk-in, and DoIT Tech Store.  Students reported dissatisfaction with Help Desk by Web, Computer Kiosks, and Computer Wireless Network.  Respondents indicated disinterest in Online Training, TechNews, and Computing @UW.

 

20. How likely would you be to take a free software class led by a student instructor?

 


 

 

Fig. 20. Likelihood of Taking a Free Student-led Software Class

 

 

 


21. How likely would you be to take a free Web-based or Web-delivered software class?

 

Fig. 21. Likelihood of Taking a Free Web-based Software Class

_______________________________________________________________

22. You indicated you would be somewhat or very likely to take free software classes led by a student instructor.  In what areas?

 

 


________________________________________________________________

 

Fig. 22. Interest in Taking Topic-specific,  Free Student-led Software Classes (n=205)

________________________________________________________________

23. You indicated you would be somewhat or very likely to take free Web-based or Web-delivered software classes.  In what areas?

 

 


________________________________________________________________

 

 

Fig. 23. Interest in Taking Topic-specific, Free Web-based or Web-delivered Software Classes (n=231)

________________________________________________________________
24. How would you allocate $100 toward new or improved computing services?


 

Fig. 24a. Students’ Mean Allocation for New or Improved Services

________________________________________________________________

 

Given $100 to allocate, students’ overall responses indicated their highest allocation as Faster Campus Network connections, followed by More Wireless Locations, Anti-virus Protection, and More Computers in InfoLabs.  Among students allocating dollars for kiosks, the majority want kiosks added to all campus buildings, or at least all buildings in which classes are held and Unions.

 

Other IT was defined by respondents as, in order of prevalence, integrated and streamlined Web services (less confusing, less clicking, more visually appealing), improved kiosk service (more computers, faster connection, better maintenance), more printers and higher printer page limits, improved   e-mail and calendaring (eliminate multiple logins, integrate with other systems), and improved technical support (more experienced help when and where needed).

 


Fig. 24b. Mean Allocations Among Off Campus Students

for New and Improved Services

________________________________________________________________

 

Given $100 to allocate, the highest allocation for new and improved services among off campus student respondents was More Wireless Connection ($15.61).  Other high allocations included More Computers in InfoLabs ($14.63), Faster Computer Network ($13.18), and Anti-virus Protection ($11.55).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Fig. 24c.  Mean Allocations for On Campus Students

For New and Improved Services

 

 

Given $100 to allocate, the highest allocation for new and improved services among on campus students was Faster Network Connection ($26.54), followed by Anti-virus Protection ($20.43).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. What changes would you recommend for General Access Computer Labs (Infolabs)? [Check all that apply.]

 

________________________________________________________________

 


 

 

Fig. 25. Changes Requested by Student Respondents for the InfoLabs 

________________________________________________________________

 

For the InfoLabs, a highest percentage of student respondents indicated they would like More Open Hours (57%) and Larger Computer Tables (56%).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26. Do you currently use wireless computing?

 

________________________________________________________________

 


 

 

Fig. 26. Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating

Wireless Computing Usage in 2004

 

 

 

Approximately one-third of student respondents indicated that they used wireless computing.  Of these students, the majority (74%) use public campus locations. 

 

Approximately one-fourth of students who currently do not use wireless computing, indicated they were likely to or hopeful to use this in the next 12 months.  A majority of these students I(62%) indicated that it would take purchase of a laptop or other portable device to use wireless computing on campus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.  You use wireless computing.  Where?  [Check all that apply.]

 


 

Fig. 27. Locations Used for Wireless Computing by

 Student Respondents in 2004

________________________________________________________________

 

28. How likely are you to use campus wireless in the next twelve months?

 


 

 

Fig. 28. Student Respondents’ Likelihood of Campus Wireless Usage

In the Next 12 Months

 

29.  What would it take for you to use wireless hotspots?

 

 


 

Fig. 29. Methods that Would Encourage Wireless Hotspot Usage

Among Student Respondents in 2004

 

 

Among students selecting Other as their response, most indicated a need for more information about the service, information about locations available, and access to check out laptops and wireless cards.
30. Have you seen or heard of campus policies on appropriate use?

 

________________________________________________________________

 


 

 

Fig. 30. Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating

Awareness of Campus Policies on Appropriate Use in 2004

 

________________________________________________________________

 

 

Approximately half of student respondents indicated that they had seen or heard about campus policies on appropriate usage.  Of these students, the majority indicated that they learned of the appropriate use policies via E-mail and WiscWorld / NetID Activation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.  You know of appropriate use.  How?  [Check all that apply.]

 


 

Fig. 31. Indicated Student Respondents’ Sources of Information on Appropriate Usage in 2004

________________________________________________________________

 

32. How would you like to be informed on security and virus issues? [Check all that apply.]

 

 


 

 

Fig. 32. Student Respondents’ Preferred Methods of Notification of

Security and Virus Issues in 2004

 

 

 

A majority of student respondents (79%) clearly prefer notification of security and virus issues by e-mail.
33. Where do you live?

 

 


Fig. 33. Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating On Campus and Off Campus Living in 2004

 

 

 

Three-fourths of student respondents indicated they lived off campus; the remaining 25% indicated living on-campus.

34. What is your major discipline? [Check all that apply.]

 


 

Fig. 34. Major Disciplines Reported by Student Respondents in 2004

 

 

35. List other new or improved computing services and resources you’d like at UW-Madison.

 

Students’ responses for new or improved services that they desire were, in order of prevalence:

 

1.      Improved wireless computing (more locations and faster connection)

2.      Faster network connection

3.      Integrated and streamlined Web services (less confusing, less clicking, more visually appealing)

4.      Improved kiosk service (more locations, more computers, faster connection, better maintenance)

5.      More printers and higher printer page limits

6.      Improved e-mail and calendaring (eliminate multiple logins, integrate with other systems)

7.      Improved technical support (more experienced help when and where needed)