Fig. 1a. UW-Madison Student IT Product Ownership in 2005 8

Fig. 1b. 5-Year Comparison of Student IT Product Ownership 9

Fig. 1c. Comparison of Student Computer Ownership by Class Standing in 2005 10

Fig. 2a. Operating Systems that Students Use with IT Products Owned in 2005 11

Fig. 2b. Longitudinal Comparison of Operating Systems that Students Use 12

Fig. 3a. Overall Ratings of Computing Resources in 2005 12

Fig. 3b. Longitudinal Comparison of Computing Resources Ratings 13

Fig. 4a. Comparison to Last Year’s Computing Resources 13

Fig. 4b. Comparison Reported in 2000, 2004 & 2005 of Computing Resources 14

Fig. 5a. Methods that Students Use to Access the Internet 15

Fig. 5b. Longitudinal Comparison of Methods Used to Access the Internet 16

Fig. 5c. General Access Computer Labs that Students Use to Access the Internet 17

Fig. 6. Satisfaction with Internet Access Methods 18

Fig. 7b. Longitudinal Comparison of Mean and Median Hours per Week Spent Online 19

Fig. 8a. 2005 Percentages for Students Reporting Start Page Sites 20

Fig. 8b. Longitudinal Comparison of Student Internet Start Page Sites 21

Fig. 16. Comparison of Students Taking a Class using a Course Management System from 2004 to 2005 26

Fig. 17. Reported Ratings of CMS Experience in 2005 27

Fig. 18. Percentage Reporting Awareness and Usage of Services in 2005 28

Fig. 19a. Mean Satisfaction of Computing Services in 2005 29

Fig. 19b. Ratings of Computing Services in 2005 31

Fig. 22. Interest in Topic-Specific, Free Software Classes in 2005 32

Fig. 23. Preference for How to Receive Free Software Classes in 2005 33

Fig. 24. Students’ Mean Allocation for New or Improved Services 34

Fig. 25. Changes Requested by Student Respondents for the InfoLabs 35

Fig. 26. Comparison of Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating Wireless Computing Usage in 2003, 2004 and 2005 36

Fig. 27. Locations Used for Wireless Computing by Student Respondents in 2005 37

Fig. 28. Would Use Wireless in Classrooms for Coursework 2005 38

Fig. 30. Student Respondents’ Likelihood of Campus Wireless Usage in the Next 12 Months 39

Fig. 31. Methods that Would Encourage Wireless Hotspot Usage among Student Respondents in 2005 40

Fig. 32. Student Respondents’ Preferred Methods of Notification of Security and Virus Issues in 2005 41

Fig. 34. Major Disciplines Reported by Student Respondents in 2005 42

Detailed Frequency Runs and Analysis

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

Overall student computer ownership (desktop and laptop) is 97%, with 20% of student respondents indicating that they own both a laptop and a desktop.

Fig. 1a. UW-Madison Student IT Product Ownership in 2005

Of those students who reported owning a cell phone, 50% reported they could connect to the Internet with it. However, only 4% could connect to WiFi (wireless) with it. Freshmen (58%) and graduate students (49%) are most likely to have both a cell phone and landline.

As noted in the table below, desktop computer ownership has declined 13% since 2001. At the same time, laptop computer ownership has increased by 30%. Ownership of personal digital assistants (PDAs) has remained relatively constant the past three years. Cell phone ownership has dramatically increased (currently 87%), whereas, regular phone usage has decreased over the past three years. This is the first year we’ve measured ownership of portable storage devices and MP3 players. Portable storage devices are most likely to be owned by graduate students (48%). There was no significant difference by class for MP3 player ownership.

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

Fig. 1c. Comparison of Student Computer Ownership by Class Standing in 2005

Of those who own a laptop, 68% say they bring it to campus less than a quarter of the time. However, a subpopulation of 18% report they bring it to campus more than 75% of the time. Students majoring in the humanities were less likely to be toting laptops on campus. Those in the physical sciences were more likely to be.

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 2005

Operating systems that students report using have remained relatively constant over time. The majority (93%) use Windows operating systems, while 11% report using Mac operating systems. Linux maintains a 4% usage and UNIX a 1% usage.

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

Fig. 3a. Overall Ratings of Computing Resources in 2005

Most student respondents in 2005 indicated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with computing resources at UW-Madison. A comparison with 2000 results, however, indicates a downward shift in the percentage of students very satisfied with computing services, but an upward shift when compared to 2004. The average satisfaction rating is 4.1 on a 5-point scale.

Fig. 3b. Longitudinal Comparison of Computing Resources Ratings

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

Fig. 4a. Comparison to Last Year’s Computing Resources

Slightly over half of the 2005 student respondents (54%) indicated they were equally satisfied with computing services compared with 2004. Twenty-one percent had not attended UW-Madison in 2004. Rating patterns have remained quite similar over time, comparing percentages in 2005, 2004 and 2000 (see below).

Fig. 4b. Comparison Reported in 2000, 2004 & 2005 of Computing Resources

Student respondents who were more satisfied in 2005 indicated, in order of prevalence of responses, increased satisfaction with: availability of wireless, more/better/faster/updated computers, increased use of IT services, good service from DoIT, becoming more aware of all the available services, the introduction of My WebSpace, services being better than where they were before, and the Learn@UW course management system.

Sixteen students who were less satisfied in 2005 stated their reasons as: wireless reliability problems, changes made to My UW portal, wait lines at some labs, not getting a response to an inquiry, not getting a computer fixed, the loss of cheap Microsoft software, email service had gotten worse, dirty computers at some labs, slow computers at Computer-Aided Engineering and slow Internet connections at the School of Business.

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

The top two choices of student respondents in 2005 for accessing the Internet were Computer Labs (44%) and Cable Modem (40%), followed by Campus Kiosks (33%) and Campus Wireless (26%).

Fig. 5a. Methods that Students Use to Access the Internet

Over time, students report accessing the Internet with far less reliance on dial-in WiscWorld, a relatively steady reliance on general access computer labs (InfoLabs), and an increasing reliance on cable. Students also relied on departmental computer labs, kiosks, and campus wireless.

Fig. 5b. Longitudinal Comparison of Methods Used to Access the Internet

Of the general access computer labs used to access the Internet, the majority use College Library (38%) and Memorial Library (21%), the two largest labs. Newly remodeled collaborative areas in Steenbock and Wendt have resulted in increased use of these labs. Others with moderate usage include the Health Sciences Lab and Union South. The remaining sites report 3% or less usage.

Fig. 5c. General Access Computer Labs that Students Use to Access the Internet

6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of… [Using a five-point scale ranging from extremely satisfied (5 points) to extremely dissatisfied (1 point)]

Fig. 6. Satisfaction with Internet Access Methods

With respect to Internet access, UW-Madison student respondents in 2005 reported most satisfaction where a hardwired connection with full service computing that was provided through UW work, Departmental Computer Labs, in General Access Computer Labs (InfoLabs), and Direct Network Connection (ResNet). Among the off-campus Internet connection options, students are most satisfied with Cable Modem, followed by DSL. Commercial Dial-In ISP was the only service that had no “very satisfied” ratings.

For the 2004-05 academic year, the amount of time students reported spending online varied widely, from 1 to 168 hours per week. The heaviest concentration of students (45% total) reported their online time between 6 and 15 hours per week. The median number of hours online per week was 15.

Fig. 7b. Longitudinal Comparison of Mean and Median Hours per Week Spent Online

Over the past five years, the mean hours per week that students reported spending online has varied. The 2005 mean of 19.3 hours per week has dropped from the previous two years. This may be the result of adding the modifier “actively” to the question. The median of 15 remains essentially the same for last three years.

WiscMail (19%) was the start page chosen by most students, followed by four sites with very close percentages: the UW Home Page, My UW-Madison portal, Google and Yahoo. Other write-in pages comprised 18% of the respondents.

Fig. 8a. 2005 Percentages for Students Reporting Start Page Sites

Listed choices with 2% or less included HotMail and AOL. Write-in responses in order of prevalence included no start page, NY Times, CNN, Netscape, Mozilla and Apple as well as numerous one-of-a-kind and humorous sites.

Fig. 8b. Longitudinal Comparison of Student Internet Start Page Sites

This year WiscMail was listed as a choice for the first time, decreasing the percentage falling into the “other” category. Student respondents report a steady use of My UW-Madison and MSN, as their Internet start page; whereas they report decreasing usage of UW-Madison home page, Yahoo, and Hotmail.

9. If an e-portfolio account were offered on campus, would you make use of it?

While the largest percentage of students did not know if they would make use of an e-portfolio account, 36% said they would use it. Three percent indicated that they were already using such an account through their college, school or department.

An overwhelming majority of students (83%) reported their UW email address was their primary account.

11. If you use only your UW email address to forward email, what is the domain name of your primary account? (The domain name is the part of your email address that follows the @.) [text field]

For the 7% of students who use their UW account only to forward, the most popular destination domains were Yahoo, Hotmail and gmail.

Two-thirds of students have either two or three email addresses. Five percent have six or more. The mode is two email addresses; however, one percent reported having fity to seventy-five addresses.

Among 2005 student respondents, 48% had not modified their default WiscMail Spam Filter. Another 11% did not know whether they had or not.

14. How important is IM/Chat (e.g., MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, etc.) to you?

A majority of student respondents in 2005 (66%) reported that instant messaging was either very important or somewhat important to them. About one third said they did not use it.

15. If UW-Madison offered its own IM/Chat service, what features would make you use it? [text box]

The most common write-in comment was that the student would not use a UW chat service. Representative comments were “AIM is already free… it would just be a waste of money to implement,” “I would not make use of it. Why try to replace something that someone else already does better,” “AOL is too easy and already there, so I wouldn’t” and “Probably not unless it was useful for group studying.” For those who would use it, the features most desired were the ability to auto-connect to people in classes and to have class lists, to connect to other chat services outside the UW, to be able to send files, and to chat with professors and TAs. Some students mentioned that having a directory similar to the “Facebook” would be helpful.

16. Have you taken a class that used a course management system (such as Learn@UW, WebCT, Blackboard, Desire2Learn or Moodle)?

The percentage of students experiencing a course management system increased from 62% in 2004 to 71% in 2005.

Fig. 16. Comparison of Students Taking a Class using a Course Management System from 2004 to 2005

17. You’ve taken a course that used a course management system. How would you describe your own overall experience using a course management system?

Of the students who reported using a Course Management System (CMS) for a class, the majority reported their experience in positive terms. However, slightly over one-third reported their experience as neutral or negative. This total has remained consistent for the last two years, although 2% are now reporting a very negative experience. See below:

Fig. 17. Reported Ratings of CMS Experience in 2005

18. Which of the following services are you aware of and which have you used since the beginning of fall semester (September 1, 2004)? [check all that apply]

Reported student awareness was fairly high for all services, with the exception of Computing@UW (37%), online training (38%), and TechNews (41%). Those with awareness above 70% included InfoLabs, Norton AntiVirus, kiosks and campus wireless. The most-used services were computer kiosks, free Norton AntiVirus, InfoLabs (general access computer labs), campus wireless and Help Desk by phone and the campus wireless network.

Fig. 18. Percentage Reporting Awareness and Usage of Services in 2005

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. The number of students rating each service varies; these numbers are noted below.]

Student respondents in 2005 indicated they were most satisfied with the following services: Norton AntiVirus software, Help Desk by phone, and InfoLabs. Students gave a higher percentage of dissatisfaction ratings to the walk-in Help Desk, computer kiosks, campus wireless network, laptop checkout and WiscCal. Respondents indicated disinterest in online training, TechNews, and Computing@UW.

When compared with satisfaction ratings a year ago, only three areas showed statistically significant changes. The average satisfaction with Norton AntiVirus software decreased from an average rating of 4.4 to 4.2. The walk-in Help Desk dropped from 4.2 to 3.6. Satisfaction with the kiosk service increased from 3.4 to 3.6.

Fig. 19a. Mean Satisfaction of Computing Services in 2005

Fig. 19b. Ratings of Computing Services in 2005

20. How many times since the beginning of fall semester (September 1, 2004) have you visited the DoIT Tech Store service areas below?

21. When you visited, did you find what you were looking for in that location?

Eighty-seven percent of student respondents said they found what they were looking for.

22. In what areas would you like to have free software training? [n=454]

The most popular training areas for students remain graphics/animation and web design, followed by spreadsheets and presentations. Interest in multimedia training has risen from the previous year (from 26% to 35%).

Fig. 22. Interest in Topic-Specific, Free Software Classes in 2005

23. How would you like to receive free software training? [check all that apply]

Online web-based training was selected by a higher percentage of students (55%) than student instructor in a classroom (49%).

Fig. 23. Preference for How to Receive Free Software Classes in 2005

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

Given $100 to allocate, students’ overall responses indicated their highest allocation as more wireless locations, followed by faster campus network, reversing the order from 2004. More computers in computer labs came in third, while help with antivirus protection dropped from third in 2004 to fourth in 2005. More kiosks remained in fifth place, although the dollar amount dropped from 2004. Other IT was defined by 23 respondents as a variety of things from higher bandwidth limit to lighter laptops to color printing. One topic, mentioned by five write-ins, was more free or cheaper software licenses.

25. What changes would you like to see 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 (45%) and larger computer tables (40%) and faster computers (36%), although all of these dropped percentage wise from the previous year.

Fig. 26. Comparison of Percentage of Student Respondents Indicating Wireless Computing Usage in 2003, 2004 and 2005

Half of student respondents indicated that they used wireless computing compared to 31% the previous year. Of these students, the majority (75%) use public campus locations, followed by home access (64%).

Three-fourths of students who use wireless make use of the public campus locations. Sixty-four percent indicate that they use wireless at their home. The use at campus locations has remained consistent from the last year, but off-campus use increased from 35% to 45%.

Fig. 27. Locations Used for Wireless Computing by Student Respondents in 2005

28. If the wireless network were available in classrooms, would you use it related to your coursework?

The majority of student respondents (57%) said they would use wireless in the classroom for coursework-related tasks.

Fig. 28. Would Use Wireless in Classrooms for Coursework 2005

29. How would you use the wireless network in the classrooms? [Check all that apply.]

Almost all students (95%) indicated they would use wireless in classrooms to look up course-related material. However, 40% admitted they would use it for recreational use.

Slightly over half the student respondents (53%) indicated they were very likely to somewhat likely to use wireless in the next 12 months.

Fig. 30. Student Respondents’ Likelihood of Campus Wireless Usage in the Next 12 Months

31. What would it take for you to use wireless hotspots? [check all that apply]

Fig. 31. Methods that Would Encourage Wireless Hotspot Usage among Student Respondents in 2005

The top responses were the need for a laptop or portable device and more wireless locations. However, long battery life was also selected by 31%. Among students selecting Other as their response, a number cited needing a better laptop plus needing to learn how to use wireless. Better security and having areas with electrical outlets were also mentioned.

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

A majority of student respondents (78%) clearly prefer notification of security and virus issues by email.

Fig. 32. Student Respondents’ Preferred Methods of Notification of Security and Virus Issues in 2005

Unfortunately, a data collection error resulted in no valid responses being captured. Historically, about 75% of respondents have lived off campus.

Fig. 34. Major Disciplines Reported by Student Respondents in 2005

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, with wireless outpacing the rest by a large margin:

Background

The 2005 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 comprising of 35 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.

Five hundred eighty-six (586) students responded with completed questionnaires. This corresponds to a 37% response rate and a margin of error of +/- 3.2%. The response was lower than the 44% response rate of 2003, but higher than the 32% in 2004. An earlier release date in February of the Spring Semester, as used in 2003, may be preferable.

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 mis-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.

Longitudinal Comparison	2001 (n=798)	2002 (n=416)	2003 (n=673)	2004 (n=513)	2005 (n=586)
Desktop Computer	74%	70%	70%	60%	61%
Laptop Computer	26%	35%	39%	48%	56%
Cell Phone	31%	46%	64%	78%	87%
Regular Phone	-	-	80%	59%	44%
Personal Digital Assistant	12%	15%	18%	16%	17%
Smart Phone	-	-	-	1%	1%
MP3 Player	-	-	-	-	35%
Portable Storage Device (flash drive)	-	-	-	-	32%

Method of Internet Access	2005 Mean*	N	std dev
UW Connection through work	4.29	102	0.76
Department Computer Labs	4.15	123	0.79
General Access Computer Labs (InfoLabs)	4.01	254	0.83
Direct Network Connection (ResNet)	3.99	135	0.89
Cable Modem	3.71	226	0.94
DSL	3.69	102	0.96
Campus Wireless	3.64	153	1.05
Commercial Wireless	3.64	59	0.86
Dial-In WiscWorld	3.60	73	0.93
Kiosks	3.50	188	0.97
Commercial Dial-In ISP	3.44	18	0.78
*Higher mean scores indicate greater satisfaction

Rank	IT Service	Mean	n
1	Norton AntiVirus free download	4.2	279
2	Help Desk by Phone	4.2	123
3	General Access Computer Labs (InfoLabs)	4.1	242
4	Help Desk by Web (Help Online)	4.0	72
5	Software Training	4.0	34
6	DoIT Showroom	4.0	92
7	DoIT Online Catalog	4.0	89
8	DoIT Tech Store Sales	3.9	121
9	My WebSpace	3.9	113
10	Laptop Checkout at InfoLabs	3.9	72
11	Dial-in WiscWorld	3.9	103
12	Campus Wireless Network	3.9	185
13	DoIT Repair	3.8	53
14	Help Desk Walk-In	3.6	65
15	Online Software Training	3.6	19
16	Computer Kiosks	3.6	274
17	TechNews Email Newsletter	3.5	46
18	WiscCal	3.5	81
19	Computing@UW Insert	3.4	51

AREA	Did Not Visit	Most Common # visits
Product Sales	45%	50% made 1-3 visits
Online Catalog	54%	38% made 1-5 visits, another 4% made 10 visits
Showroom	51%	44% made 1-3 visits
Help Desk Walk-in	65%	33% made 1-3 visits
Repair & Desktop Support	70%	30% made 1-3 visits

Longitudinal Comparison	2001 (n=720)	2002 (n=378)	2003 (n=629)	2004 (n=510)	2005 (n=540)
Windows NT/2000/XP	18%	34%	50%	73%	79%
Windows 95/98/ME	81%	68%	49%	24%	14%
Macintosh OS	10%	7%	9%	8%	11%
Linux	7%	5%	5%	4%	4%
UNIX	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%
Other	3%	1%	3%	1%	1%