TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE III
FINAL REPORT
May 2002
TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE III
FINAL REPORT
May 2002
Task Force Members:
Dan Drenkow, Chairperson
Sharon Gray
Deb Hagemeier
Julie Luebke
Richard Swanson
Arlen VisteTable of Contents
The Technology Task Force Report is intended to be used as a “Guide To Action” for enhancing technology on campus. It is the hope and intent that this report provides guidance to the college when faced with questions of technology goals and issues. This report provides a summary of the status and current uses of technology across Augustana and outlines a plan for the next five years in each major area. In keeping with Augustana’s mission, as funding has been available, technologies have been embraced that enhance and support the teaching, learning, research, and services of the college.
Starting with the 1992-93 academic year and again in 1997-98, a Technology Task Force (TTF) was formed to prepare successive five-year plans for technology developments at Augustana. The resulting TTF reports have served the college well as the blueprints for major technology decisions since that time. Building upon the success of this planning process, the TTF3 was formed in 2001-02 to once again survey the status of technology implementation at Augustana College and to chart a course of action for the next five years. Using a combination of technology demonstrations, surveys, site visits, and other research, the TTF3 has developed a comprehensive understanding of what is currently available and what it believes will be possible within the next five years.
The academic environment includes faculty and student applications in the areas of teaching, learning, and research. This includes labs, smart carts/classrooms, videoconferencing, Bush grants, and many other areas.
Several significant facility changes have occurred during the past five years that affect the academic environment. One important step was the construction of the Madsen Center and the creation of two 30-seat teaching/general use labs in 1999. Two smart classrooms were also created as part of the Madsen Center project. The IS Department was consolidated and relocated to the lower level of the Madsen Center next to the computer labs. A Help Desk using student workers was established to serve the entire campus and is supervised by an IS staff member. Other recent facility enhancements include the development of two additional smart classrooms in the Gilbert Science Center and the installation of PictureTel videoconferencing capability in the Library.
Funding provided by the Bush Faculty Development grant in 1999 allowed the college to employ an Educational Technologist. This person supports and encourages the faculty in their efforts to incorporate and implement technological aspects in their courses. The Educational Technologist has been instrumental in the adoption of WebCT as the standard campus distance learning and online support interface.
Several benchmark surveys have been completed including an Instructional Technology Survey (1999), Smart Cart Use Survey (Jan./Feb. 2001), and Student Technology Survey (Feb. 2002). Survey results are found in Appendix B. These surveys have provided valuable insights into the perceptions of the campus community. The Instructional Technology Survey indicated that 99% of the faculty respondents agree that technology enhances student learning, but 39% are apprehensive about using technology. The Train the Trainer model proposed by the TTF2 has progressed according to this survey, which reports that 61% of those encountering computer problems contacted a colleague.
The Smart Cart Use Survey (Appendix B) and the Student Technology Survey have both expressed the need and desire for additional smart classrooms in all classroom buildings. The TTF3 recommends adding two or three smart classrooms per year until we approach saturation of effective use. At that point upgrades and replacements will become the focus of support.
During the past five years, we have steadily acquired PCs and Macs for faculty offices primarily through the regular Information Systems (IS) budget. These computer configurations have included basic productivity software and current web browsers to access the Internet and web-based library resources. The current pace of upgrade and replacement of PCs and Macs at faculty desks (1/8 per year or greater) is satisfactory and meets most users’ needs. The TTF3 recommends continuing the pace while monitoring the increasing desirability of laptop units for faculty offices.
Also during the past five years, the primary computer labs have been upgraded with new equipment at a rate of 1/3 per year, resulting in equipment in the labs being no more than 3 years old. Through a variety of favorable pricing negotiations and situations, replacement rate has exceeded expectations. The current pace of upgrade and replacement of computer lab systems is adequate and provides an important stream of equipment for reallocation for the campus as a whole. However, the Student Technology Survey (Appendix B) has indicated that nearly two-thirds of the students have computers in their dorm rooms. In addition, all dorms have small computer labs funded by student fees. This leads the TTF3 to speculate about the ongoing need for dedicated computer labs in all classroom buildings. In particular, the faculty in the Humanities building has indicated a desire to modify the computer lab to fit the needs of faculty and students. The TTF3 recommends that the Humanities building be first priority for change.
The residence halls were all wired for Ethernet and cable TV by Fall 1999 and the students have made increasing use of these fee-based capabilities. As of Spring 2002, approximately 500 residents pay $175 per year for Ethernet connections. The Student Technology Survey (Appendix B) indicated that while nearly two-thirds of the students have computers in their rooms, only half of them use the campus network.
The TTF3 affirms the need to encourage strong and appropriate use of technology by faculty and students wherever it is effective. It is not our goal to become a 100% Microsoft campus. Instead, we recognize a need to foster diversity of platforms such as Macintosh, Linux, and Unix. This is not easy to accomplish in today’s world. For example, our central Unix-based system (inst) is aging and has been targeted for phasing out, but some on campus feel that a Unix system should be maintained to support more intense academic computing needs. The prevailing industry trend in information technology is to move toward a central directory that provides the connectivity to distributed tools and systems. In this situation high-level support such as training and troubleshooting for a diversity of products may not be feasible, but faculty and students are not forced to use only supported products. In 2002 IS will publish a revised supported software list.
Some departmental budgets now include a line item for specialized software, but the IS Committee would like to support creative projects that go beyond department funding. For example, the Chemistry Department would like to introduce one or two SGI workstations (or similar technology) for strong graphics work such as scientific modeling. It is our goal to cultivate an innovative consciousness in our academic environment by keeping an evaluative perspective on hardware and software opportunities and developments. Because opportunities for change are often unexpected and speculative, we must continue to invest seed money in order to maintain an innovative edge. The TTF3 recommends making annual allocations of IS funding to support creativity.
Administrative support includes staff, faculty, and student applications in the areas of registration, business operations, advancement, student services, human resources, admissions, and plant operations.
Since 1988 Augustana’s administrative computing systems have run on a third-party software system written by CARS Information Systems (CARS). CARS (along with a number of other college administrative systems) was purchased in 2000 by Jenzabar, an Internet portal company. Jenzabar’s stated development direction is toward more integrated, intelligent, internet-based solutions for higher education. Although database independence is also a stated direction, both Informix and the Unix-based operating system on which CARS currently runs have allowed us versatility, reliability and performance and are not platforms we are likely to move away from in the foreseeable future. Recent changes in Jenzabar’s calculation of annual maintenance fees have added significant budget pressure, however, and this will impact our purchasing decisions for new modules in the future.
Jenzabar continues to push into new areas, especially the merging of administrative and academic computing systems through the creation of a campus portal solution. In a portal environment the student administrative data (registrations, billings, records, card access) are more accessible to the campus and are provided along with online course management views and tools. The Educational Technologist and WebCT Committee feel that Jenzabar’s current offerings are not on par with WebCT, but the issues of enhanced features and affordability should be revisited from time to time.
Current plans are to go live with the new CARS Human Resources Payroll module over Summer 2002 and to implement the Position Control portion of the module as the features become available. We have also purchased a site license for the Cognos Suite of report writing tools and three MIS and Business Office staff members have attended the training. It is anticipated that CARS will eventually be better able to deliver timely management-level data to the user desktop than has previously been possible without MIS intervention. With the exception of dumb terminals still in use by the admissions telemarketers, all CARS users are now using PCs. Most of the staff use the graphical interface and many tie CARS to PC-based productivity software. This new and evolving environment makes better use of the campus intranet to exchange information and provides access to users from off-campus.
With a new Vice President in the Advancement area as of August 2002, there may be added interest in enhancing the CARS Alumni/Development module. Visual Basic modules have been available for Campaign Management, Planned Giving and Grantsmanship, but Augustana has chosen not to purchase them in that format. The overall movement away from the client-server based operations toward web-based presentations may make these modules worth another look. It is expected that the Web Advancement Officer module will be discussed and promoted at the NACU conference in June 2002. This module has developed beyond being simply an historical reporting and accounting system to being focused on assisting fund-raisers to become more efficient and effective.
One area of enhancement we may wish to consider in the next few years is the CARS Web Admission application. We are currently using a web-based form that does not directly load into the database. A significant number of applications are arriving via the web form and we will want to review whether or not to move in the direction of the CARS module as development time becomes available.
We have already implemented many of the functions of Web Student and Faculty Information, Registration and Advising. Additional enhancements now available without extra software expenditures include student accounts billing information, financial aid information and web grading. On-line credit card payments through Authorize.net’s relationship with CARS have also recently been made available for subscription.
Each CARS integration and module implementation has associated purchase, training, implementation, and maintenance factors that must be weighed against effective use of resources for the college. In light of the current circumstances of the Jenzabar/CARS organization, we may need to consider various alternatives as they arise. However, the scenario of using customized options presents its own challenges because of the diversity of the knowledge base required of staff to support each unique and independent software solution. The TTF3 recommends continued monitoring of CARS developments and strategic planning for implementation of new modules.
Data marts are an interesting emerging area of the CARS system and may offer a great opportunity to simplify the user interface and increase the usability of the report generator tools. These tools offer drill-through graphical presentations of data based on function. Currently in development are marts relating to recruitment, enrollment, retention, financial aid, instruction, residence life, financial budgeting, staffing analysis, donor cultivation, and giving analysis.
As was addressed in the last TTF report, a number of offices on campus have large quantities of paper records that need to be archived in a useable format. As the paper files grow, it is imperative that we consider alternatives for storage and retrieval of this information. We need to determine the best solution to meet our imaging needs whether it is CARS or something else.
As we expand the capabilities available on our CARS system and as the system ages, we will need to replace the hardware portion of this system. We generally expect a life of four to five years on these systems. Our current system was installed in the first quarter of 1999, meaning we need to plan for its replacement by at least 2004. The TTF3 recommends replacement of the CARS Unix server in FY 2003-04.
Another aspect of administrative support is conferences and meetings of both on-campus and off-campus groups. Currently the Scheduling and Conferences office uses a software package called CEO to schedule events on campus that require various college services. This software meets only the very basic needs of this office and a replacement or upgrade is highly desirable.
The Scheduling and Conferences office has plans to enhance their system to support their efforts to coordinate all events on and off campus through their office. It is hoped that newer software will assist with the coordination of a public events calendar that can be made available on the college web site, but more active participation from Public Events is needed for data entry, design, and maintenance. The TTF 3 recommends making a campus events calendar a high priority for the sake of the whole college community.
Campus Safety has been creating student ID’s using Access 2000 (formerly Special Teams), but this company has been sold to Blackboard and the system we are using is being discontinued in August 2002. A replacement system is needed that will provide student and employee identification for use of food service, library services, athletic events, vending, and dorm access.
The amount of material printed on campus has increased dramatically over recent years and the demand for readily available high quality printers has increased. The low-resolution inkjet/laser options are still sufficient for some individual users and basic text, but we have moved to networked high-resolution, high-speed laser printers in most areas to support more varied printing needs. As the demand for more feature-rich printing grows, and copiers become more network-friendly, Augustana has also begun to find ways to merge printing and copying functions. Recently, we have begun to replace campus copiers with combined printer/copier/scanner technology. Because these combination systems reduce our overall per sheet cost, it will be more cost-effective to continue to integrate them with printing technology. The TTF3 recommends continued implementation of printer/copier/scanner technology where possible.
Library support includes information services such as an online library catalog, web-based library resources, and electronic delivery of information to students, faculty, and staff.
The Mikkelsen Library has been a member of the South Dakota Library Network (SDLN) since 1989. SDLN consists of over 50 member libraries of various types using the same system software to manage library services. Up to this point the network has been operating with a Unisys central server using their proprietary operating system. The Mikkelsen Library has nearly 30 staff workstations interacting with SDLN via TCP/IP communications and PALS client software, as well as 12 public workstations using a web interface. The Unisys hardware is aging and the PALS software is no longer in development, so the network is actively seeking a new product. Over the course of the next year, SDLN will be selecting and then migrating to a new integrated library system (ILS). It is unclear what the total impact on our library will be, but it is reasonable to expect annual costs to increase.
Ultimately, the SDLN network will be moving to a system that has a great deal to offer library users in terms of customizable interfaces and powerful searching capabilities. Specifically, broadcast searching using the Z39.50 protocol will be possible across the SDLN suite of databases. At that point, it will become highly desirable for Augustana to also have its own Z39.50 server to provide that broadcast search capability for all of our electronic information resources.
The library has reclaimed space on the lower level that was formerly occupied by the Center for Western Studies and is planning a renovation that includes several technological aspects. The Instructional Media Service (which is on the lower level) will become more visible and be reconfigured to better meet current and future needs for public and work areas. Teaching and computer lab space in the library will be greatly enhanced as well. As a result, the Sunrise capital campaign includes $1 million toward the library renovation project that will cost in total an estimated $1.7 million.
One specific technology goal of the library renovation is to upgrade the power and data wiring in the entire structure. Over the past few years the library has been experiencing increased problems with overloaded circuits and access to power for computers. By moving services around, we will also need to move/create access to power and network in areas previously unused for this purpose. In addition, the library would like to accommodate library users with PDAs and laptops by providing some wireless network access within the building.
Another goal of renovation is to expand the services offered by the Instructional Media Service to include a media lab where faculty and students can work on media projects in a semi-supervised fashion. Right now equipment for video editing, CD burning, and slide scanning is housed in IMS in such a way that people have to use staff workspace and computers to work on projects. A separate nearby location for these functions will provide more flexibility and convenience for staff and users.
The renovation will also allow us to design classroom space specifically for technological applications. Currently we have a small videoconferencing room, a slightly larger satellite downlink classroom, and a computer lab that is intermingled with the collections and traffic flow. None of these spaces were designed for these purposes and all have serious flaws that interfere with teaching. We plan to create larger classrooms that will be designed to be multipurpose and fully functional.
As information resources convert from print to electronic format, the library has implemented services to enable off-site use of those resources. One of these services is E-reserve, which is now offered via the library’s web page. The E-reserve resources are password protected in order to comply with copyright law and licensing restrictions. E-reserves are typically created as either scanned .pdf versions of library print materials or as links to full-text documents within electronic databases. For the next few years the demand for this service is expected to grow as awareness grows among students and faculty and as more electronic information becomes available. This service will continue to have an impact on the amount of photocopying versus printing done on campus with the cost shifting to the college.
Off-campus access to electronic databases has been addressed by the implementation of EZProxy software to authenticate users with a login and password. A more sophisticated method of proxy and authentication may be needed in the future as more users take advantage of this access. It may become desirable to maintain a database of valid library users via the campus network or via SDLN that could be used to authenticate access. IS financial and staff support will be needed to accomplish this step.
The library is also moving in the direction of offering more desktop delivery of information. With a new integrated library system overdue notices, materials available notices, and other statements will likely be sent via e-mail. Using Ariel or some other interlibrary loan system, the library expects to provide web document delivery where image files are posted on a web server for a particular person and that person is notified via e-mail where and how to access the file. Either the library will need a separate server for this purpose or an existing server will need to be upgraded.
The TTF3 recommends support of library renovation and innovation in areas of wiring/wireless, media services, and delivery of electronic information.
The campus environment includes the underlying network infrastructure, telecommunications services, and web presence for the campus community.
Currently the campus network consists of significant fiber trunks using 62.5 micron multi-mode ST patch panels. These trunks connect eighteen of the twenty campus buildings. Category 5 or 5e patch panel wiring exists in all rooms in the ten major academic buildings and residence halls.
The gigabit backbone runs primarily on Cisco 4006 and 3548 switches; however, some older 10MB trunks still exist. Campus firewall technology has been put in place along with UPS power backup in all major buildings.
For the foreseeable future we will need to continue maintenance of the existing fiber plant and consider adding trunks as needed. Buildings such as Mikkelsen Library, Elmen Center, Art buildings, and the far end portion of the Morrison Commons will be rewired using internal staff as time and material funds are available. The goal is to provide gigabit trunks to all major buildings and to upgrade all minor wiring closets to at least 100MB. In order to more efficiently process network traffic it will be necessary to add Layer 3 (VLAN) routing to the central campus switching environment.
There is a rapidly changing environment of wireless applications and increasing portability of network devices. It is difficult to assess, but it appears that wireless is the next watershed technology to be adopted. There are potential advantages to using wireless technology in selected areas of the campus. The cost of wireless technology has dropped so that it will be more cost-effective to use wireless for public areas of the campus such as the library, as well as peripheral properties such as the theme houses and the Campus Learning Center. The TTF3 recommends experimentation and expansion with wireless devices.
At the time we are writing this report, it is likely that Augustana will have an opportunity to add Internet 2 connectivity for the campus at a low cost as part of an NIH grant received in cooperation with USD. Other anticipated network enhancements include the addition of graphical LAN monitoring and maintenance, addition of UPS power backup to all wiring closets, and significant upgrades to our network security. Upgrades for both Internet and Intranet security would include firewalls, traffic shapers, attack notice/tracking capabilities, DHCP registration, and anti-virus systems. The TTF3 recommends vigorous defense of our network integrity and aggressive efforts to enhance our infrastructure.
The Augustana website is currently undergoing a major revision to its top-level pages with the expectation that the revised site will go live by August 1, 2002. This is the fifth major revision of the Augustana website since its inception in Spring 1994 with the last revision completed January 2001. The number of visits to the Augustana website continues to increase, surpassing 100,000 visits per month on multiple occasions in the last academic year.
Website development is ongoing and our site will continue to be updated with pertinent and necessary information. Areas currently underdeveloped will be investigated and developed as time and resources allow. Major revisions will likely continue to occur every two years with 8 to 12 months needed for planning and implementation, while less time is required for smaller scale revisions. In recognition of the WWW Committee’s ongoing mission, the faculty made the committee an official standing committee in Spring 2002 and it is now considered a fully functional component of the Augustana committee structure.
Staffing support of the Augustana website consists of the WWW Systems Administrator along with a growing number of individuals overseeing maintenance of departmental and office areas. The number of contributing individuals is expected to increase particularly in the areas of Academic Affairs, Business Office, Financial Aid, and Recreational Services. Support to faculty, staff and students continues to be enhanced through course work projects and classroom teaching with the leadership and assistance of the Educational Technologist. However, the major challenge facing web information/technology on campus continues to be the issue of staffing. The increased interest and use of the web as a communication tool exceeds the staffing resources currently available on campus for the foreseeable future. Certain projects fall behind schedule due to lack of available staff time. Adding departments and offices that oversee their own areas has markedly reduced certain time commitments for the WWW Systems Administrator for the short term.
Publication practices on campus need to be modified to include more web-friendly methods. Ideally, any information provided by the college through any other medium should also be considered for web publication. Information should be placed on the website simultaneously with the publication of print or other media counterpart(s). To accomplish this goal, changes are needed in how information is prepared and edited. The WWW Committee is working to raise awareness of the need to provide information online and thus encouraging the development of processes to accomplish simultaneous and accurate publication of information.
Web services have expanded with the usage of online registration and information as well as web e-mail services. The library continues to add web resources and services. Course management activities using WebCT have been growing. Demands for web services have been seen in areas of information security, web-based assessment tools, enhancements to provide integrated online applications, advertising, online payments, and both public and internal events calendars.
Staff development and expansion need to occur as web technology matures and is adopted at a rapid pace. Skill deficiencies exist with our current web services, specifically in areas related to database/web integration (e.g. campus events calendar) that are becoming necessary components of higher education web services. In order to advance our web services, we need to consider adding web staff and/or outsourcing certain services. The TTF3 recommends implementing a plan for additional staff in the area of web services.
As of 2000 Augustana has dropped its locally run telephone PBX and converted to a Centrex system in partnership with Midcontinent Communications. We have entered into a five-year contract with Midcontinent with the right to renew for a second five-year term. While this contract meets our basic needs, we continue to scan the environment for reasonable, cost effective telecom solutions. To date the possibility of cost effective internet-based telephony and unified messaging have not materialized. However, wireless or cellular technology has made dramatic inroads with our student population. Student Technology Survey results (Appendix B) indicate that 56% of our students own cell phones with another 9% planning to purchase one in the next year. In addition, the student survey indicated that 75% of the students use purchased calling cards for long-distance service. There is also significant interest in both voice mail and caller ID features. The TTF3 recommends careful monitoring of the changing telecom-munications industry to avoid the pitfall of investing in services that do not meet our long-term needs.
Presently (2002), the IS department is operating with approximately two less positions than it had during the peak years from 1997-99. Because of changes in the department’s structure and services, this reduction has not had a noticeable impact on campus support. It is important to recognize that huge growth in internet services, network connections, administrative modules, web activity, and total systems on campus has occurred without growth in the number of supporting IS staff. Enormous credit is due to our experienced, talented and dedicated IS staff for maintaining a large and growing IS environment. The grant-funded Educational Technologist position has assumed some of the planning and training workload in the past three years, but it is uncertain if this position will be maintained when funding is depleted.
Survey data from other academic institutions demonstrates that we have fewer staff positions than others in our cohort group. This situation has necessitated a constant re-evaluation and balancing of the needs of the campus. As new technologies have been added, older technologies have been dropped. We no longer have the luxury of supporting technologies that may still have value, but no longer provide significant returns. Although re-evaluation and assessment are keys to maximizing the use of our limited resources, it is clear that sustained growth in technological applications requires additional staffing.
A staffing plan has been developed for next academic year (2002-03) to employ five part-time student workers for twenty hours per week each. This will immediately add 2.5 FTE to the IS staff resources. Traditional work/study staffing will be reduced to approximately five students working ten or fewer hours per week. The part-time employees will be given advanced training to assist with the Help Desk, networking, web, and eventually other IS tasks. It has been the experience at other institutions that this arrangement increased depth and stability of IS staffing and campus support. Over the next five years the plan is to increase the number of part-time employees to ten creating a total of five additional FTE in IS staff resources. The TTF3 recommends that we implement this plan to bring the IS staffing level up by FY 2006-07.
Technology has become a pervasive and vital tool for educational and administrative processes at Augustana. As a result, the enormity of the scope of this report has been somewhat daunting, but also gratifying. Augustana continues to make great strides in embracing and implementing appropriate technological innovations. Some of the avenues we have contemplated in the process of writing this document are discussed in Appendix A. The task of finding the right path for Augustana requires many hours of effort and patience, but it is our confident expectation that the next five years will be filled with excitement and challenges. The Technology Task Force members are grateful to the many persons who have assisted with this review and planning process.
Replace 1/3 of 180 active Teaching Lab computers.......................................................$72,000
Replace 1/3 of 50 active Residence Hall Lab computers...............................................$20,400
Upgrade/Reallocate 1/7 of 500 active Departmental computers......................................$7,000
Replace 4% of 500 active Faculty, Staff & Departmental computers............................$24,000
Upgrade 1/3 of Server Hardware....................................................................................$33,000
Software Licensing.........................................................................................................$40,000
Enhance academic presentation equipment....................................................................$14,000
Provide seed money for innovative technology initiatives.............................................$10,000
Upgrade Network Infrastructure 1/3 per year...............................................................$100,000
Upgrade Internet Access.................................................................................................$20,000
Replace Voice Mail system, or fund faculty/staff VM boxes.........................................$15,000
Total 2002-2003............................................................................................................$355,400
Replace 1/3 of 180 active Teaching Lab computers.......................................................$72,000
Replace 1/3 of 50 active Residence Hall Lab computers...............................................$20,400
Upgrade/Reallocate 1/7 of 500 active Departmental computers......................................$7,000
Replace 4% of 500 active Faculty, Staff & Departmental computers............................$24,000
Upgrade 1/3 of Server Hardware....................................................................................$33,000
Software Licensing.........................................................................................................$40,000
Enhance academic presentation equipment....................................................................$14,000
Provide seed money for innovative technology initiatives.............................................$10,000
Upgrade Network Infrastructure 1/3 per year...............................................................$100,000
Upgrade Internet Access.................................................................................................$20,000
Add 20 Library Wireless Notebooks and Wireless Access............................................$20,000
Total 2003-2004............................................................................................................$360,400
Replace 1/3 of 180 active Teaching Lab computers.......................................................$72,000
Replace 1/3 of 50 active Residence Hall Lab computers...............................................$20,400
Upgrade/Reallocate 1/7 of 500 active Departmental computers......................................$7,000
Replace 4% of 500 active Faculty, Staff & Departmental computers............................$24,000
Upgrade 1/3 of Server Hardware....................................................................................$33,000
Software Licensing.........................................................................................................$40,000
Enhance academic presentation equipment....................................................................$14,000
Provide seed money for innovative technology initiatives.............................................$10,000
Upgrade Network Infrastructure 1/3 per year...............................................................$100,000
Upgrade Internet Access.................................................................................................$20,000
Total 2004-2005............................................................................................................$340,400
Replace 1/3 of 180 active Teaching Lab computers.......................................................$72,000
Replace 1/3 of 50 active Residence Hall Lab computers...............................................$20,400
Upgrade/Reallocate 1/7 of 500 active Departmental computers......................................$7,000
Replace 4% of 500 active Faculty, Staff & Departmental computers............................$24,000
Upgrade 1/3 of Server Hardware....................................................................................$33,000
Software Licensing.........................................................................................................$40,000
Enhance academic presentation equipment....................................................................$14,000
Provide seed money for innovative technology initiatives.............................................$10,000
Upgrade Network Infrastructure 1/3 per year...............................................................$100,000
Upgrade Internet Access.................................................................................................$20,000
Renew 20 Library Wireless Notebooks and Wireless Access........................................$20,000
Total 2005-2006............................................................................................................$360,400
Replace 1/3 of 180 active Teaching Lab computers.......................................................$72,000
Replace 1/3 of 50 active Residence Hall Lab computers...............................................$20,400
Upgrade/Reallocate 1/7 of 500 active Departmental computers......................................$7,000
Replace 4% of 500 active Faculty, Staff & Departmental computers............................$24,000
Upgrade 1/3 of Server Hardware....................................................................................$33,000
Software Licensing.........................................................................................................$40,000
Enhance academic presentation equipment....................................................................$14,000
Provide seed money for innovative technology initiatives.............................................$10,000
Upgrade Network Infrastructure 1/3 per year...............................................................$100,000
Upgrade Internet Access.................................................................................................$20,000
Total 2006-2007............................................................................................................$340,400
There are a number of areas not fully addressed elsewhere in the report that have been discussed and reviewed by TTF3 members. These issues are still in the thinking stages and have not been fully resolved for a variety of reasons. The primary reason, however, is the fluctuating nature of the technology environment. We offer these insights to technological issues of the future.
The meaning of digitization encompasses a wide spectrum of possibilities. In the context discussed here digitization refers to the systematic creation of electronic versions of text and graphic documents and/or electronic visual depictions of objects. Digitization is occurring at many educational institutions as a means for records storage, archives management, and resources distribution. For example, the registrar’s office could create a searchable archival database of image files of student transcripts. Another example could be the creation of a searchable database of images of artwork owned by the college’s art gallery. A third example could be the web representation and searchable text of a rare document from the college’s manuscripts. In each of these examples there are aspects of storage and retrieval to consider. The creation of these types of databases is extremely labor intensive requiring extensive data capture and a high level of quality control. The created files will require massive storage capacity within our network. In addition, file formats and standards need to be carefully assessed to ensure portability as new formats emerge. Digitization represents a significant investment that would require ongoing support and commitment. An institution of Augustana’s size and mission must carefully assess the benefits versus costs of digitization projects for the foreseeable future.
The broadcast distribution of videos across campus was investigated several years ago and the conclusion at that time was that it was not a good fit for Augustana. The factors leading to this decision have not changed over time. The findings were that faculty generally do not like giving up control of the presentation of videos within the classroom and are reluctant to use a process to schedule an externally controlled presentation. A video distribution system would require a large upfront cost with regular upgrades. In addition, we would have to purchase public performance rights for many programs in our existing video collections.
Over the next few years, resources would be better spent by concentrating on the addition of cabling from VCRs and DVD players to ceiling mounted projectors in existing and future smart classrooms. In addition, all CPUs in smart classrooms and on smart carts need to be upgraded to include DVD drives. We will likely continue to have smart carts even as more classrooms across campus are converted to smart classrooms. Smart carts offer an advantage of mobility, but their size needs to be trimmed in order to be more flexible. Training in the use of smart classrooms is needed because some faculty members are uncomfortable using smart classrooms when all they really want to do is use a low form of technology. There is an ongoing budgetary need to fund replacements for the classroom equipment as it ages.
While both DVD and VHS formats are currently viable, DVD will become the preferred format because of its video quality, life expectancy, and ease of storage and use. The cost of DVD hardware is equivalent to VCRs, but cost of a DVD is slightly higher than a VHS videocassette in today’s marketplace. Right now switching back and forth from PowerPoint to DVD can be problematic when using an internal DVD drive, but this feature is likely to be enhanced over time.
Many larger libraries are conducting pilot projects using chat or other real-time interactive communications to create virtual reference services. Reference librarians go online to field questions and provide research support to patrons remotely. While this might seem like a logical step to supplement remote access to electronic resources, there are several practical considerations for an institution such as Augustana. Specifically, the late evening and weekend hours when the service is most likely to be used are also the most undesirable hours for staff. Experiences at other institutions have shown that unless you can support the service 24/7, it is of questionable value. Other universities in South Dakota that use distance education for a major component of their curricular offerings are anxious to cooperate, but it is unlikely that Augustana patrons would be primary users of the service. We will continue to monitor developments in this area.
Wireless networking can provide a ubiquitous computing environment, allowing students to have access to information resources anywhere, anytime. To date this generally refers to a campus environment, where a notebook or palm top computer can be used anywhere on campus to access online learning tools, the Internet, and file and print resources.
As technology progresses, wireless computing will refer to computing anywhere, not just the campus, using smaller more portable devices (Tablet PCs, PDAs and cell phones). Students will expect access everywhere on campus, and will expect to continue that access from off-campus. This will involve a combination of wireless resources on campus and wireless vendors off campus.
Augustana must be aware of the swiftly changing global computing environments. We will begin testing and working with wireless access in selected areas of the campus. Wireless technology could be a viable alternative to internal wiring in the Library and other academic buildings. Wireless could eventually also be a viable alternative to fiber trunk connectivity for buildings not on the campus tunnel system.
Members of the Technology Task Force have studied notebook programs at other universities. These programs can be very successful if implemented with lots of study and campus communication. The following is a brief summary of what we have learned.
We found that students have assumptions and desires that may be contrary to practicality.
Other possible negative factors need to be considered.
With the assistance of students enrolled in the Social Science Research Methods course, Sharon Gray (new Educational Technologist at Augustana) created a questionnaire to determine current use of technology, interest in increased use, and desire for educational opportunities related to technology. Faculty members were asked to include their names so that Sharon Gray could contact them about educational seminars that might be of interest to them. Approximately 198 questionnaires were distributed to all faculty members, whether they were full-time or part-time. Students made rounds to collect the surveys from faculty members; names were obscured to protect confidentiality, and students entered the data into the computer using the SPSS program. The following information is based on 118 completed and returned surveys. (Valid Percents may not add to 100.0% due to rounding error.)
Table 1 Division Table 2 Years at Augie
34% Natural Science 27% Under 5 years
30% Humanities 26% 5-9 years
36% Social Science 21% 10-19 years
27% 20+ years
Somewhat Somewhat
Table 3 Opinions Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
a. Technology enhances student learning. 70% 29% 0 1%
b. Computers more trouble than worth. 0 13% 27% 59%
c. Computers increase productivity. 51% 38% 7% 4%
d. Excited about learning to use technology. 51% 42% 4% 3%
e. Apprehensive about using technology. 4% 35% 22% 39%
Table 4 Current Set-Up
a. Computer used at work
31% Mac
65% PC/IBM
4% Use 2+ systems
b. E-mail program used
13% GroupWise
33% Eudora
25% Pine
2% MainX
5% Other
1% Don't use
21% Use 2+ systems
c. Wordprocessing program
45% WordPerfect
33% Word
3% ClarisWorks
3% Other
16% Use 2+systems
d. Spreadsheet application program
13% QuattroPro
32% Excel
3% ClarisWorks
4% Other
39% Don't use
8% Use 2+ systems
e. Presentation software
8% Corel Presentations
37% PowerPoint
2% Other
47% Don't use
6% Use 2+systems
f. Home computer
29% Mac
56% PC/IBM
9% Don't have
5% 2+systems
g. E-mail access/use from home
54% Yes
h. Versions of software at home?
62% Same versions
31% Different versions
3% Don't know
3% Some of each
i. If encountered computer problems, percent who contacted...
89% HelpDesk
40% I.S. staff
20% Div. Sec.
61% Colleague
14% Other
Table 5 Current Use (as of September 1999)
Percent "YES"
a. Preparing handouts and/or tests 98%
b. Communicating with students via e-mail 94%
c. Showing videotapes/movies in class 77%
d. Using online databases for own library research 64%
e. Requiring students use online databases for library
research 56%
f. Maintaining a gradebook 53%
g. Belonging to professional listservs 53%
h. Providing online resources: personal/course homepage 33%
i. Using computer presentations 30%
j. Requiring students use discipline-specific software 30%
k. Visiting websites in class 29%
l. Requiring students create computer presentations 18%
m. Using simulations programs 12%
n. Requiring students to use textbook-
accompanying CD-ROMS 11%
o. Providing online discussion forums 10%
p. Requiring students create homepages 9%
q. Delivering instruction 8%
r. Using GIS 0%
s. Creating multimedia modules 0%
Table 6 Interest in Future Use of Technology
Percent "YES"
a. Sending attached files through e-mail 48%
b. Creating personal/course homepage 47%
c. Transferring info into computer presentations 47%
d. Putting computer presentations on the web 39%
e. Advanced wordprocessing 36%
f. Using the Smart Carts 35%
g. Finding instructional resources on the web 32%
h. Creating/maintaining gradebooks 31%
i. Discovering how technology can impact learning 31%
j. Using new technology-enhanced classrooms 30%
k. Dialing into Augie's network from home 28%
l. On-line advising and registration 26%
m. Distance education with WebCT 21%
n. Managing information overload 19%
o. Beginning word processing 18%
p. Using microphones for voice annotation 15%
q. Using speech recognition for dictation 14%
r. Distance education with PictureTel 14%
s. Basic computing 13%
t. Finding professional listservs 12%
Table 7. When would you prefer instruction? (Percent "YES")
During school year 72% During breaks and/or summer 56%
Morning 29% Morning 34%
Afternoon 49% Afternoon 29%
Evening 23% Evening 10%
Weekdays 34% Weekdays 30%
Saturdays 18% Saturdays 6%
Table 8. Preferred type of instruction (Percent "YES")
41% Self-directed (manuals, videotapes)
49% One-on-one
84% Small group
13% Large group
Of the 48* responses:
Of the 18 who had used it “once or twice”:
Of the 9 who had used it “several times per semester”:
Of the 3 who use it “weekly”:
Of the 18 who have never used it:
In response to #11*, “Would you prefer to have…permanently installed..?” :
Regarding Mac vs. PC use, 7 said they used the Mac on the carts and 20 said they used the PC. (Some answered that they used both.)
Only 2 said they used the Elmo. (Maybe we could have the Elmo available for checkout from IMS, and thereby reduce the amount of equipment on a cart.)
It seems that the most common use in the classroom is for Web and/or PowerPoint (or Word Perfect Presentations.)
If we permanently install the equipment, we lose the versatility, but we might end up with more use. It does create the problem of which rooms to outfit. Ideally, we’d have a large room and a small room outfitted in each building. Also, we need to have a procedure in place for scheduling classes that need technology in the tech classrooms.
Perhaps we could do as some suggested and remove the monitor (leaving the data projector as the only “monitor”), reducing the need for such a large cart. This would especially be handy in GSC where there is such a small storage room for the cart. But that only addresses the maneuverability issue, not the time issue. (Also, GSC’s service elevator is discouraging use among some.) The new wheels certainly improve the maneuverability of the carts!
It would be really nice to outfit a couple of rooms in GSC (I’ve heard wind of some plans/money for such a project. Anybody know more?) Humanities is a bit of a problem: Of the 6 responses, 3 want it permanently installed (2 “once or twice’s” and 1 “never”) and 2 don’t (1 “once or twice” and 1 “never”) and 1 didn’t say (a “several times per semester”) It’s interesting that in the one building (MC) where there are some classrooms outfitted with projectors, ALL would rather have the equipment permanently installed than on a smart cart. That MAY mean that in the other buildings, if users had experience with permanently installed equipment, they would prefer it over the smart cart. That’s a guess on my part, though.
Results are specially formatted and attached at the end of this report.