 |
|
You are here: Media Home > Resources > Instructional Technology Group Report Analysis and Recommendations for Instructional Technology at UC Santa Cruz Instructional Technology Group
CONTENTS SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Instructional Technology Group (ITG) was formed as a task group to the Information Technology Committee (ITC) with the following charge: 1. Identify and assess the set of technology-based services presently offered to instructors. 2. Identify problems encountered by faculty, and assess instructional needs for technology support. 3. Examine best practices at other institutions. 4. Include consideration of classroom and lab requirements as part of an overall plan. 5. Propose a plan that includes organizational structure, funding, and guiding principles that will allow UCSC to achieve the vision, and to implement a working faculty support model. ITG began its work in the latter part of the fall quarter, 2001. Five task forces were formed dealing with faculty needs for Instructional Technology, student needs, assessment of service providers, best practices at other institutions, and the costs of Instructional Technology. Each of these task forces completed phase one (data collection) during winter quarter, 2002 and submitted reports during the first half of spring quarter, 2002, included here as appendices. For the purposes of this investigation and report we took a narrow definition of “Instructional Technology” in order to make the task manageable. Thus, here Instructional Technology means those technologies significantly involved in the delivery of instruction that support student learning or assist a faculty member in the creation of educational materials. In this we were guided by the question: Does the technology directly support teaching and learning? The instruction or learning need not go on in the classroom though, of course, that is included, but could take place in a library, lab, or on a student’s personal computer where ever it may be (dorm room, cyber cafe, etc.). So, Internet connectivity in classrooms, libraries, etc., directly support Instructional Technology. Likewise installed equipment provided by Media Services including the VCRs, data projectors, and other equipment found in many classrooms and lecture halls supports Instructional Technology. Applications software, such as WebCT, similarly is viewed here as supporting teaching and learning and therefore relevant. Also included in our definition are such services as the Faculty Instructional Technology Center (FITC), which offers courses that instruct faculty in various software applications such as PowerPoint, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and others that enable them to create websites and other forms of instructional materials. However, technologies once removed from these that may support the university’s educational mission but are not directly involved in teaching and learning were not included. Thus, we excluded business service activities, student learning centers, the NAS, the Student Information System, the Student Advising System, faculty salaries, etc. This may be arbitrary but a line had to be drawn. The layout of this report is as follows: In section one is a brief summary of the findings of the task forces. In section two are recommendations. Technology holds great promise for improving faculty's teaching, enhancing student learning and achieving efficiencies in the delivery of instruction especially as the campus grows in both numbers of students and diversity. Students come to the University today far more knowledgeable in the use of technology than their counterparts even as recently as five years ago and demand similar facility on the part of their teachers. There is great opportunity for UCSC to build on its commitment to excellence in education and position itself as a leading campus in the use of Instructional Technology (IT). However, many pitfalls lay in the path of implementation, for example, adoption of technologies that neither faculty nor students will use or alternatively, technologies that are familiar and comfortable but will soon be outdated. Thus, initiatives will require careful planning, with all sectors of the campus involved, and deliberate implementation. The Instructional Technology Group's efforts contained here is the beginning of that process. Its main recommendations are: 1. Improve data collection and Better Operational Definitions. The figures arrived at by the ITG for Instructional Technology costs, for computer usage and computer ownership represent heroic efforts by staff and committee members in a limited amount of time working with very imprecise definitions and do not warrant any level of certainty. In part this represents confusion between units over definitions. As a first action it is imperative that the definitions pertaining to IT be clarified and better systems for tracking, both statically and dynamically, the costs of IT. 2. As a guide to IT investment we must assess learning outcomes. We should be investigating those courses in which substantial investment, in either financial resources or faculty time, has been made and evaluate whether the use of IT has resulted in overall savings or more effective learning outcomes (including factors such as effect on student attitudes about the subject and course). 3. Ensure Student Access to the full range of IT applications. Among other things these should include:
4. Establish a student computer literacy and information competency requirement that can be satisfied by passing a "C" examination or else by enrollment in an appropriate course. 5. Support faculty in developing courses and integrating IT into their teaching.
6. Carefully invest in new infrastructure and instructional space and redesign existing instructional space. Since faculty are the users of instructional space and technology it is imperative that the campus
Actual investments that the campus should immediately make are:
Some intermediate term infrastructure investments that should be considered are:
7. Governance and Organization Perhaps the most important recommendation, ITG propose that the campus
The committee, at a minimum, should include: Chair (or designee) of the Senate’s Committee on Teaching *At the point when a Distance Education Unit is established, ITAC would consider a representative from that group. The chair of Instructional Technology Advisory Committee should be a representative to the standing Information Technology Committee. The charge for this committee would include Instructional Technology standards and policies for: classroom and lab design – including all instructional space, computing and media equipment standards, emerging technology trends, network requirements, implementation of portal strategies, course management systems, distance education, and the convergence of video and web technologies. Instructional development and instructional delivery would be the two major areas for analysis and recommendation. Further, issues of pedagogy and learning outcomes would be central in establishing any standards or policies promulgated by this group. Among its first order of business the ITAC should consider
8. Expand opportunities for distance education/open learning
SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Data on faculty needs were collected through four focus groups comprising 26 faculty members from across the campus and divisions as well as an online survey of faculty conducted by CATS IC answered by an additional 47 faculty. (The questions posed can be found in the appendices). Several broad themes emerged from their answers and interactions: 1. Many faculty are adopting the use of technology to improve learning outcomes in their classes though there is a wide spectrum of applications. There is frustration with the reliability of technology in classrooms which hinders its use: some classrooms are not equipped, others are poorly equipped or designed so that the use of the technology interferes with traditional ways of instructional delivery, e.g., the use of data projector makes it impossible to use the blackboard, or the technology is still immature, e.g., projection of one page of data at time is limiting. Faculty input is essential in planning remodeling of existing classrooms and in the design of any new classrooms. 2. Faculty are interested in increasing their application of technology but will do so only if there is ease of use and the benefits to improved instruction are much greater than the effort required. A particular example appears to be the course management system WebCT. Thus, faculty want a seamless system which they can access quickly, with which they can reach individual students, subgroups of a class, or an entire class with minimum effort. It should also make it possible to give students access to their grades, easily link to other websites, and easily import files and web pages, and have a short learning curve to mastery. Similarly, faculty see the benefits of having websites or using PowerPoint in the classroom but want tech support to help them learn how to create these. Most efficacious would be one-on-one support geared to their particular goal/project with trained staff who are sensitive to the faculty member’s stage of technology knowledge. 3. Students need to be easily accessible via email, should have computers, and be computer literate. Piloting courses in which the benefits of laptop computer technology are demonstrated may create an expectation for all students to have laptop computers. There was much discussion about the positive applications of laptop computers but at this time it would be premature to require all students to have laptop computers for there is a lack of courses in which they would be amply used in the classroom. 4. A central push for greater technology use by faculty will require curricular and pedagogical models to justify the expense and time faculty will have to invest. They will want to have examples of things that they will be able to do that they cannot now do or do better than they currently do if there is to be widespread adoption. These might include greater interactivity in the classroom, opportunities for students to do minds-on activities in the classroom to make concrete theoretic ideas, access to specialized data, e.g., remote sensing data in an environmental studies class, archival documents in a history course, greater emphasis on the acquisition of critical thinking skills and deep understanding (e.g., perspective, empathy). 5. Adoption of Instructional Technology is greatly facilitated by the knowledge that other faculty are making use of it and are able to demonstrate the benefits of either improved efficiencies without loss of learning outcomes or better learning outcomes. However, there is no systematic way in which faculty are made aware of instructional innovations of their colleagues which impedes transfer. A preliminary assessment of students’ needs in the area of Instructional Technology was undertaken in winter quarter 2002 through student focus groups as well as an online survey of student use of computer labs. A total of 14 students participated in three separate groups designed to elicit UCSC students’ perspectives on the uses of technology in instruction. The questions asked of students in the focus groups and the online survey can be found in the appendices. 1. It would appear that most UCSC students have achieved a level of proficiency that allows them to use computers fairly comfortably for writing and research. However, some of our student respondents seem to think that computer proficiency does vary widely among their peers with the impression that students from low-income families often have a more difficult time adjusting to the way that the university incorporates computer technology into learning. This is an area in which we need better information and, if validated, strategies for addressing. One possible strategy discussed at ITG was the development of a required university course on computer skills. 2. With the use of certain kinds of technology comes the issue of how accessible that technology is to students outside of the classroom. It would appear from the online survey that most students (90 percent or greater) have computers and fairly new ones at that judging by their operating systems. Nonetheless this still means that 10 percent or more do not have their own computers. For those students who do not own computers, computer labs are numerous on campus; however, some students experience difficulty getting access to the computer labs at the time most convenient for them. If UCSC increases its reliance on computing technology in instruction, more residential-based computing centers may need to be built; alternatively, each student may need to own a personal computer and related software. Whether students live on or off campus, all will need access to technology. Related to the issue of accessibility is the issue of infrastructure. The implementation of new technologies in teaching and learning requires continual updating and revision of the infrastructure to support them. Some students believe that increasing the local bandwidth should be a goal for UCSC, which suggests that current local network infrastructure may be approaching its limit. Adequate bandwidth is essential if students will be required to access a wide range of Web resources. 3. A crucial point expressed by several of the students is that faculty should not incorporate technology in teaching and learning for its own sake. Students comment that some faculty members use technology as a substitute for teaching. Other faculty members, in the opinions of some of the students, misuse technology, for example, by using PowerPoint they gloss over material that needs more attention. Rather, technology should support both a teacher’s pedagogy and a student’s learning experience. Thus, faculty training in the use of Instructional Technology should not only include the “how to” but equally (if not more) important, the “why to use” technology to achieve better learning outcomes. Technology support and pedagogical support must go hand in hand. 4. Students have mixed feelings about the effectiveness of remote technologies in facilitating their learning experience. While courses incorporating e-mail and WebCT allow them to communicate more easily and more often to a wider audience (e.g., classmates and teachers), it decreases real-time interactivity or face-to-face communication. Several students find chat rooms problematic as a learning tool because there is often no one available for synchronous communication and, further, there is no record of the conversations that do take place. Costs of Instructional Technology One of our task forces was devoted to determining the costs of Instructional Technology. This was achieved by surveying service providers such as the Academic Divisions, the Library, Media Services, the Center for Teaching Excellence and CATS Instructional Computing. The survey focused on six high level Instructional Technology related activities: 1) Productivity/Instructional Tools and Services, 2) Support and Training Costs, 3) Web and Other Networked Services, 4) Classroom and Lab Support and Services, 5) Consulting Services, and 6) Other costs. Instructional Technology costs that are associated with other than computer supported and media services were not included due to their broader nature and the complexity of setting parameters for “Instructional Technology.” This analysis also excludes costs supporting research and faculty salary costs. These results reflect the best estimates made by the persons who completed the survey. As a result, the data are subjective and may depend on the respondent’s interpretation of the definitions of the Instructional Technology activities. The cost data reflect a one-year snapshot and do not reflect a trend of expenditure for these activities. Further, from a performance budgeting perspective, we do not have measurable outcomes to use in determining whether or not the level of expenditure is achieving the campus goal. The costs were distributed across three broad categories: faculty computing support which includes workstation support, training and development and tools, consulting and assistance; development of Instructional Technology based curriculum; and deployment (delivery) of Instructional Technology based curriculum, which would include data projectors in classrooms, computer labs, etc. The main findings are: 1. During fiscal year 2000-01 UCSC is estimated to have spent in excess of $6M on Instructional Technology. Approximately 40 percent of these costs were in classroom and lab support services, 20 percent in productivity/instructional tools, 13 percent in Web and other network services, 9 percent in support and training costs, and 18 percent in other. 2. Between $3-4M were spent on faculty support, between $2-3M were spent on deployment of Instructional Technology based curriculum. A small portion, estimated at $400K, was spent on development of Instructional Technology based curriculum, less than 7 percent of all estimated expenditures. This may be understating the amount but even if the expenditures were half again as high that would only constitute 10 percent of all Instructional Technology costs. The wide range for the faculty support and deployment estimates arises out of confusion over definitions (which we hope to resolve). 3. Of the funds spent on curriculum development, approximately 60 percent are in CATS IC, about 23 percent in the Arts Division, 11 percent in the Social Sciences Division, while the Natural Sciences Division and the School of Engineering estimate that they make no expenditures for development of IT-based curriculum. The Best Practices Workgroup of the Instructional Technology Group researched the best practices in Instructional Technology. Case studies of four UC campuses and one non-UC campus and site visits to two UC campuses were conducted. In addition, comparative information on the media services departments of the nine UC campuses was examined (UC Media Service Survey 2001-02 coordinated by UC San Diego). A comprehensive inventory presented in a matrix of functions and service providers was developed for Instructional Technologies at UCSC. A literature search of four different aspects of Instructional Technology was conducted: governance, costs, support services and technologies and best practitioners. Governance A single, universally applicable model for organizing Instructional Technology operations in higher education does not exist. The Best Practices Group has examined several models and the findings are presented here. Organizational structures are created within institutions to facilitate operational efficiency and communication. Planning, budgeting, personnel, facilities utilization and reporting are major functions within organizational groupings. Support, promotion and implementation of specific technologies often are the rational for a particular organizational structure. Several of the campuses studied, UCB, http://media.berkeley.edu, and UCLA, http://www.oid.ucla.edu/index.html, have recently reorganized most of their Instructional Technology service units into one large section. Some of the benefits of such centralization appear to be improved communication between the units, greater ease in creating impromptu groups to address particular needs, and greater ease in securing funding for Instructional Technology projects. However, the Director of Educational Technology at UC Berkeley emphasized that there is no one best organizational structure for Instructional Technology operations at the university level and, in some instances, a “virtual organization” that facilitates enhanced communication between existing units can work as well as an actual physical reorganization. Further, MIT is pursuing additional decentralization of Instructional Technology activities and services at their campus. Cost Related to Best Practices None of the staff interviewed explicitly identified cost savings due to centralization, focusing more on the improvements in collaboration and service. Other campuses reviewed by the Best Practices Workgroup included a very broad range from somewhat centralized to very decentralized. Staff at decentralized campuses stated that this structure was effective if there was good communication between the units and with the faculty. The UC Media Service Survey 2001-2002 revealed cost efficiencies in the area of installed equipment verses delivered equipment. The number of daily deliveries/pickups of equipment to classrooms ranged from a high number of 175 to a low number of 15 at UC Santa Cruz. The labor costs associated with deliveries is very high. One campus, UC Davis, had the expectation that all students would have a computer with certain specifications. This created an infrastructure for distributing information over the Internet and the extensive use of email communication to and among students. This model shifts some computer technology costs from the campus to the student. Inventory of Services The Best Practices Workgroup collected and compiled extensive information presented in the matrix: Instructional Technologies at UCSC: Taking Inventory. This format visually displays the areas where functions are provided by more than one IT Service Provider. This matrix will serve as an excellent starting point to clarify roles among the UCSC IT Service Providers. Instructional Technology services representing Best Practices but not currently offered at UC Santa Cruz are the following: Webcasting of Courses Best Practitioners Innovative faculty leaders in the use of technology, particularly for developing online courses, were identified Assessment of Service Providers The assessment was conducted via several interviews involving the directors and staff members of their units/divisions and so reflects the perspective of the service providers. The following units/divisions participated in the interview process:
All participants were asked to answer the same set of questions (see Appendix). Notes for each interview were prepared based on the answers provided for each question. A couple of directors followed up the interview with their answers to the questionnaire in writing. This summary is organized by topics/areas and reflects general trends. Services Provided Service providers can be grouped according to the services they provide as follows: Units that provide more technically specialized services
Units that provide less technically specialized services
The School of Engineering is unique in providing development of network simulations and disc CPUs, virtual private networks, web applications for database servers, and assistance in design and installation of specialized instructional applications. The Arts Division offers limited streaming media services and in-class instruction services. The Library provides student training services on the use of technology in the classroom, specialized workshops, and outreach to K-12. The CTE is in charge of processing of student class evaluation scantron forms. The specialized services of other units are mainly related to helping faculty in web page development or equipment and software use. 1. Among the most frequently requested services that the units surveyed provide are assistance with web development, technical training, and miscellaneous troubleshooting. 2. The services that each unit would like to provide differ according to unit. Generally, all units expressed the desire for more staff, equipment, and funding for expansion of their current services. 3. Satisfaction was expressed by the parties interviewed about the quality of work performed in their respective units. However, there was a general opinion expressed that units need more staffing, funding, training, and physical space to improve the quality of their operations. Additionally, service providers were almost unanimous in mentioning the need for additional resources in the areas of human resources, training, and better funding for equipment replacement activities and for making improvements. 4. Providers expressed a desire for better coordination as to how services are delivered as well as the introduction of IT policies that would encourage standardized processes and elimination of customized systems. Equipment was also mentioned (e.g., Media Services, and Humanities for a second machine for faculty). 5. Almost all units reported complementary relationships with other units as well as partnerships in providing services. However, some interviewees expressed the desire for a better job in cross-campus IT service coordination. Budgets and turf protection were mentioned as obstacles to forming partnerships. In order to form healthy partnerships there must be mutual benefits, and these are often not easily visible. The lack of scalable campus-wide IT services was also mentioned as an obstacle. 6. There were a number of common assumptions about the future of Instructional Technology across service providers; in particular, there was an overwhelming consensus among providers that the use of technology in teaching will be more ubiquitous. These beliefs can best be appreciated when viewed according to the categories given below. Faculty and Students It is generally believed that faculty and students will be much more technologically sophisticated and savvy and highly dependant on technology, and the number of faculty and students will increase (in some units will probably double). Some feel that faculty will become heavy multimedia developers. They will thus demand ease of use and flexibility, and will require immediate access to computers in their classrooms. Technology and Teaching and Learning Technology will be a more vital and integral component of teaching and of the students’ learning experience; IT will become an important and integral part of any curriculum; there will be better and enhanced multi-media technologies available; the nature of certain technologies (e.g., video display technology) will change with concomitant requirements in staff technical skills and knowledge, and data networking will more than likely play a major role in technology and how we use it. It is also believed that there will be more distributed and less face-to-face learning mediums. Equipment Media equipment will be a much more essential part of the classroom and will be displayed more widely. The distinctions between computer equipment and media equipment will further blur, most media formats will likely become digital, will likely share network transport infrastructure with other types of data, and laptops will be the primary computing tool. Some believe that most desktop machines will be smart terminals and that wireless networking will be ubiquitous. Also more presentation technology will be in use. Space The increase in number of students will demand increases in space in some units (e.g., Engineering and Arts) and its concomitant IT infrastructure needs, both physical and virtual settings will be important, more information commons will be established – both cyber and physical – where students and faculty will interact and there will be more wireless, free roaming access. IT Support Service requirements from faculty will be more complex, expectations
and volume will be much higher (some think it will be up 50 percent),
and services will be less anchored to one place. Flexibility in how
to provide these services will be needed. Some believe that services
will be more compliant to ADA regulations and some think that the campus
will be homogeneous in choice of platforms and operation systems, more
of the business services and instruction will be delivered via the web,
and portals will be prominent. The library expressed a need for a central
repository for information. The focus of these recommendations is on understanding and meeting faculty needs. Data Collection and Better Operational Definitions The figures arrived at by the ITG for Instructional Technology costs, for computer usage and computer ownership represent heroic efforts by staff and committee members in a limited amount of time working with very imprecise definitions. As a consequence these do not warrant any level of certainty. In particular, we cannot say whether the estimated $6M in IT costs are above or below the true figure and that the sums attributed to faculty support, course development and course deployment are at all accurate. In part this reflects different usage among service providers of the definitions of these categories. However, it is probably true that the costs in faculty support and course deployment far exceed those for course development, because the former are substantially infrastructure costs (boxes on desks loaded with the necessary software, lines to those computers, and their servicing; data projectors, VCRs, computers, screens in classrooms and their servicing) as contrasted with services (classes and tutorials) for faculty. Since the point of IT is to support teaching and learning, we propose that additional funds be available for course development either through an increase in overall funding or by achieving cost efficiencies or reductions elsewhere and transferring funds. (The kinds of services available to assist faculty in course development can be found below.) Assessment of Learning Outcomes Not surprisingly, given the nature of our study, the assessment of service providers found that they are meeting faculty needs with limited staff, resources and training and need more funding for staff, equipment and training. Some data about faculty satisfaction with service providers was obtained through the focus groups. However, even this misses the point of what should be evaluated. The point of Instructional Technology is to support teaching and learning. This could mean that we attempt to use technology to obtain greater efficiencies and get comparable learning outcomes with lower expenditures, greater student satisfaction with similar cost, or better learning outcomes at possibly greater cost. In either case we should be studying those courses in which substantial investment, in either financial resources or faculty time, has been made and evaluate whether the use of IT has resulted in overall savings or more effective learning outcomes (including factors such as effect on student attitudes about the subject and course). Implicit in this recommendation is that we must develop the metrics and methodology for substantiating such claims. Assign all students a permanent cats email address Instructors need to have email access to all students in a format that makes it easy to reach an entire class, a subgroup of students or an individual student. This is made difficult by the multiplicity of services where students now may get their main email. ITG recommends that all students be assigned a permanent email address when they are first enrolled at UCSC, which means they keep this address even subsequent to graduation. Class lists for a course then need to include all the addresses and be formatted with a simple alias such as the course number, quarter, years. Require all Students to Have a Computer with Minimum Performance Standards Assigning students email addresses will be fruitless if students don’t have ready and easy access to a computer. While there are many labs on campus these are increasingly impacted with the growth in enrollments. Moreover, students who do not have 24/7 access to a computer will be at a disadvantage to students who do, increasingly so when faculty come to expect papers to be word processed and knowledgeable students make use of sophisticated tools for writing and other projects. We therefore recommend that the campus require all incoming students to have a computer loaded with a basic package of applications which, at a minimum, should include word process, a spreadsheet, a browser. Cost will be a factor for some students in both the decision of whether to buy or what to buy and the campus should consider using financial aid to reduce the burden to students from low-income families. Strongly Recommend Students Acquire Laptops There is some support for requiring students to have laptop computers though not nearly consensus. The ambivalence arises out of the lack of courses currently prepared to make use of laptops in the classroom though this is not the only argument for laptops: If students had access, campus wide, to wireless ethernet, then a students office becomes mobile with their laptop and the opportunity for learning would be greatly magnified. In addition, capacity in labs is being stretched by the greater numbers of courses and students making use of these facilities. Expanding labs and replacing equipment is a significant cost to the campus which could be reduced by a laptop requirement. However, we are not prepared to make such a recommendation now, especially in the absence of a timetable for installing wireless ethernet but we do propose that the acquisition of laptops should be strongly encouraged. We need to develop a fact sheet with the realistic pros and cons of laptops that will be persuasive with parents and students and help them justify the additional costs. We also recommend that some pilot courses be identified to demonstrate the efficacy of laptops in the classroom to teaching and learning. Student Computer Literacy and Information Competency Access to a computer and the Internet will be of little purpose to students if they do not have the skills to fully use it and use it wisely. Put simply, students need to be computer and web literate. Computer Literacy involves both technical skills such as how to do word processing or navigate the Web. Information Competency includes online database and Internet search techniques and having good judgment about materials found on the World Wide Web. Thus, we recommend a computer and information competency literacy requirement for all students, which can be satisfied by either an examination or an appropriate course. This is necessarily imprecise. In the coming year the campus will once again examine its general education requirements and we recommend that one of the topics investigated be the question of Computer Literacy and Information Competency. Students come to the classroom with varying levels of knowledge and different styles of learning. To address these issues, instructors and staff must face the challenge of individual student assessment, the development and utilization of instructional support materials and valid evaluation tools. New technology will allow for a new approach to content learning and delivery that will incorporate individual learning styles and expanding areas of knowledge. Research from the “learning styles inventory movement” by David A. Kolb and others has generated a tremendous amount of information regarding individual student learning styles. Not only are individual learning modalities being assessed but also organizational structures and technological applications are being developed to support learning in the student’s preferred mode. New technological systems will be much more responsive to the variety of individual learning styles. The ability to present educational offerings using Internet technologies and television will more effectively respond to the visual, auditory and kinesthetic learner. Most important in the many changes that will impact university education is the realization that all students do not learn in the same way. Research from the Cost Analysis Workgroup indicates that the financial resources at UC Santa Cruz devoted for Instructional Development is minimal compared to resources devoted to Instructional Delivery. Classroom presentation technology in the general assignment classrooms is very sophisticated using three levels of installed media packages. The same level of intense support has not been forthcoming to assist faculty to create content to be delivered in the highly mediated lecture halls and classrooms, online, or in a distance education delivery mode. These recommendations specifically address those deficiencies. Create Channels that Facilitate Technology Transfer Between Faculty Faculty are most likely to adopt Instructional Technology when they have good examples of its use and the best source of such examples are other faculty. Currently, the transfer of Instructional Technology between faculty is entirely random and serendipitous when it could benefit from more organization and structure. In particular, we need formal ways of highlighting faculty applications of Instructional Technology. Thus we recommend the need for some forum (possibly a campus newsletter, webzine) that focuses on faculty use of Instructional Technology as a means of encouraging and facilitating the transfer and diffusion of applications between faculty members. In addition, we should also consider the establishment of an additional set of instructional awards, complementing the Excellence in Teaching Awards, to faculty who make exemplary use of Instructional Technology in their classes. Support Individual Demonstration Projects by Funding Instructional Technology Fellows Establish five campus Instructional Technology Fellowships, one for each division, that provides innovative faculty with one course relief and a development fund of $5,000 to pilot new uses of Instructional Technology, for example, classroom application of laptops with wireless Internet connections. These faculty would also make demonstrations within their divisions and possibly organize a division Instructional Technology “fair.” These should be awarded on a competitive basis. Support Departmental Demonstration Projects Create a pilot department Instructional Development award at $25-50K. These awards would fund a departmental project the purpose of which is to substantially revise a central lower division course or sequence of courses to incorporate Instructional Technology to achieve higher learning outcomes. In recent years as the student population has increased there has been a commensurate increase in the number of lower division courses taught in large lecture format and the size of these courses has also grown. While lower division lecture courses offer considerable efficiencies by teaching large numbers of students at a time the learning outcomes are uncertain and the quality of the student experience is also subject to question. An increase in the number and size of courses is inevitable as enrollments continue to grow. One potential for maintaining and strengthening learning outcomes and improving the affective environment for students is to make the best possible use of Instructional Technology in these courses. This should be viewed as a large scale, departmental level issue that should be a collaborative enterprise rather than the responsibility of a single faculty member. The current request is viewed as a pilot to be awarded on a competitive basis to one or two departments that put forward the most innovative proposal(s). Provide Faculty with Expert Assistance in the Pedagogy of Instructional Technology Hire a specialist in the area of Instructional Technology and pedagogy. We highlight the conjunction here because such a person should not just be an expert in the use of various instructional technologies but also be knowledgeable in teaching, learning and assessment and be able to advise faculty on the efficacy of various Instructional Technology relative to that faculty member’s objectives for a particular course. Facilitate Faculty to Faculty Training in Instructional Technology Create a series of faculty led classes for other faculty on how to use various programs or types of Instructional Technology in their curriculum. Provide Extensive Training in Instructional Technology to All New Faculty Perhaps the best hope for faculty adopting innovative uses of Instructional Technology is represented by the large number of new hires the campus expects over the next 5-10 years, both through replacement of existing faculty as their retire and growth in faculty numbers. ITG recommends that these faculty be given an extensive orientation (to be designed) to Instructional Technology during their first quarter at UCSC. It could be problematic to require this of faculty and this suggests using incentives instead. Thus, faculty upon completing such an orientation they might receive a stipend for instructional development or even a course reduction in the first year for course development. Create an Instructional Technology Institute IT Faculty development has been offered through collaborative efforts of the Center for Teaching Excellence, The Faculty Instructional Technology Center, and Media Services. These efforts should be revisited and a four day summer institute created to assist faculty in a range of techniques from basic PowerPoint to complete online course development. As instructors experience the ease of digitizing material or utilizing the Internet, academic applications become evident. In addition to software skills, issues such as needs assessments, objective identification, copyright and evaluation can be addressed and relevant examples offered. Instructors can begin the institute with a specific project in mind and have a useable product (or least the beginnings of one) at the end. Initiate an Instructional Technology Partners Program The Mediaworks Group at UC Davis has an innovative program to assist faculty with the production of course content using technology. Students with highly developed computer and information competency skills are trained in Instructional Development techniques and skills in working with faculty clients. Faculty apply through a grants process to have the Student IT Partner assist with content development for one or two quarters. Students assist with content development and train faculty in a particular Instructional Technology skill. The program is highly successful, has more applications than are funded, and will be expanded at UCD. Infrastructure and instructional space To be done immediately Facilitate Meaningful Faculty Input into the Instructional Space Planning Process ITG recommends that representatives of the faculty as well as other concerned parties have substantial input into the design of instructional space at the appropriate times in the design and construction process. Such input should actually have influence on the ultimate results of the process. Currently, input is solicited early on in the design process. Then the design process goes from the campus architect’s office to outside contract architects and the client units have no more chance for meaningful input into the design process.
Below we recommend as an intermediate term proposal the installation of wireless Ethernet in all instructional spaces on campus. In the interim, in order to facilitate innovation and pilot projects, we propose the purchase of several mobile wireless hubs that can be in classrooms and libraries to demonstrate the efficacy of universal access and the use of laptops in the classroom. To make this worthwhile we also recommend the purchase of 100-200 laptops for quarterly loaners for 2-4 medium sized demonstration projects. The acquisition of both data projectors and laptops should be decentralized so that a faculty member could pick the item up at their Faculty Service Center. Make Data Projection Possible in all Instructional Space Through the Purchase of Portable Units Below as an intermediate term recommendation we propose that all instructional space have built-in data projectors. In the interim, we recommend providing portable data projection for instructors until more data projectors can be permanently installed. The acquisition of 20-30 lightweight data projectors that faculty can check out for their classes from Faculty Services Centers throughout campus with some available for full quarter loans would be significantly less expensive than installing projectors in the remaining instructional spaces which do not have data projectors. Now in the range of two to three pounds such projectors can now be obtained for $2-3,000. Intermediate Actions These are recommendations that will require significant funding and will probably take several years to implement but have been identified by the subcommittee as critical to instruction. Install Wireless Ethernet in all Instructional Spaces Installing wireless Ethernet in all instructional spaces would allow faculty to use network-based instructional activities with their students no matter where they are teaching. It would also allow students to use laptop computers in labs or other spaces instead of computer lab workstations. This might reduce the number of lab workstations needed in the future. It could also allow computers to be used in areas where there is not space for full-size, permanently situated workstations for an entire class such as in chemistry and biology laboratories. Requiring or recommending laptops for all students has been discussed as a future proposal. Wireless networking needs to be in place before this is implemented to make it useful. Install data projectors in remaining instructional spaces Instructors need to be able to rely on a base of equipment being available in any space in which they are assigned to teach. Creating or reworking course materials to use modern technology requires a significant investment of the faculty member’s time. If faculty cannot be sure of having the equipment they need available in the room to which they are assigned, many will not find that investment worthwhile. Those who have invested the time to create such course material have found it a significant commitment to secure the data projection equipment they need, carry it around campus and spend time before and after each class setting it up. Install Computers in Instructional Spaces If a faculty member just wants to quickly show a website or two in the middle of a class, it may not be worth it to lug a laptop with them. But if the computer is right there in the classroom they would be more likely to use it. Some faculty who use computers every day also find having installed computers better suited to instruction than spending the time before and after class to set it up and put it away. This would encourage more of the mainstream faculty who are not willing or able to devote the extra work to carry a laptop to every class to use computers in their classes occasionally and gradually become more comfortable with their use in instruction. Most of the computers that are currently installed are in the very largest classrooms on campus. Installing computers in smaller rooms so that there are at least two rooms in each size range would give the registrar’s office enough flexibility so that they could move instructors who need installed computers to a room that has them. Long term projects Install Audience Response Systems Some faculty have requested audience response systems in our classrooms. These would allow students to key in their response to questions on a small keypad at each seat and have the instructor see (and display on a data projector) instantaneously created graphs of the response of the class. Most of these systems are somewhat expensive ($3-5,000 per room) and require installation or setup but there is the possibility if we installed wireless networking to use software on laptops or handhelds to do this. Install Computers in all Instructional Spaces This would minimize the class time needed to set up computers and encourage faculty whose technology experience and comfort level is in the mainstream or at the trailing edge to incorporate technology into their instruction in smaller increments with less investment of time or risk. Create Instructional Technology Policy Committee The governance of Instructional Technology at UC Santa Cruz should emphasize a more centralized coordination of standards and policies with decentralization of basic services at the implementation and operational level. Currently, the forces accelerating innovation for Instructional Technology all too often occur in very energized, but isolated pockets of activity; too many standards and policies are established in independent “silos” of activity rather than emerge in more sweeping lateral communication among IT service providers. Moreover, there is currently no channel for such activity to be informed by the very persons for whom they are intended: the faculty. A good example of confusion arising out of multiple centers of activity is the situation with instructional spaces at UCSC. Such spaces are divided into three categories: general assignment classrooms, CATS instructional labs and department instructional spaces. There is no structure to facilitate Instructional Technology initiatives that span all instructional spaces such as the installation of wireless Ethernet. In order to successfully integrate technology into their instruction, faculty need to be able to rely on a base of equipment such as data projection and networking being available in any space without having to concern themselves with whether it is a general assignment or department space. A structure needs to be created to formulate policy, plan, and fund Instructional Technology in all instructional spaces. The Instructional Technology Group recommends creating an Instructional Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) with substantial faculty representation to plan campus wide Instructional Technology standards and policies at UC Santa Cruz. The model at UC Davis is called the Academic Computing Coordinating Council. The committee, at a minimum, should include: Chair (or designee) of the Senate’s Committee on Teaching *At the point when a Distance Education Unit is established, ITAC would consider a representative from that group. The chair of Instructional Technology Advisory Committee should be a representative to the standing Information Technology Committee. The charge for this committee would include Instructional Technology standards and policies for: classroom and lab design – including all instructional space, computing and media equipment standards, emerging technology trends, network requirements, implementation of portal strategies, course management systems, distance education, and the convergence of video and web technologies. Instructional development and instructional delivery would be the two major areas for analysis and recommendation. Further, issues of pedagogy and learning outcomes would be central in establishing any standards or policies promulgated by this group. Rationalize Service Delivery and the Maintenance of Instructional Space The ITG recommends that the first order of business for the ITAC would be to review the functional organization of service delivery. Overlap of services such as web site development should be examined to determine where communication to faculty about services provided could be improved. Further, eliminating duplication of effort for greater efficiencies where two or more units are providing similar services should be discussed and consolidation of all services into a single unit should be considered by ITAC. Nonetheless, this does not imply that the actual delivery of the services is centralized. To the contrary, it may well be that, though all web development and similar services might governed by a single unit, the staffing is physically distributed within colleges and divisions in order to get personnel as close to faculty as possible. Likewise, there are multiple units responsible for space and infrastructure and this, too, should be simplified. Efficiency requires improved coordination between faculty, Media Services and the other units on campus that maintain classrooms, labs, and all instructional space such as network services, custodial services, carpenters, electricians, heating and ventilation, etc. Most faculty do not know who to call if there are problems with their classroom. A structure should be in place to make this as easy as possible for faculty. Create a Genuine Instructional Technology Portal Faculty currently need to search between half a dozen different service providers on campus to find which of them provide particular services. The campus web page, which guides faculty through this process, needs to be redesigned to make this process easier for faculty to navigate. Many faculty are not aware of some of the technology and support that is available on campus. Therefore, it is imperative that we vastly improve our informational sources for Instructional Technology. In particular, there needs to be a centralized website where faculty can go to get reliable information about what is available, how to obtain it and a simple procedure for doing so. Distance Education/Open Learning Distance Education/Open Learning, as the term is used here, refers to instruction that is completely mediated through technology. In its consideration of instructional technology, the majority of this report assumes the primary mode of instruction will involve face-to-face meetings between students and faculty and that technology may be used in various ways to enhance classroom instruction. Distance Education/Open Learning technology raises the possibility that faculty and students may not need to meet face-to-face as often as they currently do – or perhaps not at all. UCSC Distance Education/Open Learning currently exists in the form of two-way synchronous videoconferencing connecting the Santa Cruz campus with the Cupertino Extension site and all other UC campuses as well as CSU campuses, community colleges and any site capable of videoconferencing. This program runs an average of 6 hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week. As busy as this program is, it represents a small portion of the possible Distance Education/Open Learning opportunities available to the campus community. In the past, distance education was limited to the rooms capable of supporting the technology. With the advent of the Internet and IP videoconferencing, this has changed. All that is needed now is a videoconferencing unit and/or an Ethernet connection. Classes can now offer multi-site two-way synchronous connections and, at the same time, a one-way web cast that can be viewed on any browser with an asynchronous archived presentation for later viewing by students. Additionally, the development of asynchronous online courses represents tremendous opportunities in expanding the Distance Education/Open Learning offered by UCSC. Research and program experience with asynchronous online courses in higher education reveal that flexible scheduling and 7/24 access for students are the compelling motivating factors that have led to dramatic enrollment growth in online courses within the past three years. Examples of applications of Distance Education/ Open Learning to address current UCSC educational challenges:
Expand the Distance Education/Open Learning Unit Distance Education/Open Learning is a natural extension of technology enhanced classroom instruction. Most presentations using classroom technology can be offered on the web: PowerPoint presentations, video, audio, slides, and the like. The key difference between classroom and online instruction is student/instructor and student/student interaction. For this reason, the expansion of Distance Education/Open Learning at UCSC should be approached strategically, assessing student needs in great detail. Expansion of Distance Education/Open Learning activities at UCSC will require increased program intensity beyond the current level of activity including: reassessing the current synchronous format, mid-range strategic planning, needs assessment, market research, and funding. Distance Education/Open Learning would benefit from the appointment of a high-level director to serve as advocate and champion for distance education working directly with the faculty and deans. Distance Education/Open Learning will require specialized training for instructional developers; highly trained support technicians; and a well-developed technical infrastructure. To leverage its capability in this arena, the campus may wish to partner with other organizations, such as UCCP and University Extension. Top of Page | Site Map | A to Z Index | Search | Media Services Home Page | Information Technology Services | UCSC Home Questions about this page? Please contact Matt Norwood at norwood< at >ucsc.edu. |
||||||