First Annual Report

The College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable

CTLTR

July 1997 - June 1998

First Annual Report of the College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable (CTLTR)

I. Introduction

This document provides a summary of the activities of the College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable (CTLTR) during its first year of operation (July 1997 - June 1998). The current membership of the CTLTR is as follows:

* Co-Chairs:

Carrie Regenstein - Dean's Office and University Computing Center (carrie@cc.rochester.edu)

Frank Wolfs - Physics and Astronomy (wolfs@nsrl.rochester.edu)

* Faculty members:

Thomas DiPiero - Modern Languages and Cultures (tdip@db1.cc.rochester.edu)

Nancy Perkins - Political Science (nper@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)

* Undergraduate Students:

Melissa Guyre - Media Studies (mg006f@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)

Steven Lewis - Mathematics (sl002f@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)

Benjamin Pass - Political Science and History (bp001e@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)

* Undergraduate Teaching Assistants:

Matt Stanley - Optics and Religion (ms018c@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)

TBA

* Graduate Teaching Assistants:

Robert Stets - Computer Science (stets@cs.rochester.edu)

TBA

* College Curriculum Committee:

Frank Wolfs - Physics and Astronomy (wolfs@nsrl.rochester.edu)

* University Computing Center:

Eric Likness (likn@cc.rochester.edu)

* Registrar's Office:

TBA

* Academic Media and Event Support (AMES):

Bill Harcleroad (wgha@troi.cc.rochester.edu)

* ResLife/ResNet:

Lisa Brown (lita@ro.cc.rochester.edu)

* Library:

Stephanie Frontz (sfrontz@rcl.lib.rochester.edu)

* University Telecommunication Division (UTD):

Norm Acunis (acunis@utd.rochester.edu)

* Dean's Office:

Ovide Corriveau

* Vice Provost for Computing:

Ed Titlebaum - Electrical Engineering (tbaum@ee.rochester.edu)

II. Events

During its first year of operation the CTLTR organized several workshop to bring together faculty and students to talk about issues related to educational technology. The following events were organized during the 1997 - 1998 academic year:

* November 17, 1997: AAHE Workshop

About 150 faculty, staff, and students participated in this workshop, which was led by Steve Gilbert from the AAHE. The participants talked about current problems at U of R and possible solutions. The results of a closing survey that were completed by the participants is included in Appendix 1.

* April 13, 1998: Open forum on Campus Technology

This forum was organized to collect feedback from students on technology expectations, printing policies, and access to technology. In addition, the CTLTR made presentations on these issues to the Student Association (SA) and the Residential College Commission (RCC).

* April 23, 1998: CTLTR Workshop

This workshop was a follow-up workshop organized for the participants of the November 17 workshop. A total of 50 faculty, staff, and students participated. At this workshop the CTLTR discussed the conclusions of the November 17 workshop with the participants, and presented the status of the current activities.

III. Task Forces

In the spring of 1998 the CTLTR focused its efforts on 8 different issues, which were partially defined on the basis of the feedback collected during the November 17 workshop. The following list shows the 8 task forces created and their charge.

* Access for All: Melissa Guyre (chair), Steven Lewis, Robert Stets

Charge:

Determine the current access that U of R students have to technology. Determine the relative benefits of "the laptop for all", "the desktop for all", "centralized labs", and "remote labs" approaches. What can we learn from other institutions (feedback from students and faculty on how improved access has changed their courses). How can such an initiative be funded ? Do our competitors charge technology fees, and if so, how much ?

* Electronic Course Pack: Nancy Perkins, Stephanie Frontz (chair), Robert Stets

Charge:

What are the advantages of electronic course packs for the instructor and for the students ? Investigate copyright issues related to electronic course packs. Develop a procedure for faculty to create electronic course packs, with minimum effort required on the part of the faculty. Address support requirements for such a procedure.

* Printing Policy: Stephanie Frontz, Bill Harcleroad, Steven Lewis, Eric Likness (chair)

Charge:

Survey current uses of printer resources in Rochester. Compare local trends with those observed at other institutions. Collect feedback from students, staff, and faculty. If desired, propose implementation of printing policy.

* Resource Directory and Technology Survey: Frank Wolfs (chair)

Charge:

Compile a listing of all technology-related resources in the College. Analyze the results of the Technology Survey of College Faculty that was carried out in the fall. Create a resource directory containing information about the current use of technology in the College and the available resources.

* Email Standards: Norm Acunis (chair), Frank Wolfs

Charge:

Define appropriate uses, etiquette, integration within University mission for information access, and tools available for electronic mail. Provide a standard that will allow "seamless" electronic file exchange between students and faculty.

* Technology Expectations for Freshmen: Lisa Brown (chair), Benjamin Pass, Matt Stanley, Melissa Guyre

Charge:

Evaluate the need to establish certain minimum technology requirements for incoming Freshmen. Examine the needs within some majors (e.g. computer science, english, psychology). What are other schools doing. What resources do we have to improve the technological competence of those that lack it upon entering U of R ?

* Support for Faculty Technology Initiatives: Bill Harcleroad, Robert Stets, Frank Wolfs (chair)

Charge:

Develop a proposal for an initiative that awards release time for faculty to integrate technology in the curriculum.

* The Support Crisis: Stephanie Frontz, Bill Harcleroad (chair)

Charge:

Define "support crisis". Do we experience a "support crisis", and if so, compare our local "support crisis" with those at other institutions. Propose possible solutions.

IV. Initial report of various task forces

During the spring semester the members of the CTLTR, in collaboration with other faculty, staff, and students, worked on the tasks outlined in the previous Section. None of these projects are completed at this point, but interim reports of the various task forces are included in this Section, and are supported by additional information included in the various appendices of this Annual Report.

Access for all

The goal of Access-for-All is to propose a plan that ensures students and faculty will have "enough" computer access to support the educational mission at U of R. This plan will be based on pedagogical trends, computer usage patterns, community input, and financial analyses. Existing Access-for-All solutions at other universities also will help shape the final plan. At this point, we have completed enough research to formulate a preliminary conclusion. We have found that computer-supported pedagogical trends can be separated into two categories: (1) enhanced communication mechanisms and (2) active learning tools. The former enriches learning opportunities outside the classroom and only requires periodic computer access. Campus computing labs can be sufficient to meet this requirement. The latter places the educational process directly under the student's control and is best supported by a high level of computer access. Mandatory computer requirements for incoming students may be appropriate in this case. A survey of current pedagogical needs and campus computer usage patterns has revealed that U of R primarily relies on computers to enhance communication. Supported by research of other universities, we predict that the communication uses will continue to dominate U of R computer use for the next three to five years. We therefore conclude that Access-for-All can best be provided by augmenting and re-organizing our existing campus computing lab infrastructure. This conclusion has also been supported by input solicited from the community. Our next step will be to finalize all aspects of the plan, based on our detailed analysis of the above the points.

More details of the work of the Access-for-All task force are included in Appendix 2 of this Annual Report.

Electronic course packs

The task force studied many aspects of the implementation of electronic course packs. Electronic Course Packs, also called "Course Readers", have been designed to be able to allow student access to a virtual library reserve desk, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by replacing the traditional copies of course readings that are on reserve in the library with electronic copies of these course materials. Electronic course packs were introduced by Prof. Nancy Perkins and have been successfully used during the 1997 - 1998 academic year, for example in Health and Society 301 (http://www.rochester.edu/College/hls/hls301np/PREFACE.HTM) and in Religion and Classics 102. In order to access the Course Reader, the student must be enrolled in the course, and have obtained a password from the course instructor. The Course Readers are for "class room" use only.

The primary goal of the course pack task force is to develop a procedure of producing electronic course packs that are transparent to the faculty. Issues related to copyright were also studied and it was concluded that electronic course packs are covered by the "fair-use" policy, as long as their access is password restricted, and appropriate copyright warnings are posted.

The library appears to be ready to participate in a pilot program to provide electronic reserves to all participants of the 1998 summer institute, provided that funds are made available to purchase the required the equipment. The library will be responsible for the electronic conversion of the required documents and making copies of these documents available on the electronic reserve WEB server. All links to the electronic reserves will be through the Voyager Course Reserve button, where students will find everything that is on reserve, whether electronic or not.

Printing Policy

The printing task force proposes to start charging for printing on the public printers in the College for the fall'99 semester. We envision introducing a system where students are allotted a certain number of free pages, and will be charged for any extra pages printed.

As more and more faculty place course materials on-line instead of handing them out in the classroom, the cost of departmental copying has been transferred to the University Computing Center printing costs. For almost every class today, a student can print out past exams, syllabi, and on-line manuals. In addition, students doing research can print full text articles from conference proceedings, journals, newspapers, news wire services, books, and chat groups. During the 94 - 95 academic year our students printed approximately 1,000,000 pages. In the two subsequent years, 95 - 96 and 96 - 97, this number grew to 2,000,000 and 5,000,000, respectively. UCC currently spends about $76,000 per year to support printing.

It appears that the University of Rochester is one of a few schools that allow unlimited printing at no cost. Many universities, both locally and nationally, charge anywhere from two to twenty-five cents per page. A handful of these schools provide a number of free pages per semester (somewhere between 100 and 700 pages). Other schools reclaim their printing costs by instituting a technology fee.

The printing committee has studied various ways of implementing the printing policy. John Arnold from the University Copy Center has investigated a vendor-based solution for delivering print services for the Medical Center Library. Such a system is currently being used at a number of schools, including Harvard, and uses a debit card to charge for each printed page. Monroe Community College is considering using the same system for their libraries. The cost of implementing this system in the College is estimated to be $100,000. Mat Felthousen has developed an alternative software-based solution, which is significantly cheaper and more transparent from the user-point of view, and the CTLTR supports the implementation of the software-based solution. A detailed cost estimate of the various components required to implement the printing policy are included in Appendix 3.

Resource directory and technology survey

The CTLTR conducted a technology survey of all College Faculty in November 1997. All faculty were asked a number of questions about their use of technology in education. A summary of the results of this survey are included in Appendix 4. The majority of those who responded indicates that educational technology is important to them. A total of 40% of the faculty have developed instructional technology to enhance the classroom experience and 25% have web-based course materials on-line. Email is considered a very important communication tool between instructor and students, and 80% of those who responded indicated that they are currently using this communication tool. The most often used software applications are word processing and spreadsheet software. The overhead display is used by 80% of the faculty. Slide projectors and VCRs are used by 50% of the faculty, while 30% use computer displays and/or projectors.

A major obstacle many faculty members experience while contemplating the use of technology in education is determining the resources that are available in the College. Although much information exists in various formats, there exists currently no single directory, listing all technology-related resources. The goal of the resource directory task force is to compile a listing of all technology-related resources, combined with information on the current use of technology in the College, and distribute this information to all faculty of the College.

Email standards

The primary goal of the email task force was to study the possibility of providing "seamless" email exchange capabilities for the exchange of electronic documents between faculty and students. The assumption is made that these documents are created using software on PCs and MACs, and will be read using software running on PCs and MACs. We are therefore only considering the exchange of electronic documents between PC/MAC environments. Email clients running on other platforms (like UNIX and VAX) are not being considered.

All students already have free access to a POP server (running on UHURA). Faculty members also have free access to a POP server. The cost of implementing this "seamless" electronic file exchange should be negligible to the College and should be invisible to the users of the service. After extensive testing of various tools that are available to both faculty and students we envision that the faculty use Eudora or Netscape Communicator to retrieve their email and the students use these to packages to send their electronic documents (see Appendix 5). These packages are free and available for both PC and Mac platforms. However, in order for this approach to work, students need to be able to run these email packages from any of our public computers (which requires the installation of authentication software on all our public machines).

Technology expectations

After a number of open discussions and presentations, as well as requests for feedback, no definitive answer can be given regarding how to best provide an overview of technology requirements that students should possess in order to perform well in classes. Many different suggestions have been made regarding methods for training, timing of training and the specific training requirements. Since feedback was limited in scope, it appears that the best mechanism for conveying technological expectations would be for the professors to include the minimum requirements on a paper syllabus handed out the first day of class, as well as on their course web site. In order to provide training appropriate to faculty needs, general courses in the basics will need to be provided throughout the first 4-6 weeks of every semester. These courses need to be highly advertised, both at the student and faculty level. Faculty will need to encourage students to attend courses that benefit their syllabus. Other training methods, such as on-line tutorials and video-taped training classes should also be available and advertised. For each training course, the specific skills that will be covered need to be documented so that faculty can make sure that the course meets the needs of their students and so that students can determine if the course is necessary. A more detailed report is included in Appendix 6.

The Support Crisis

After meeting with various service providers and service users, it seems pretty clear that we are experiencing a support crisis. Up until now, the support crisis that we have experienced has meant delays and inconveniences to auxiliary functions of the departments involved. It has now reached a point where core services cannot be fully provided. UCC, AMES, MMC and the Library now experience a support crisis. The Library staff believes that professional staff retention is the biggest problem. UCC has outdated labs, overworked printers and very little emergency response staff. MMC does not have the student staff to adequately support the labor-intensive software they provide to their customers. AMES has a budget that is 5% less than it was 12 years ago and so has neither adequate supplies nor staff to support the technology that has developed during that period. 12 years ago, CAVTS (what was the AM part of AMES) provided overhead projectors, slide projectors, video monitors and VCR s, and 16mm-film projection. Since then, AMES has added video projection, computer projection, Ethernet support, satellite dishes and multimedia classrooms. 12 years ago, CAVTS was open from 8:30 am - 9:00 pm. AMES is open 7:00 am - 10:40 pm to accommodate a change in the class schedule. CAVTS had 5 staff members and 34 student employees. AMES has 4 staff members and 14 student employees devoted to academic support.

Additionally, there are also sweeping changes being driven by the convergence of technology. Currently there is no one specifically charged with making computer and a/v technology work together. If a faculty member has a problem projecting a computer image, they don t know who to turn to (and should not have to try to guess).

Another conclusion that all parties agree upon is that the Classroom Improvement Committee should be reinstated and funded at a sufficient level. This group worked very hard at improving classrooms on this campus. All constituents were represented and had input. This insured that the money went where it was most needed. The independent funding stream for the committee made it easier to fix what needed to be done without regard to other campus politics.

V. Immediate Recommendations:

Based on its work during the 97-98 academic year, the CTLTR makes the following immediate recommendations:

• Reinstate a process to accomplish the goals of the classroom-improvement committee (with a real budget).
• Explore user authentication software for all public machines. Note: user authentication is required for implementing the printing policy, but also in order to allow access to email from our public machines. The goal is to introduce some level of implementation in the fall'99 semester (see Appendix 8 for estimated cost).
• Begin work on new printing policy (need money for print servers, ID authentication software, etc.). The goal is to introduce some level of implementation in the fall'99 semester (see Appendix 3 for estimated cost).
• Support two initiatives concerning electronic course packs that will include collaboration by the library and UCC: (1) Follow-up on copyright issues with the goal of establishing recommendations for `99-'00. (2) Follow-up on production printing issues for courses in tandem with the planning process for enhanced printing services for students.
• Provide key service for ResNet (allow students to run software over the network in their dorm rooms). This will provide students with access to all software that is available in our public computer labs on their personal computers in their rooms. Given the number of personal computers owned by our students, this might reduce the access problems to public machines (and thus improve access for all). Cost of implementation is $ 10K (UCC estimate). The goal is to start a pilot program in fall'98.
• Provide funding for the Summer Institute (CTLTR provides oversight). The CTLTR plans to have several follow-up meetings with the participants of the Summer Institute to monitor their success while they implement technology in their teaching. To support the initiatives of the participants of the Summer Institute, UCC is pursuing student programming assistance where requested and providing one-year computer loaners to faculty who need hardware to work on their projects.
• Evaluate the use of our technology classrooms. Do the current courses make efficient use of these resources? Compile statistics of classroom usage (see for example Appendix 7) and develop strategies to share these resources equally

Appendix 1

College Teaching Leaning & Technology Roundtable Workshop

Responses to Question #1

What are the priorities in technology and learning? (Top 4)

• Reduce fragmentation (easy access to technology)
• Support for development effort
• Departmental focus
• Universal access to a (changing) minimum capability
• Supporting a multiplicity of approaches
• Technology should facilitate teaching and learning (tech only aid)
• Use to make teaching and supervision of large classes more efficient
• Want to retain our sense of community - and our face-to-face contacts outside of the classroom.
• Want technology to expand beyond the classroom - part of building community
• Want access to technology to be easier - with "access" being very broadly defined
• Want to know what the impact of technology can be on real learning
• Improve interaction between faculty and students
• Training of faculty and students
• Integrating real world applications of technology into lectures
• Better trained people over better technology - need to be able to use the technology before we upgrade
• Enhancing the learning environment, not replacing or damaging it
• Availability to everyone - access and support
• Not to lose the lecture experience
• Use technology to add flexibility to department activities. For instance, web-based classes would allow classes to be offered every semester.
• Curriculum must drive technology
• Full document distribution capabilities. Should be able to retrieve library articles remotely. Real-time access to all university resources.
• University-wide IT planning
• That technology becomes a tool for teaching not an obstacle
• That technology is easy to access and implement in the classroom
• That the college supports innovative uses of educational technology
• That there is an open forum for discussing faculty and student experience in using technology.
• Curriculum driven technology use (appropriate technology)
• Adequate funding for unified, ubiquitous infrastructure
• Consistent, planned upgrade path
• More staff training/development
• Share common software, where possible
• Convey what's possible/who's doing it/show how it is done, to all faculty
• Count technology development and use toward tenure.
• Technology component specific to discipline
• Access to technology for all students.
• Human interaction and technology have to be balanced.
• Support for infrastructure improvement
• Coordination of many services/suppliers
• Promotion of "best practices"
• Research into pedagogical aspects of technology use
• Learning and teaching
• Aim for, at first, things which can be delivered in the next year. It's OK to experiment with others which won't come to fruition until later
• Local, departmental support person (because they are acculturated) to go to for decentralizing, getting a classroom, etc., but then that person needs to be able to call one place to actually make it happen
• Centralizing, defragmentation of support units
• A few more smart rooms (not asking for everything) that support "technological teaching"
• Faculty ownership of information once it's on the web. Need to understand royalty issues
• Central accountability for technology being delivered to the classroom.
• Are departments willing to give faculty the time they need to develop the technology-based coursework.
• Funding a central organization to train student support staff.
• Need clear definition of University initiatives vs. College initiatives

College Teaching Leaning & Technology Roundtable Workshop

Responses to Question #2

What are the obstacles that we need to overcome in using technology effectively in teaching and learning?

• Poor communication
• Inadequate avenues of support
• Uneven reward structure
• Equipment/software/classrooms
• To generate applications for individual courses
• Lack of support and technical personnel
• Our current responsibilities make it difficult for us to invest the time required for the development of instructional technology
• We are too fragmented - it's too difficult to piece together the steps and resources necessary for instructional innovation within our present structure
• Time for faculty
• Computing hardware/connectivity
• Assistance (technology coaching)
• Time - to learn how to dot it/implement any restructuring
• Lack of training
• Money - software/hardware
• Intransigence and resistance to change
• Territorial instead of College-wide interests
• Reluctance to use technology for fear of embarrassment
• Funding for technology support
• Indiscriminate rush to try all things
• Consistency of technology/services
• Need standard software to ensure accessibility
• Adequate funding
• Lack of interdepartmental communication
• Fragmented support services
• Lack of resources (money, staff, time)
• Resistance on part of faculty and students
• Overcome fragmented administration and availability
• Multiple platforms
• Lack of motivation on part of faculty
• Lack of equipment, etc. in classrooms
• Money and time
• Access
• Lack of infrastructure, coordination of services, promotion of best practice, and pedagogical research of technology use.
• Lack of standards
• The delivery problem!
• Recognition of educational technology in the tenure process
• Decide whether we want faculty working on educational technology tools (learning how to do it themselves)
• Or, do we want faculty to just supply content to staff development experts (and have more of these experts).
• Politics and ownership
• Conflicting initiatives due to decentralization
• Where is the physical presence for the Center of Excellence.
• Technology requirements for admission.
• Technology aptitude test as part of admissions.
• Require minimal SAT scores or require technology basics.
• If students do not meet a minimum technology requirement, provide them with ECO opportunities.

College Teaching Leaning & Technology Roundtable Workshop

Responses to Question #3

What are the suggestions that you would make for overcoming the obstacles that you've listed?

• Wide use of students, as suggested by S. Gilbert
• Integrate rewards into faculty evaluation and recognition
• Standardize systems (e-mail, etc.)
• Give importance to roundtable recommendations (funding)
• More workshops on computer technology with demonstrations of working applications.
• Release time
• An ongoing forum - that cuts across disciplines - needs to be available for us to share what we've learned about instructional structure.
• Let our teaching and learning needs drive the technological development - not the other way around.
• Partnerships with industry to beta-test hardware and software as a source of funds/technology.
• Technology Teaching Assistantships
• Summer courses for faculty (free) Include courses like Time Management; How to Use the Technology
• Get hard science representatives on these committees.
• Be more inclusive. All vested interests should have a permanent space if desired.
• AMES should be on the roundtable.
• Centralized committee
• Using roundtable to coordinate support network
• Provide an open dialogue between faculty to prevent duplication of efforts; between peers to make support more accessible (takes pressure off UCC, more likely to approach peers)
• Restructure accounting procedures to encourage investment in technology.
• Create more technology-rich classrooms
• Institution needs to value and reward time and money invested in technology and teaching.
• Create opportunities for interaction between departments/colleges.
• A central group to identify "attractive options" and decide and set a course of action (instead of individuals all over campus all trying to stay on top of things and being frustrated). The Prozak foster child syndrome.
• Coordination (we are trying to coordinate between River Campus and the medical Center, but it's difficult...and it doesn't feel like there's any one guiding organization)
• Can we use students to support faculty needs for technology
• Department secretaries do copying. Who does faculty's HTML?
• Provide the elements of a technology tool kit for faculty new to the university. Offer like opportunities to current faculty.
• IT fee could support faculty service for preparation of materials
• IT fee would encourage use

Appendix 2

Access for All

Computer technology has the potential to improve pedagogy at all educational levels. Due to their complex teaching subjects, colleges and universities especially stand to benefit from innovative technological support. The success of any such support however hinges on one fundamental assumption. The community must have enough computer access to reap the innovation's benefits. Access for All is our term for ensuring that the level of computer access meets the environment's needs, and our work is to develop a solution for providing Access for All at the University of Rochester.

The key for a successful Access for All solution is to determine the required level of access. We have investigated the current uses of computers in our educational environment and also in numerous other university environments. We sought to identify current and future pedagogical trends, which can then be used to predict the necessary level of access for the three to five year future. With this knowledge, we then evaluated the efficacy of our current computing infrastructure. Our preliminary recommendations are based on this evaluation, community feedback, and solutions employed by other universities. Our next steps are to strengthen our recommendations with more detailed analyses, including cost estimates, and to address two new issues that arose in our preliminary work.

Trends in Computer-supported Pedagogy (or Beyond Basic Productivity Applications)

To investigate uses of computers in the university education, we examined our University and also researched literature and web resources describing the environments of other universities. We found that computer support for pedagogy can be separated into two categories -- improved communication mechanisms and active learning tools.

Under the communication category, email, listservs, newsgroups, and the web are being heavily used to improve communication outside the classroom. Numerous classes and faculty already rely heavily on newsgroups, listservs, and email. Also, the University currently has close to 40 classes with web-based materials. The web provides an excellent mechanism for accessing a large or diverse collection of class material. Professors Dan Watson (Astronomy 203/403) and Stuart Larson (Studio Art 151) both augment their classes with extensive web support. Both class web sites include the syllabus, background course information, and pointers to related web sites. Professor Watson also places his lecture notes and problem solutions on-line.

In addition to these uses of computer technology, other universities have their novel uses. At Valley City State University, each student maintains an on-line portfolio of their work. Professors may access these portfolios in order to judge a student's improvement. Also the portfolios may be presented to future employers. At Wake Forest University, professors have developed the Intelligent Writing Tutor (IWT). Currently this tool is basically a word processor with extensive built-in communication support. IWT allows students to initiate peer-to-peer or group conferences. Also the tool has native support for searching the web and newsgroups. Future plans include adding sophisticated tools for improving writing skills.

Active learning tools comprise the other general use of computers in education. Active learning is a pedagogical technique where the educational process is placed under the student's control. Computers are quickly becoming a key mechanism for active learning because they allow for both efficient storage and retrieval of information and also for interactive learning.

Previously, active learning was difficult in situations that required access to a large amount of information. With a large group of students proceeding at different paces, information access was typically very inefficient. Computer technology, especially the web, provides an excellent mechanism for efficient storage and retrieval of large amounts of data. Numerous university educators, including our own Dr. Nathaniel Martin and Dr. Edward Fox of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, are using computers to support an active learning environment. Both of these professors utilize the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), a methodological example of active learning. The amount of supporting information for their classes is large and from diverse sources, so efficient access is difficult. Both professors place their entire course information on-line, thus allowing students simple, around-the-clock access.

Another important component of active learning is often interactivity. For example, an interactive assignment generator is an excellent active learning tool. The generator can dynamically tailor the assignment according to the student's proficiencies. Obviously computers have tremendous potential for this type of interactive learning tool. In fact, two interactive assignment generators, CAPA and WebWorks, are currently in use at the University. Dr. Udo Schroeder of the Chemistry Department has developed another very novel active learning tool. In his Interactive Learning Notes (ILN), Dr. Schroeder places his lecture notes on-line and augments the notes with live simulations and links to related information. The student can customize the simulations and thereby boost their understanding of the central concepts.

These categories and examples provide a general idea of how computers are and will be used in university educational environments. Our University primarily uses computer technology to improve communication. We believe this will remain true for the next three to five years since the development of active learning tools requires considerable time. (Other CTLTR committees are investigating this issue.) This knowledge of computer use provides the context for the next section, which discusses Access for All solutions.

Access for All Solutions

The University already has a well developed computing infrastructure. The infrastructure consists of a set of centralized labs and computerized classrooms. The labs vary according to sizes and capabilities. Computer lab upgrades are in process at the time of this writing. Probable offerings for fall '98 include:

• Computing Library And Resources Center (CLARC).
  • The University's primary computing facility with approximately 80 machines. Heterogeneous mixture of Macs and PCs running Windows NT, including one all-Mac and one all-PC classroom for instructional use.
• Harkness Hall.
  • A 30-seat PC classroom.
• Undergraduate Writing Center.
  • Facility with 16 PowerMacs located in the basement of Morey - staffed with the intention of improving students' writing skills.
• Multi-Media Center (MMC).
  • Primary location for scanning images, digitizing sound and video, and producing multimedia on River Campus. Also hosts the Language Learning lab for the Modern Languages department. Is equipped with a range of PCs and Macs.
• Taylor Hall.
  • One 35-seat high-end Mac classroom running Virtual-PC (for cross-platform functionality), and another lab with 8 PowerMac clones. There is also a Technology Resource Center designed to aid faculty in their instructional technology endeavors.

These labs are connected to the internet and to the rest of campus through a high-performance FDDI network backbone. The labs are also usually staffed with consultants to help with problems.

The University also has several computerized classrooms, most notably Bausch and Lomb Room 407. This room was designed to support the new Physics by Inquiry class, where lectures are largely replaced by active experimentation. The room will also be available for other classes though.

The main computerized classrooms are Taylor Room 41 and Harkness Room 114. Taylor holds 35 Macintosh computers, installed with general purpose software like that found in CLARC. Harkness has 30 Microsoft Windows machines, each installed with specialized software support for various Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, and Economics classes. Classes can reserve the rooms for an entire semester or simply for a few class periods. In the past school year, these two classrooms have been reserved anywhere from 45% to 70% of the typical class time (see also Appendix 7).

Two years ago, the University augmented the existing computing infrastructure in a very important way. Ethernet connections were installed in all dormitory rooms. Students can now access the campus network and the internet directly from their dormitory room! The ResNet program administers these connections. Currently 1380 students participate in the ResNet program. This is 49% of the potential users, but the number can be expected to rise. Of the 1380 participants, 72% are freshman and sophomores. Students are more likely to join ResNet in their early years as they will have more time to benefit from the investment.

The Alternative: Mandatory Computers

Historically, universities have followed some type of centralized computer lab plan. In recent years, a new alternative has become feasible. Many universities are now requiring incoming students to purchase computers.

The major hurdle to mandatory computers is of course the cost. Universities cover the cost in various ways, for example by instituting a special "technology" fee. In general however, if the student can not immediately afford the computer, universities try to structure the requirement so that the cost can covered by financial aid. Any equipment mandated by the university can be included in the aid calculations.

With regard to implementation, the major question is whether to require laptops or desktops. Laptops provide a high level of access, albeit at a higher cost than desktops. Also the inherent mobility of laptops may necessitate other infrastructure changes. For instance, more network connections may be needed to ensure convenient access. Both laptops and desktops share several common problems though. First, the large number of machines and the distributed setting complicates any maintenance plan. Furthermore, the university must provide some type of fall-back plan in the event of a prolonged service request. Second, four years is a very long period in terms of technology development, and so students should be offered the opportunity to upgrade or replace their machines periodically. Again, an upgrade or replacement path is complicated by the distributed setting. Third, hardware and software standardization is probably required to fully leverage the large computer base. The standardization choices can be very difficult though.

These problems are also applicable to centralized labs. However, the lab scheme allows for flexible solutions. Maintenance and upgrades are simplified since the system is centralized and since students are not tied to only one computer.

Preliminary Conclusions

We have discussed our work at several meetings with student, including the Student Senate and the Residential College Committee. Based on the feedback, we feel the centralized lab scheme services our environment well. In considering pedagogical trends, we believe that centralized labs can continue to meet the University's computing needs for at least the next three to five years. Our current system however can be improved with two relatively modest changes. Also in this very dynamic environment, several looming issues need to be addressed.

First, as evidenced by the success of ResNet, many students already own their own computers. By more closely integrating campus labs with ResNet, the students' computers can be used to reduce the load on the central labs. Software in central labs are controlled through key servers. These servers allow the software to be run on any lab machine, while ensuring that only the purchased number of copies are concurrently active. By extending key server access to ResNet, students may access lab software directly from their dormitories. This can help reduce load on the labs and also lead to secondary benefits such as reduce lab maintenance and staff costs. Also, lab software could be accessed outside of normal hours.

Second, anecdotal evidence suggests that email and web surfing account for a large amount of lab usage. This transient use of the labs increases contention for machines and can sometimes detract from a serious work environment. Also for these tasks, the majority of lab computers are more powerful than necessary. We recommend that special "communication kiosks" be installed in high traffic campus areas. These kiosks are intended only for email and web surfing and so can be built with relatively modest equipment and expense. Their locations should be chosen to provide very convenient access, which will naturally promote their use. The intention is for the kiosks to reduce the load on the general labs, where the more powerful equipment and software can be better used for class work and research.

These two recommendations deal with our current environment. As we envision the environment changing over the years, two issues will rise in importance. First, off-campus computer users must use a special Internet Service Provider (ISP) in order to access private University materials. As on-line information increases, this arrangement may prove too restrictive. Second, as educational use of technology moves beyond basic productivity software, faculty will also require increased computer access.

Appendix 3

Cost estimate for implementing a Print Control system.

AUTHENTICATION

See Appendix 8 for detailed cost estimate.

PRINT QUOTA/CHARGING (Several solutions exist - two are listed)

• "Print Manager Plus" from Software Shelf International. www.softwareshelf.com. First license is $495, additional licenses $425. It is possible for one server to handle all print jobs, but may not provide ideal performance.
• "Print Accounting Server" from Software Metrics. www.metrics.com. Single server- $600. Enterprise server- $1200. This package allows for charging and billing.

PRINT QUOTA/ACCOUNTING SERVER

128MB (minimum) Windows NT server. Preferably Alpha, but some print packages may not run under Alpha. Otherwise, Dual P-II. $5000 should more than cover this. Check www.sagelec.com, www.dell.com for server pricing.

ADDITIONAL (POTENTIAL) COSTS

• Upgrading to Windows NT or Windows '95 (NT preferable) on PC's that do not yet have either OS. Up to $100 per machine.
• Network drop for the BDC/Print controller per lab. Unknown cost- check with UTD.
• Workstation or Server per lab for print control. $1800 minimum.
• Non-networked printer for single printer labs (will be connected to the server directly). $600 minimum.
• HP JetDirect box (3 port) for larger labs- keeps from having to purchase network ready printers. $120

Appendix 4

Summary of Technology Survey

Conducted by the College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable

In November 1997 the College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable distributed a technology survey to all College faculty in order to survey the current use of technology in teaching. A total of 65 faculty returned the survey forms, and a summary of their responses is presented here. The following list shows the distribution of Departments who responded to the survey (and the number of responses from these Departments):

Anthropology	2
Art and Art History	3
Biology	2
Biomedical Engineering	1
Brain and Cognitive Science	1
Chemical Engineering	1
Chemistry	3
Clinical and Social Psychology	7
Computer Science	3
Economics	1
Electrical Engineering	1
English	3
Mathematics	5
Mechanical Engineering	6
Modern Languages and Cultures	1
Music	2
Naval Science	4
Optics	2
Physics and Astronomy	7
Political Science	5
Religion and Classics	2
Unknown	3

1. General comments:

How would you rate the importance of technology to you as an instructor?

Unimportant	2%
Somewhat	32%
Important	29%
Very	22%
Crucial	15%

How would you rate the resources and support available for instructional technology at the University?

No Comment	8%
Hopeless	5%
Poor	26%
Adequate	43%
Good	15%
Excellent	3%

Do you have web-based course material on-line?

Yes	25%
No	71%
No Comment	5%

Have you developed instructional technology to enhance the classroom experience?

Yes	40%
No	55%
No Comment	5%

Where do you turn for help with, and resources for, instructional technology?

AMES	34%
Library	14%
Multimedia	20%
Peers	51%
UCC	23%
Students	14%
Conferences	3%

Are students adequately prepared to use the technology that you are incorporating into your course work?

Yes	66%
No	15%
No Comment	18%

Does student access (or lack of access) to technology affects your decision to use it in the classroom?

Yes	34%
No	52%
No Comment	14%

Would your use of instructional technology increase if you knew that each student had a desktop computer in their residence hall room?

Yes	46%
No	42%
No Comment	12%

Would your use of instructional technology increase if you knew that each student had a portable computer?

Yes	9%
No	62%
No Comment	29%

Have you evaluated the effects of educational technology in your courses?

Yes	20%
No	62%
No Comment	18%

2. Current use of technology:

All numbers are percentages of the total response. The numbers listed below "As is" show the fraction of faculty who are satisfied with their current use of a specific tool. The numbers listed under "Training", "Hardware", and "Software" show the fraction of faculty who are currently using these tools, but felt that their use of these tools could be improved by more training, more hardware, and more software.

Communication Tools:

	As is	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Email	75%	3%	0%	2%	80%
Newsgroups	29%	5%	0%	2%	35%
Listservers	26%	9%	0%	2%	37%

Web-based Course Materials:

	As is	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Assignments	20%	14%	0%	0%	34%
Lecture Notes	25%	15%	0%	0%	40%
Syllabi	26%	15%	0%	0%	42%
Readings	20%	15%	0%	0%	35%
Old Exams	22%	15%	0%	0%	37%

Software:

	As is	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Word processing (e.g. Word, WordPerfect)	83%	2%	0%	0%	85%
Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel, lotus, Quattro Pro)	54%	8%	0%	2%	63%
Database software (e.g. dBase, Access)	26%	0%	0%	0%	26%
Desktop publishing (e.g. Pagemaker)	15%	8%	2%	2%	26%
Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint, Persuasion)	32%	6%	0%	2%	40%
Animation software (e.g. Director)	5%	3%	0%	5%	12%
3D Modeling software (e.g. Ray Dream Designer, Bryce)	2%	3%	0%	6%	11%
Courseware authoring tools (e.g. Toolbook, Hypercard)	5%	5%	0%	5%	14%
Web Authoring software (e.g. PageMill, Netscape Gold)	18%	5%	0%	8%	31%
Image digitizing/editing software (e.g. Photoshop)	14%	5%	0%	5%	23%
Drawing/illustration software (e.g. Illustrator, CorelDraw)	20%	5%	0%	8%	32%
Video digitizing/editing software (e.g. Premiere)	5%	3%	0%	5%	12%
Sound digitizing/editing software (e.g. Finale)	5%	0%	0%	5%	9%
Statistical software (e.g. SAS, Minitab, SPSS)	20%	3%	0%	5%	28%
Mathematical software (e.g. Gauss, Mathematica, Matlab)	20%	2%	0%	6%	28%
CD-ROM Production	5%	3%	5%	0%	12%

Display and Projection Tools:

	As is	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Overhead	78%	0%	3%	0%	82%
Slide	48%	0%	3%	0%	51%
Film	32%	0%	2%	0%	34%
TV	26%	0%	5%	0%	31%
Video	34%	2%	14%	0%	49%
Computer display/projection	11%	3%	14%	0%	28%

3. Future use of technology:

All numbers are percentages of the total response. The numbers listed under "Training", "Hardware", and "Software" show the fraction of faculty who might use these tools in the future, but need training, hardware, or software before being able to implement these tools.

Communication Tools:

	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Email	2%	2%	2%	5%
Newsgroups	9%	0%	2%	11%
Listservers	9%	0%	5%	14%

Web-based Course Materials:

	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Assignments	22%	0%	14%	35%
Lecture Notes	20%	0%	9%	29%
Syllabi	22%	0%	11%	32%
Readings	23%	2%	8%	32%
Old Exams	20%	2%	5%	26%

Software:

	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Word processing (e.g. Word, WordPerfect)	0%	0%	2%	2%
Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel, lotus, Quattro Pro)	2%	0%	5%	6%
Database software (e.g. dBase, Access)	0%	0%	5%	5%
Desktop publishing (e.g. Pagemaker)	14%	0%	2%	15%
Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint, Persuasion)	11%	0%	2%	12%
Animation software (e.g. Director)	9%	0%	5%	14%
3D Modeling software (e.g. Ray Dream Designer, Bryce)	5%	0%	3%	8%
Courseware authoring tools (e.g. Toolbook, Hypercard)	11%	0%	3%	14%
Web Authoring software (e.g. PageMill, Netscape Gold)	17%	0%	2%	18%
Image digitizing/editing software (e.g. Photoshop)	17%	0%	5%	22%
Drawing/illustration software (e.g. Illustrator, CorelDraw)	17%	0%	0%	17%
Video digitizing/editing software (e.g. Premiere)	12%	2%	0%	14%
Sound digitizing/editing software (e.g. Finale)	5%	0%	2%	6%
Statistical software (e.g. SAS, Minitab, SPSS)	5%	0%	2%	6%
Mathematical software (e.g. Gauss, Mathematica, Matlab)	8%	2%	3%	12%
CD-ROM Production	14%	2%	3%	18%

Display and Projection Tools:

	Training	Hardware	Software	Total
Overhead	3%	0%	2%	5%
Slide	2%	3%	0%	5%
Film	2%	2%	0%	3%
TV	2%	3%	0%	5%
Video	8%	3%	0%	11%
Computer display/projection	25%	22%	0%	46%

4. Do not know/Do not need:

All numbers are percentages of the total response.

Communication Tools:

	Don't know	Don't need
Email	0%	5%
Newsgroups	11%	25%
Listservers	14%	22%

Web-based Course Materials:

	Don't know	Don't need
Assignments	8%	14%
Lecture Notes	8%	12%
Syllabi	6%	11%
Readings	6%	15%
Old Exams	6%	18%

Software:

	Don't know	Don't need
Word processing (e.g. Word, WordPerfect)	0%	2%
Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel, lotus, Quattro Pro)	3%	17%
Database software (e.g. dBase, Access)	9%	28%
Desktop publishing (e.g. Pagemaker)	11%	31%
Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint, Persuasion)	12%	14%
Animation software (e.g. Director)	15%	37%
3D Modeling software (e.g. Ray Dream Designer, Bryce)	18%	35%
Courseware authoring tools (e.g. Toolbook, Hypercard)	22%	31%
Web Authoring software (e.g. PageMill, Netscape Gold)	14%	20%
Image digitizing/editing software (e.g. Photoshop)	12%	23%
Drawing/illustration software (e.g. Illustrator, CorelDraw)	9%	17%
Video digitizing/editing software (e.g. Premiere)	14%	35%
Sound digitizing/editing software (e.g. Finale)	12%	48%
Statistical software (e.g. SAS, Minitab, SPSS)	6%	35%
Mathematical software (e.g. Gauss, Mathematica, Matlab)	11%	31%
CD-ROM Production	15%	32%

Display and Projection Tools:

	Don't know	Don't need
Overhead	0%	9%
Slide	0%	35%
Film	2%	49%
TV	0%	51%
Video	2%	29%
Computer display/projection	3%	12%

5. ResTV.

The survey also included a number of questions related to ResTV, which is currently being installed on campus, which will provide student access to a number of educational channels, and also allows U of R to broadcast materials on a number of channels. A summary of the results of this part of the survey is given here.

If cable TV with educational channels were available, providing cable access to all residence halls and classrooms, would you use this as part of your instruction?

Yes	17%
No	51%
Do no know	17%

Some details of those who answered YES to the above question:

* Departments:

Art and Art History

Clinical and Social Psychology.

Mechanical Engineering

Modern Languages and Cult.

Music

Naval Science

Political Science

Religion and Classics

* Channels to be used:

A&E	36%
Bravo	9%
C-SPAN1	27%
C-SPAN2	27%
CNBC	27%
CNN	55%
Deutsche Welle	18%
Discovery Channel	36%
Int'l Channel Network	9%
Learning Channel	36%
MSNBC	27%
NASA	18%
Weather Channel	9%

* Would you view programs during class time?

Yes	55%
No	45%

* Would you assign programs for viewing outside the classroom?

Yes	82%
No	18%

* Would you have your classes taped for later viewing?

Yes	36%
No	64%

* Would you be interested in broadcasting class specific materials?

Yes	36%
No	64%

Appendix 5

Details of evaluation of email tools carried out by the Email Standards Task Force

(the full report is available at http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ctltr/ProjectsSpring98/EmailStandards/EmailTaskForce.html)

Criteria of Tools Available for Electronic Mail

This section discusses the important characteristics of email tools that need to be satisfied in order to address the various needs of faculty and students. Independent of a formal interview process on the subject, it seems clear that there are some agreed to criteria for selection of these tools. These criteria include the following:

• should be free (no cost)
• should have reasonable on-line documentation
• should be stable and supported by a vendor as well as the University, preferably across multiple platforms
• a reasonably small set of endorsed e-mail tools shall be available in public labs with front-end authentication to enable secured pop mail (e.g. a SecureID type of tool)
• should meet the needs of either desktop or laptop portability and docking issues
• should recognize standards for e-mail
• should have a simple graphical interface where possible
• should have common, non-proprietary encoding/decoding mechanisms
• should be easy to use for day-to-day mail functions
• should provide easy to use directory services
• should not result in non-e-mail purchases such as memory upgrades
• should be able to read content that has styles (e.g. bold, italic, and font size)

The options that satisfy most of these criteria are Netscape Communicator, Internet Explorer, and Eudora Light. They are all free and run on both the Macintosh and PC platform.

Tests Performed Between Tools and Platforms

In order to evaluate the various email tools that are available, and satisfy most of the criteria outlined above, we have carried out a number of email tests between PC and MAC platforms. We installed Netscape Communicator, Internet Explorer, and Eudora Light on both platforms, and exchanged Microsoft Word and Excel files via a POP server running on a Macintosh (AIMS server). All PC applications ran on a Pentium running NT4. The MAC applications ran on a PowerMac running OS 7.5.5 and on a PowerBook running OS 8. Netscape Communicator 4 and Internet Explorer 4 were used as the browsers on both platforms. The latest version of Eudora Light (Eudora Light 3.05) was also used on both platforms. The following table summarizes the results of these tests.

			Email tools	used by the	recipient
		Eudora MAC	Eudora PC	Netscape MAC	Netscape PC	IE MAC	IE PC
	Eudora MAC	OK	OK	OK (name problem)	OK	FAIL	WORD OK EXCEL NO
Email	Eudora PC	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
tools	Netscape MAC	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	WORD OK EXCEL NO
used by	Netscape PC	OK	OK	OK	OK	FAIL	OK
sender	IE MAC	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
	IE PC	OK	OK	OK	OK	FAIL	OK

E-mail Package Selection Results

Clearly, no one package or host will meet all of the criteria outlined above. Also, note that security is not addressed since e-mail is recognized as inherently not secure. While this is a very controversial issue that is now receiving media attention, it is beyond the scope of our task to address. Based on the previously mentioned criteria and our test results we have concluded that the that the following two packages will satisfy our goals of "seamless" email between faculty and students:

• Eudora Light {available at http://www.eudora.com/eudoralight/#download}
  • Stability could be questioned since it is free and is a competitor with QualComm's own Eudora Pro product. If cost is not an issue, you may wish to refer to retail locations via web location http://www.eudora.com/buying/us.html#retail or for estimated prices, web location http://www.eudora.com/buying/prices.html.
  • Usage on a desktop presents usage considerations. If you have a portable laptop that you always use for e-mail both at work and at home, this is not an issue. However, if you are working on different client machines at home and at work, downloading mail from a server may result in having two In-Boxes and non-centralized e-mail filing systems if you like to file your messages.
  • Eudora Light does not support all encoding/decoding mechanisms (e.g. UUencode). As a result, a native UNIX e-mail user may send attachments that you cannot read, and in fact, may scramble junk inline with the e-mail message. While there are decoding tools, they present extra steps. Eudora Pro eliminates most, if not all of these concerns.
  • Quite weak in the area of directory services.

• Netscape Communicator {available at http://home.netscape.com/}
  • Similar to Eudora with regard to lack of portability for desktops.
  • Stronger than Eudora Light in its support of (LDAP x.500) directory services which allow people to connect to Microsoft Exchange mail systems to inquire on addresses. it may be advantageous for you to be able to Search these mail systems' "Global Address Book" by name, get an e-mail address, and add it to your personal address book. Eudora Pro supports LDAP as well but does not allow the user to send mail without the HTML gunk.
  • As with Eudora Pro, much stronger in terms of allowing a sender to select an encoding mechanism.
  • May be an area of concern for PC users with only 16 Mb RAM. It does run okay, but does increase the amount of swapping that Windows 95 does (very perceptibly).
  • Enables the user to select HTML sensitivity at their address book level.

Appendix 6

College Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable

Technology Expectations

Report of Findings

Charge

The Technology Expectations subgroup of the College Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable was charged with evaluating the need to establish some minimum technology requirements for incoming freshman

Initial Findings

Upon initial discussion, members of the task force determined that establishing requirements for incoming freshman would be a difficult to impossible task. Instead, the group decided to focus our efforts on determining some minimum expectations that faculty could make of students that would take their courses. Also, the group decided that rather than expect students to meet these needs on their own, the best way to insure that needs were met was to make sure that training was provided that helped students gain the technological proficiency required of them.

Our initial reaction was that the following types of training would need to be offered:

• Macintosh Operating System
• Windows 95 Operating System
• Microsoft Word
• Microsoft Excel
• Microsoft Powerpoint
• Introduction to your UNIX account
• Introduction to Internet applications
• Voyager and other research tools

Course of Action

It was determined that feedback would need to be gathered from both faculty and students in order to determine the broadest base of technological expectations. The Technology Expectations subgroup presented at a meeting of the SA Senate, to the RCC and participated in the CTLTR Open Discussion on Campus Technology. In addition, feedback from faculty was solicited via e-mail to department administrators and through the UCC liaison program.

Questions that were asked of these groups were:

• What software packages do you wish you/students had learned in order to better do coursework
• What kinds of expectations do you have of students/faculty have of you regarding technology and computer usage - things expected o know without having it taught in class?
• How often are these expectations met?
• Which of the following types of classes would you find it helpful to have students attend/to have attended prior to taking your classes? (list of topics provided based on our initial list)
• Please list any additional training you feel should be offered.
• When is the best time to provide training sessions?

[The following were asked of Faculty only]

• Do you currently hand out a paper syllabus on the first day of classes or expect students to find it on the web?
• Do you currently advertise any technology expectations in course descriptions?
• If courses in various technologies were offered, would you encourage students in your classes to attend these training sessions?

Feedback Summary

Although the number of persons responding to our attempts to gather information was limited, the feedback was extremely useful. Much of it reinforced our original thoughts, but some provided new ideas on methods of training, mechanisms for providing information and information about how to schedule any future training sessions.

• Software training is entirely dependent upon discipline and actual courses enrolled.
• Basic coverage of operating systems, Microsoft Office, Internet, UNIX accounts and research tools were always welcome
• Any training sessions need to be provided early in the fall, but not too early as many freshman don't have set schedules for at least two weeks.
• Instruction on specific features of software that are required for a course should be taught as part of that course to reinforce the necessity of that technology.
• Training should be on-going so that a student who thinks they understand a package can later take a training class if they find their skills are not sufficient.
• UNIX account usage needs to be taught very early - a demo table at Orientation during account handout would be helpful - as students are expected to use the web and e-mail immediately.
• Faculty need to tell students what technology is required of them - most likely place would be on their syllabus.
• Faculty should also encourage any relevant training sessions offered so that students will feel more compelled to attend. Also so students realize that the training session will help them within the context of that course.
• Freshman mailings or handouts at Orientation could contain handouts in basic skills in some packages that are expected of all students. Then a student could use the summer to learn some skills on their own.
• Classes can be taught through UCC, the Library, Multi Media Center and CIF to provide smaller student/teacher interactive sessions.
• Videos can be made or purchased that provide basics in some applications and broadcast through the campus channels on ResTV.
• On-line tutorials for some applications can be encourages as a training mechanism.
• Additional topics that faculty (responses from 9) would like to see: STATA (or something similar), scanning, web-page construction, soundEdit, Imaging software, Acrobat Exchange, E-mail attachments, SPSS, SAS

Summary

After a number of open discussions and presentations, as well as requests for feedback, no definitive answer can be given regarding how to best provide an overview of technology requirements that students should possess in order to perform well in classes. Many different suggestions have been made regarding methods for training, timing of training and the specific training requirements. Since feedback was limited in scope, it appears that the best mechanism for conveying technological expectations would be for the professors to include the minimum requirements on a paper syllabus handed out the first day of class, as well as on their course web site. In order to provide training appropriate to faculty needs, general courses in the basics will need to be provided throughout the first 4-6 weeks of every semester. These courses need to be highly advertised, both at the student and faculty level. Faculty will need to encourage students to attend courses that benefit their syllabus. Other training methods, such as on-line tutorials and video-taped training classes should also be available and advertised. For each training course, the specific skills that will be covered need to be documented so that faculty can make sure that the course meets the needs of their students and so that students can determine if the course is necessary.

Next Steps

• Create informational sheets to be supplied to incoming freshmen at orientation regarding skills expected of them.
• Work with UCC to set up a demo area during account handout that will provide initial training on using their UHURA account.
• Set up a schedule of training for Fall to cover material necessary to provide students with the basic skills needed for the majority of courses offered.

Appendix 7

Usage of the UCC Computerized Class Rooms

Taylor 41

Taylor Room 41 (35 seat Macintosh lab/classroom) was open from

• Monday - Thursday 8am - 12midnight
• Friday 8am - 6pm
• Sunday 12noon - 12midnight

for a total of 86 hours per week.

Class Usage (all semester):

• For Spring 1998:
  • Monday 9 am - 12 noon SA151
  • Monday 12 noon - 2 pm FS197Q
  • Monday 2 pm - 4 pm EES214(?)
  • Monday 4 pm - 6 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 11 am - 6 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 6 pm - 7:30 pm CSC171
  • Wednesday 9 am - 12 noon SA151
  • Wednesday 2 pm - 4 pm EES214
  • Wednesday 5 pm - 6 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 11 am - 6 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 6 pm - 7:30 pm CSC171
  • Friday 12 noon - 1 pm EE171
  • Friday 2 pm - 4:30 pm EE171

The total time reserved for classes is 35.5 hours (41% of the total available time). Of the 50 hours that comprises typical class times (M-F, 8am - 6pm), 32.5 hours are reserved (65% of the total available time).

• For Fall 1997:
  • Monday 9 am - 12 noon SA151
  • Monday 12:30 pm - 2 pm CSC108
  • Monday 2 pm - 3:30 pm FS196Q
  • Monday 3:30 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 11 am - 4:45 pm CSC172
  • Tuesday 4:45 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Wednesday 9 am - 12 noon SA151
  • Wednesday 12:30 pm - 2 pm CSC108
  • Wednesday 2 pm - 3 pm FS196Q
  • Wednesday 3:30 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 11 am - 4:45 pm CSC172
  • Thursday 4:45 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Friday 12 noon - 1 pm EE171
  • Friday 2 pm - 3 pm EE171
  • Friday 4 pm - 5 pm EE171

The total time reserved for classes is 39.5 hours (46% of the total available time). Of the 50 hours that comprises typical class times (M-F, 8am - 6pm), 33.5 hours are reserved (67% of the total available time).

Software used for classes in Taylor 41 are:

• SA151 Photoshop, Director, Illustrator, SoundEdit
• FS197Q Netscape, Word, Photoshop, Director
• EES214 Netscape
• CSC108 Netscape, telnet, Office, Visual C++
• CSC171 Netscape, telnet
• CSC172 Netscape, telnet, Code Warrior
• EE171 telnet

Harkness 114

Harkness 114 (30 seat IBM classroom/lab) was open from

• Monday - Thursday 10 am - 1 am
• Friday 10 am - 10 pm
• Saturday 11 am - 7 pm
• Sunday 12 noon - 9 pm

for a total of 89 hours. The hours from 10am until 6pm Monday - Friday are UNMANNED, meaning that there are no UCC student consultant on duty to assist people. In addition, graduate students in Economics can continue to use the room after it is closed by getting the key from their department. They are then held responsible for the room after UCC closes.

Class Usage (all semester):

• For Spring 1998:
  • Monday 12:30 pm - 1:30 pm ECO485
  • Monday 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm MTH215
  • Monday 5 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 12:30 pm - 3:30 pm CSC171
  • Tuesday 3:30 pm - 4:45 pm ME110
  • Tuesday 5 pm - 6 pm MTH215
  • Tuesday 6 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Wednesday 1:45 pm - 3:15 pm MTH215
  • Wednesday 4:45 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 9:30 am - 12:30 pm PPA410(?)
  • Thursday 12:30 pm - 3:30 pm CSC171
  • Thursday 3:30 pm - 4:45 pm ECO231
  • Thursday 6:15 pm - 7:30 pm CSC108
  • Friday 9:30 am - 11 am ECO231
  • Friday 2 pm - 3:30 pm ECO231

The total time reserved for classes is 28 hours (31% of the total available time). Of the 50 hours that comprises typical class times (M-F, 8am - 6pm), 22.25 hours are reserved (45% of the total available time).

• For Fall 1997
  • Monday 12 noon - 1 pm CSC108
  • Monday 3:30 pm - 6 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 9:30 am - 11 am PPA403
  • Tuesday 11 am - 12:30 pm CSC108
  • Tuesday 4:45 pm - 6 pm WS100
  • Wednesday 12 noon - 1 pm CSC108
  • Wednesday 3:30 pm - 6 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 11 am - 12:30 pm CSC108
  • Thursday 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm ECO231
  • Thursday 3:30 pm - 4:45 pm ME110
  • Friday 9 am - 12 noon CSP211
  • Friday 12 noon - 1 pm CSC108
  • Friday 1 pm - 2 pm ECO231
  • Friday 2 pm - 3:30 pm BSC200
  • Friday 5 pm - 6 pm ECO231

The total time reserved for classes is 22.75 hours (26% of the total available time). Of the 50 hours that comprises typical class times (M-F, 8am - 6pm), 22.75 hours are reserved (45% of the total available time).

Software used for classes in Harkness are:

• ECO485 Gauss (only available in Harkness)
• MTH215 Winfract (only available in Harkness)
• CSC108 Netscape, telnet, Office, Visual C++
• CSC171 Netscape, telnet
• ME110 Microstation (only available in Harkness)
• PPA410 telnet to Prev Medicine for SAS
• BSC200 SAS 6.12
• WS100 Netscape, telnet
• PPA403 Quattro Pro, STATA (only available in Harkness)
• CSP211 SPSS for Windows (only available in Harkness)
• ECO231 Excel w/ special add-ons only available in Harkness

As you can see, the majority of classes taught in Harkness rely on software that is only available in that classroom.

Appendix 8

Cost estimate for implementing a User Authentication System:

• Success is contingent on SyNTUnix - password synchronization software:

Note: High Security risk

cost $595 per server

at least 2 would be required to begin (UHURA and one

NT Primary Name Controller/GOLD )

(Probable total = $1200)

Software synchronizes passwords by distributing to each SyNTUnix machine - therefore copies of uhura passwords would be stored on the NT machine

• For any Macs that require authentication:

Cost of "DAVE" software

$149 each, although educational pricing available

(Probable total = $3500 for ~100 Macs)

Would require update and confirmation

• * Backup Domain Controller for each lab:

An NT server machine w/ software

cost - about $2500 per server

and $100 per NT license

and $595 for SyNTUnix license

(Probable total = $12,800 [$3200 per lab for 4 labs] plus $600 = $13,400)

Estimated Grand Total Cost = ~$18,100 [$1200 + $3500 + $13,400]