Instant Messenger in College Admissions

1. Kevin Zalanowski, M.A. The University of Iowa Instant Messenger in College Admissions

2. 86% of college students use the Internet. 26% of these students use Instant Messenger regularly. (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2002 as cited in Kindred & Roper, 2004). More than 30% of students that use IM use it for academic purposes. (Hallock & Aiken, 2004). Given its social popularity, Instant Messenger should be applied to other settings in order to gain a definitive feel for its impact. (Parks & Floyd, 1996 as cited in Kindred & Roper, 2004). Students want personalized messages from the colleges they are looking at. (Hossler, 1999; Kindred & Roper, 2004; Steele, 2002; Williams, 2000). The 1:1 Marketing Theory (Williams, 2000). Research Foundation

3. Is undergraduate admissions an effective, new venue for Instant Messenger technology? • Are certain types of students more likely to use or benefit from Instant Messenger communication? • Can observed behavioral patterns predict when and how students will use Instant Messenger for Admissions concerns? • Does a connection exist between Instant Messenger use and yield? IM PROJECT goals

4. Used free commercial IM chat clients. Observed each conversation along 11 variables. On-line from 12:00pm to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. 74% of conversations lasted 15 minutes or less. Done along with normal admission counselor duties. Free Software First year of IM usage: June 16, 2005 through June 16, 2006 • 682 total conversations • 28 States and 13 Foreign Countries. • 79% of all conversations took place over AOL. • Nearly equal numbers of Residents & Nonresidents. • Similar ratios of seniors tending to be Nonresidents and Residents tending to be transfers.

5. Purchased Software Second year of IM usage: December 1, 2006 – July 31, 2007 • Used Leepfrog Technology’s Instant Rapport product • Customizable Pop-up survey • Customizable University logo • Conversation logs • No buddy list • Now able to track students by Name: • Application History • Matriculation • ACT • GPA • Gender • Ethnicity • Counselor Activity

6. Purchased Software …The Student Survey The Counselor Chat Window...

7. Purchased Software Second year of IM usage: December 1, 2006 – July 31, 2007 • 309 Total Contacts • 27 States and 10 Foreign Countries • More individuals but fewer repeat IM-ers • Nearly equal numbers of Residents & Nonresidents • Similar rations of H.S. Seniors tending to be Nonresidents and Residents tending to be Transfers • Average GPA for males was slightly lower than females. • Average ACT for admitted females was 3 points lower than admitted males. • 76% of conversations lasted 15 minutes or less, with a 13 minute average. • Staffed by 6 counselors at one time instead of 1. All concurrently performed normal office duties.

8. Trends: matriculation history N= 68 High School Seniors • 64% of conversations came after admission decision date. • 71% of individuals sent their first IM after applying. • 60% of individuals sent their first IM after a decision was made. • 90% of seniors that IM’ed applied. • 84% were admitted. • 61% of admits enrolled. • 7 of 9 repeat admits enrolled. N= 88 Transfer Students • 53% of conversations came between application and decision dates. • 61% of individuals sent their first IM after applying. • 39% of individuals sent their first IM before applying. • 65% of transfers who IM’ed applied. • 75% were admitted. • 79% of admits enrolled. • 8 of 10 repeat admits enrolled.

9. Trends: Repeat Student Activity Commercial IM Clients • 682 Total Contacts • 334 Individuals • 139 repeat users sent 346 conversations. • 58% sent only 1 repeat converstation. • 47% had all conversations within 2 months of the first. • 15% used IM for 3 or more consecutive months. Purchased IM Software • 309 Total Contacts • 256 Individuals • 26 repeat users sent 53 conversations. • 65% sent only 1 repeat converstation. • 58% had all conversations within 2 months of the first. • 4% used IM for 3 or more consecutive months.

10. Current Efforts Third year of IM usage: August 1, 2007 – July 31, 2008 • Continue to use Instant Rapport. • Multiple counselors log-on Monday – Thursday, from 2:30pm – 4:30pm. • IM not regularly staffed from September 1 – October 19 due to Fall staff travel season. • Current students available to IM with prospective students Sunday through Thursday, from 5:30pm – 7:30pm. • As of January 31: • 190 conversations from 133 individuals in 20 states. • Equal number of H.S. Seniors & Transfers (46 individuals) • Average conversation length is 15 minutes, with 47% lasting less than 10 minutes. • 11 Parents thus far equals the total from 2006-2007. • 9 individuals have used IM repeatedly. • Females have higher GPA’s, and chat an average of 5 minutes less.

11. Monthly Activity Trends Total IM’s by Month and Year

12. Monthly Activity Trends Individuals using IM by Month and Year

13. Credibility of counselor and information conveyed. • Commercial versus purchased software. • Research in social settings. • IM use in formal settings versus informal ones (Farrell, 2007; Kindred & Roper, 2004). • Ersatz Social Engagement Theory: • IM as a replacement to in-person interaction • Great for short-term interaction and quick questions • IM alone will likely not maintain long-term relationships on a social setting (Green et al., 2005). Research Concerns

14. Answering the main questions • Is undergraduate admissions an effective, new venue for Instant Messenger technology? • Are certain types of students more likely to use or benefit from Instant Messenger communication? • Can observed behavioral patterns predict when and how students will use Instant Messenger for Admissions concerns? • Does a connection exist between Instant Messenger use and yield? • Yes • Yes • Y/N • Yes

15. Instant Messenger technology should compliment your overall recruitment strategy. • Your IM population may resemble your student population. • Initiate IM in a way that best fits your staff. • Commercial software or purchased software? • Current students or staff only? • Web site location of IM feature? • Time of day and which days? • Never initiate conversations with students. • Many on your staff may have grown up using IM. • The key is consistency. • Staffing • Conveyed information Taking IM To your office

16. What questions do you have about these technologies, their effectiveness, or implementing them at your school? Discussion

17. Farrell, E. F. (2007, March). Tangled up in tech. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (28), A36. • Green, M.C., Hilken, J., Friedman, H., Grossman, K., Gasiewski, J., Adler, R., & Sabini, J. (2005, March). Communication via instant messenger: short- and long-term effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(3), 445-462. • Hallock, J., & Aiken, D. (2004, March). Bling!Instant messages and student communication: Looking at use and the future. Paper presented at the National Association of College Student Personnel Administrators Conference, Denver, CO. • Hossler, D. (1999). Effective Admissions Recruitment. New Directions for Higher Education, 27(4), 15-30. • Kindred, J., & Roper, S. L. (2004). Making connections via instant messenger (IM): student use of IM to maintain personal relationships. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 48-54. • Steele, J. (2002, Spring). The media omnivores: Understanding college-bound students and communicating with them effectively. Journal of College Admission, 10-19. • Williams, B. G. (2000, Winter). To the personalized go the prospects. Journal of College Admission, 12-21. Works cited