February 20, 2003
report in PDF format (32 KB): ictc_appr02.pdf
CONTENTS
Introduction
ICTC Policy Recommendations
Technology Classrooms
Faculty Technology Training
Online Exams
Piloting Wireless Classrooms
MSU Technology Classrooms
Student Evaluation and Feedback
Appendices
INTRODUCTION
The following 2003-2004 APP&R document was prepared by the Instructional Computing and Technology Committee (ICTC) for David Gift, Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology. The report is divided into two subject areas: The first section provides policy recommendations and suggests directions for instructional technology initiatives. The second section describes and prioritizes proposed expenditures for specific Broadcasting Services (BCS), Computer Laboratory (CL), Instructional Media (IMC), Instructional Technology, Library, and Virtual University (VUDAT) initiatives. The specific initiatives are prioritized for an endorsement group and a rating group. The Computer Laboratory and Library are rated as an endorsement group, because these are outside the direct purview of ICTC; BCS, IMC, Instructional Technology, and VU are rated together as they generally fall within ICTC responsibility.
ICTC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Technology Classrooms
MSU’s technology classrooms continue to have an important impact on pedagogy. With their easy-to-use multimedia facilities, the technology classrooms continue to expand the opportunities for more exciting and insightful learning experiences. Each classroom allows the use of video, audio, and a networked computer connected to a permanently installed, high-quality projection system.
MSU currently has over 130 University technology classrooms. (There are also other campus technology classrooms that are not centrally scheduled, but are instead controlled by individual colleges.) The vast majority of large university classrooms are now equipped with technology carts and data projectors; the availability of technology to a faculty member assigned to teach in a large room is virtually assured. A first-year student in a large-enrollment required course now has an excellent chance of being in a classroom equipped for multimedia. As that student moves from introductory to more advanced courses with smaller class sizes, it is less likely that he or she will be in a technology classroom. However, it is at the advanced level that students and instructors are more likely to teach and explore computer applications in their fields. At the graduate level, where small classes are the norm, there are important computer applications in business, mathematics, statistics, econometrics, and the natural sciences that can be taught effectively only in a computer-equipped technology classroom.
Although the greatest concentration of technology rooms is in the Business College Complex, Wells Hall, and Bessey Hall, the geographical proliferation of rooms continues. There are now technology classrooms available in the 23 classroom and academic buildings, as well as in 6 residence halls. The Registrar’s Office reports that scheduling requests for technology classrooms continues to increase; the Computer Lab reports that there are a growing number of logins for most of the technology classroom computer stations, indicating increasing use.
Because MSU has been creating technology classrooms since 1996, and because there have been significant advances in technology over the intervening years, the replacement of multimedia equipment has become a serious financial burden. This burden will continue to increase as we build more technology classrooms. The two most important replacement items for technology classrooms are projectors and computers, with projectors being by far the most costly.
Recommendation 1: The commitment to technology classrooms should continue; MSU should continue to convert classrooms with limited or no technology to technology classrooms. Funding for creating new technology classrooms should continue at approximately the current levels.
Recommendation 2: An emphasis should be placed on converting small classrooms to technology classrooms, as there is a relative shortage of smaller technology classrooms.
Recommendation 3: The design of new technology classrooms should recognize the increased ownership and use of laptops by faculty members.
Recommendation 4: The replacement of data projectors, computers, and other audiovisual equipment in the technology classrooms should be evaluated on an annual basis, and funds should then be provided for replacement as deemed necessary.
Faculty Technology Training
Providing training and support for faculty using the technology classrooms continues to be an important activity. Current efforts include the Libraries, Computing and Technology Training Program (LCTTP); the Libraries, Computing and Technology Faculty Seminar series; the support services provided by the Instructional Media Center; and the Faculty Facility for Creative Computing. During AY2000–2001, MSU began supporting the Blackboard course management system for all scheduled courses; the transition to the Angel Course Management System in AY2003–2004 will also require significant training and integration efforts. Often, it is assumed that faculty members are knowledgeable about the advantages and limitations of multimedia technologies. Further, many faculty members do not know how to use University technology facilities to their best advantage, and some may not know how to use them at all.
Recommendation 5: Libraries, Computing and Technology should continue its education, training, and commitment to help faculty take advantage of the new techniques; further, more options for free seminars and training sessions should be available to faculty. The free and well-publicized seminars offered by the Instructional Media Center on technology use in the classroom should be continued.
Recommendation 6: Two new web sites should be created: One where faculty, staff, and students could identify where specialty software and hardware exists on campus. (The current lists [http://www.microlabs.msu.edu/] include what is available in each lab, but individuals often search not by lab, but by software application or hardware equipment available.) A second web site would support promote the use of instructional technology and support in using instructional technology by listing faculty and staff with specialized software and hardware expertise; the listing should occur only with the approval of the faculty and staff involved.
Online Exams
There have been a number of requests by faculty members to be able to give online exams using course management systems. Faculty point out that they attempt to incorporate new techniques and modes of instruction into their teaching, yet frequently are forced to assess their students using Likert-scaled (1 out of 5) multiple-choice questions on bubble sheets. They are unable to directly integrate questions and problems already implemented in the course management system directly (or by random selection) into their exams, and are unable to provide immediate feedback.
The specific challenges are twofold: scalability of systems and facilities. The scalability issue focuses on the ability to give online exams to both small and large classes. In one case, a faculty member attempted to give 600 students online “take-home“ exams within a two-hour duration; Blackboard was unable to handle this type of peak workload. For higher-stakes exams, where in-class attendance and identity verification are required, there is no large lab on campus to handle class sizes greater than 60 students. Further, during an exam, there is currently no way to restrict student Internet access to approved sites and protocols.
Recommendation 7: The new course management system should be designed to appropriately handle large numbers of parallel active sessions. If this capability is not included in the Angel system, there should be a high priority to include it.
Recommendation 8: Exploring and piloting of several options should be considered, including: a) the design of a student response system for use during in-class examination periods; b) alternate boot images for microlabs that would restrict network access to the course management system servers; and c) temporary reconfiguration of the microlab routers to restrict access to external or inappropriate web sites.
Piloting Wireless Classrooms
Although ICTC understands that the responsibility for wireless technology specification may be beyond its mission, there is an increasing call for the use of wireless technology in instructional settings. Although not promoting wide-scale adoption just yet, we believe some organized prototyping should be used to offer opportunities to faculty on an experimental basis.
Faculty are able to create temporary wireless networks in small classrooms using the network access provided by the technology carts, larger classrooms require different technologies. Several instructors need to have control over the activation and deactivation of the wireless network in the room at different times during classes. Faculty may also wish to use one wireless system with minor adjustments without having to significantly reconfigure the machine for a specific room. In addition, without a wireless networking policy, units and individuals will continue to launch their own frequently insecure and incompatible solutions.
Recommendation 9: Pilot deployment of wireless networking technology should be conducted in technology classrooms.
Recommendation 10: Wireless security and compatibility should be addressed through the development of a campus-wide policy on wireless access. For example, an access control scheme could to be developed that might require registration of laptop systems for wireless access similar to or coupled with the DHCP registration on campus.
MSU Microcomputer Laboratories
The University maintains over 50 public microcomputer laboratories. MSU’s Microcomputer Laboratories have--and will continue to have, even in the face of rapidly developing communications and computer technologies--an important impact on how instructors teach their classes and what technology-based learning students acquire during their time at the University. As technology evolves, so does pedagogy, and much teaching is currently guided by active-learning principles, which are also emphasized in the University’s “Guiding Principles.“ Active-learning approaches often encourage group problem-solving approaches and collaborative work. However, the current design paradigm for most of the University’s microcomputer laboratories does not support collaborative student work.
Specifically, most of the microcomputer laboratories are arranged in stabile, static rows. Students cannot easily move around the rooms, and in many laboratories the rows are spaced so closely together that students are not able to work in groups. The row-oriented design also affects teachers’ active-learning practices and their attempts to share classroom authority. The row-oriented layouts also emphasize a lecture-based, professor-dominating-from-the-front-of-the-room environment.
Certainly, the row-oriented design evolved from technical and technological realities that we recognize and respect, but we do encourage the University to move beyond the now-outdated lab designs and work to enhance a culture of technology in microcomputer labs by selectively redesigning microcomputer laboratories on campus (i.e., when appropriate and when labs are renovated and upgraded).
Further, in many of the current lab configurations, the data projector screens block use of chalk boards, forcing the instructor to use one or the other rather than having easy access to and use of both the projector screen and the boards.
Finally, all MSU students are now required to come to the University with a computer, and students often choose to purchase a laptop. We anticipate that more and more students will choose to come to class with their laptops, and may require Internet access in the labs in which their classes are held.
Recommendation 11: Different lab designs should be reviewed, considered, and implemented—including “pod and cluster“ layouts—as new microcomputer laboratories are added or existing laboratories are renovated. Examples of well-designed labs that can foster and enhance an active-learning environment through collaboration include:
- Erickson 132 (21 machines: instructor station at central seminar table, computer organized around walls with central seminar table in middle of room);
- Erickson 133 (45 machines [mixed PC/IBM and Mac/Apple]: center teaching area, machines on periphery);
- Bessey 214 (32 machines: instructor station at front of room, computers organized in “pods“ of 6 machines each); and
- German TA classroom.
Recommendation 12: When microcomputer lab design is discussed and implemented, blackboards and/or whiteboards should be situated in a location where the instructor can use both the data projector and the boards if feasible (i.e., the data projector screens should not block the use of boards in the teaching space).
Recommendation 13: As lab designs are reviewed and as labs are upgraded, accessible server and Internet connections should be installed for student laptop use.
Student Evaluation and Feedback
The University put in place its Technology Guarantee in 1996, promising students “an intensive, quality-based technological experience during their undergraduate years, from admission to graduation“ (http://www.msu.edu/events/techinfo/). MSU’s technology classrooms and microcomputer laboratories have--and will continue to have, even in the face of rapidly developing communications and computer technologies and even in the face of students coming to campus with their own computers--an important impact on students’ technology-based learning. To evaluate the effectiveness of the University’s public microcomputer laboratories and thus to partially assess the status of the Technology Guarantee, it is crucial to directly solicit student feedback regarding the labs. Further, to enhance the technology-based experiences of undergraduate students in general, it is crucial that students be recruited to positions on the technology-related governing bodies and committees on campus.
Recommendation 14: Students should be queried regarding their experiences related to the technology classrooms and public microcomputer labs. ICTC suggests that this be implemented by a special ad-hoc task force, and conducted during AY2003-2004 via:
- focus groups conducted with small groups of students, ranging in status from first-year to senior-status undergrad; students will be requested to provide ICTC with their input in groups of 3–4 during regularly scheduled ICTC meetings, and
- an email discussion list created to allow faculty, computer representatives, and students to remain knowledgeable regarding ICTC proceedings.
These requests for student input should be coordinated with the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Education.
APPENDICES
ICTC Budget Recommendations: Priority Order--Endorsement Group
| Number | Description | Unit | Amount | Rating Average (1-10) |
| 1. | Email: Anti-virus software | CL | 100,000 | 9.20 |
| 2. | Course management system: Hardware | CL | 175,000 | 8.60 |
| 3. | Course management system: License | CL | 100,000 | 8.60 |
| 4. | Server infrastructure: AFS | CL | 100,000 | 8.17 |
| 5. | Server infrastructure: WWW, microlabs | CL | 100,000 | 8.00 |
| 6. | Networking: Wireless phase I | CL | 100,000 | 8.00 |
| 7. | Microlabs: Software renewals | CL | 200,000 | 7.60 |
| 8. | Course management system: Training | CL | 25,000 | 7.40 |
| 9. | Email: Anti-spam software | CL | 50,000 | 7.40 |
| 10. | Public computer upgrade | Library | 200,000 | 7.33 |
| 11. | Microlabs: Hardware upgrades | CL | 500,000 | 7.20 |
| 12. | Electronic resources | Library | 250,000 | 7.17 |
| 13. | Scoring office | CL | 25,000 | 6.83 |
| 14. | Networking: DCHP security scanner | CL | 25,000 | 6.80 |
| 15. | Compact shelving | Library | 412,000 | 6.33 |
| 16. | Data center: Monitoring | CL | 100,000 | 6.00 |
| 17. | Data center: Disaster recovery | CL | 50,000 | 5.83 |
| 18. | Data center: Power/network upgrades | CL | 50,000 | 5.50 |
| 19. | Data center: Unattended tape library | CL | 75,000 | 5.50 |
| TOTAL | | | | 2,637,000 |
ICTC Budget Recommendations: Priority Order--Rating Group
| Number | Description | Unit | Amount | Rating Average (1-10) |
| 1. | Software fund | ICTC | 120,000 | 9.67 |
| 2. | Ethernet upgrade for IMC | IMC | 20,000 | 7.60 |
| 3. | Create 20 new technology classrooms | Inst. Tech. | 475,000 | 7.60 |
| 4. | Video/data projects | IMC | 192,000 | 7.33 |
| 5. | Upgrade codecs | BCS | 30,000 | 7.17 |
| 6. | Upgrade 145 Comm Arts | BCS | 82,000 | 7.00 |
| 7. | Upgrade video bridge | BCS | 44,000 | 6.67 |
| 8. | Replace technology classroom equipment | Inst. Tech. | 358,000 | 6.33 |
| 9. | Overhead projectors | IMC | 8,250 | 6.20 |
| 10. | Replace IMC scheduling system | IMC | 60,000 | 5.80 |
| 11. | Upgrade 1220 Engineering | BCS | 3,000 | 5.67 |
| 12. | High lumen overhead projectors | IMC | 21,000 | 5.40 |
| 13. | Streaming media solution upgrade | VUDAT | 100,000 | 4.80 |
| 14. | VUDAT video production suite | VUDAT | 14,000 | 4.80 |
| 15. | Laptop computers for class | IMC | 44,800 | 4.60 |
| 16. | VUDAT Flash MX server | VUDAT | 10,000 | 4.60 |
| 17. | Ethernet projector control | IMC | 50,000 | 4.20 |
| TOTAL | | | | 1,592,000 |
