First Annual Report of the College Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable (CTLTR)
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:
Carrie Regenstein - Dean's Office and University Computing Center (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Frank Wolfs - Physics and Astronomy (email@example.com)
* Faculty members:
Thomas DiPiero - Modern Languages and Cultures (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Nancy Perkins - Political Science (email@example.com)
* Undergraduate Students:
Melissa Guyre - Media Studies (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Steven Lewis - Mathematics (email@example.com)
Benjamin Pass - Political Science and History (firstname.lastname@example.org)
* Undergraduate Teaching Assistants:
Matt Stanley - Optics and Religion (email@example.com)
* Graduate Teaching Assistants:
Robert Stets - Computer Science (firstname.lastname@example.org)
* College Curriculum Committee:
Frank Wolfs - Physics and Astronomy (email@example.com)
* University Computing Center:
Eric Likness (firstname.lastname@example.org)
* Registrar's Office:
* Academic Media and Event Support (AMES):
Bill Harcleroad (email@example.com)
Lisa Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Stephanie Frontz (email@example.com)
* University Telecommunication Division (UTD):
Norm Acunis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
* Dean's Office:
* Vice Provost for Computing:
Ed Titlebaum - Electrical Engineering (email@example.com)
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
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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
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).
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:
College Teaching Leaning & Technology Roundtable Workshop
Responses to Question #1
What are the priorities in technology and learning? (Top 4)
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
See Appendix 8 for detailed cost estimate.
PRINT QUOTA/CHARGING (Several solutions exist - two are listed)
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
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):
|Art and Art History||3|
|Brain and Cognitive Science||1|
|Clinical and Social Psychology||7|
|Modern Languages and Cultures||1|
|Physics and Astronomy||7|
|Religion and Classics||2|
1. General comments:
How would you rate the importance of technology to you as an instructor?
How would you rate the resources and support available for instructional technology at the University?
Do you have web-based course material on-line?
Have you developed instructional technology to enhance the classroom experience?
Where do you turn for help with, and resources for, instructional technology?
Are students adequately prepared to use the technology that you are incorporating into your course work?
Does student access (or lack of access) to technology affects your decision to use it in the classroom?
Would your use of instructional technology increase if you knew that each student had a desktop computer in their residence hall room?
Would your use of instructional technology increase if you knew that each student had a portable computer?
Have you evaluated the effects of educational technology in your courses?
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.
Web-based Course Materials:
|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%|
Display and Projection Tools:
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.
Web-based Course Materials:
|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%|
Display and Projection Tools:
4. Do not know/Do not need:
All numbers are percentages of the total response.
|Don't know||Don't need|
Web-based Course Materials:
|Don't know||Don't need|
|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%|
Display and Projection Tools:
|Don't know||Don't need|
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?
|Do no know||17%|
Some details of those who answered YES to the above question:
Art and Art History
Clinical and Social Psychology.
Modern Languages and Cult.
Religion and Classics
* Channels to be used:
|Int'l Channel Network||9%|
* Would you view programs during class time?
* Would you assign programs for viewing outside the classroom?
* Would you have your classes taped for later viewing?
* Would you be interested in broadcasting class specific materials?
(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:
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|
|tools||Netscape MAC||OK||OK||OK||OK||OK||WORD OK EXCEL NO|
|used by||Netscape 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:
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
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:
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:
[The following were asked of Faculty only]
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.
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.
Taylor Room 41 (35 seat Macintosh lab/classroom) was open from
for a total of 86 hours per week.
Class Usage (all semester):
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).
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:
Harkness 114 (30 seat IBM classroom/lab) was open from
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):
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).
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:
As you can see, the majority of classes taught in Harkness rely on software that is only available in that classroom.
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
Cost of "DAVE" software
$149 each, although educational pricing available
(Probable total = $3500 for ~100 Macs)
Would require update and confirmation
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]