|
Instructional Computing and Technology Committee
Academic Program Planning and Review Recommendations 2004-2005
February 17, 2004
report in PDF format (59 KB): ictc_appr04.pdf
CONTENTS
Introduction
ICTC Policy Recommendations
Imagining Instructional Technology at MSU: A 5-10 Year Plan
Design and Infrastructure of Instructional Technology Spaces
Technology Classrooms
Computer Labs
Technology Support for the MSU Main Library
Campus Wireless Environments
Faculty Technology Training
Faculty Support for the Development of Hybrid Classes
Instructional Technology Evaluation and Feedback
ICTC Budget Recommendations, Priority Order
INTRODUCTION
The following 2004-2005 APP&R document was prepared by the Instructional Computing and Technology Committee (ICTC) for David Gift, Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology.
Active members of ICTC include: Phil Barrie (Broadcast Services); Byron Brown (LCT; Economics); Tom Davis (Computer Labs); Dànielle Nicole DeVoss (Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures); Pat Dickson (Educational Psychology and Special Education); Joseph Francese (Romance and Classical Languages); Dennie Hoopingarner (Center for Language Education and Research; Language Learning Center); Ranti Junus (Libraries); Gerd Kortemeyer (Natural Sciences; Instructional Technology in Education); Tony Nunez (Graduate School); R. Padmanabhan (Computer Labs); Joan Predko (VUDAT); K. Schuette (Registrar’s Office); Jo Smith (Computer Science and Engineering); Cheri Speier (Accounting and Information Systems, Eli Broad College of Business); Frank Tate (Instructional Media Center); Rich Tibbals (Communication Arts and Sciences).
The report is divided into two subject areas: The first section provides policy recommendations and suggests directions for instructional technology initiatives. The second section prioritizes proposed expenditures for LCT units; this second section is based on the combined LCT/TLE requests distributed by the office of Libraries, Computing and Technology in January 2004.
Framing this entire document is a priority recommendation ICTC wishes to assert: That the $10.4 million Teaching, Learning, and Education (TLE) funds be protected during these admittedly tight budget times. As the University’s instructional technology needs change and increase with emergent technologies, it is crucial that these funds be available. The TLE funds provide crucial support for MSU to stay current within the changing landscape of instructional technology.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Imagining Instructional Technology at MSU: A 5-10 Year Plan
Scenario-based approaches have become a rigorous and thought-provoking method of idea generation for technology needs and issues. See, for example:
Recommendation 1: That the Vice Provost of Libraries, Computing and Technology appoint a committee to meet with small groups of students, faculty, and administrators in departments across the University during AY 2004–2005 to establish 5-year and 10-year instructional technology scenarios. Reports documenting the scenarios should be accessible via the web, and should be used as guiding documents for all of the CCSAC subcommittees.
Recommendation 2: That at least one representative from ICTC be assigned to the instructional technology scenarios committee.
Design and Infrastructure of Instructional Technology Spaces
Teaching with technology at MSU takes place in technology classrooms and in computer labs, and each of these settings require continued improvement.
The need to rethink the design of tech classrooms and computer labs is receiving national attention in higher education. For example, one of the three major themes at the January meeting of the National Learning Innovation Initiative of EDUCAUSE in San Diego was "Learner-Centered Principles, Design and Practice," especially "Design of Learning Spaces” (attended by Byron Brown and Patrick Dickson from ICTC, see http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/spacedesign.asp). One session featured presentations from Stanford, the University of Arizona, and MIT on new learning spaces designed with input from various campus stakeholders. The conference presentations--which included design principles and photographs of the new spaces--emphasize the need for creative visions and changes in the ways we think about instructional technology in higher education generally and at MSU specifically.
Technology Classrooms
By the end of the summer of 2004, 188 of MSU’s 350 classrooms will be technology equipped--135 rooms with technology carts and 53 rooms with laptop podiums. 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.
ICTC supports the VPLCT budget recommendation for the replacement of outdated or not working technology classroom projectors, computers, and other equipment. ICTC also recommends the following actions in regard to tech classrooms:
Recommendation 3: The commitment to technology classrooms should continue; MSU should continue to convert classrooms with limited or no technology to technology classrooms.
Recommendation 4: Technology classrooms should be regularly assessed regarding faculty need and instructional use, especially as more classrooms support laptop use and wireless capabilities.
Computer Labs
The University maintains approximately 50 public computer laboratories; these labs 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 MSU.
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 computer labs does not facilitate the collaborative student work valued in many courses.
Specifically, most of the computer labs are arranged in 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 emphasizes a lecture-based, professor-dominating-from-the-front-of-the-room environment.
Further, technology trends in the United States indicate that laptop and wireless use will continue to grow over the coming years. It is important, however, that as we adopt more mobile computing practices we also maintain the wired infrastructure that the University has developed. Specifically, attention must be paid to wireless initiatives (addressed below, in the section on “Campus Wireless Environments”), and attention must also be paid to the maintenance and further development of instructional technology spaces such as the tech classrooms.
Recommendation 5: As new computer labs are added or existing laboratories are renovated, different lab designs should be reviewed, considered, and implemented--including “pod and cluster“ layouts.
Recommendation 6: The redesign of labs must be driven by the instructional uses of the space. Example institutions that have actively engaged students, faculty, and other stakeholders in the design of technology-rich instructional spaces include Stanford, the University of Arizona, and MIT.
Recommendation 7: Several computer labs are capable of accommodating student laptop use (e.g., Bessey 214 and 317, 26 Student Services). Space for laptop use will become increasingly important as students choose to bring laptops to MSU and to the classes held in computer labs.
Technology Support for the MSU Main Library
The campus libraries are key technology access points for many students. The Main Library acts as perhaps the most widely accessible computer lab on campus. In addition, electronic resources are a key digital research space for students and faculty. Maintaining updated, accessible, wide-ranging electronic databases is crucial for MSU’s intellectual infrastructure.
Recommendation 8: A campus priority should be to provide computers and network support in the Main Library equal to the support of the other campus computer labs. ICTC thus supports the Libraries’ request for public computer upgrades.
Recommendation 9: ICTC also supports the Libraries’ request for electronic resources support.
Campus Wireless Environments
There is an increasing call for the use of wireless technology in instructional settings, and planned approaches and deployment have been underway at the University over the past few years. As wireless demand continues to grow, it is crucial that access, security, and appropriate deployment frame that growth.
Recommendation 10: The common spaces on campus should be prioritized for deployment of wireless networking. Specific initial wireless hotspots should include the Main Library, all branch libraries, the Union, the International Center, the outdoor commons near the Red Cedar River between Erickson and Wells Hall, the Writing Center, the lobby of Olin Health Center, and the lobby of the Department of Police and Public Safety.
Recommendation 11: Support for wireless networking for instructional purposes should be considered by proposal basis. Interested faculty, groups, or departments should be encouraged to submit specific proposals and rationale statements for wireless development directly to ICTC. Proposals will then be reviewed through a process similar to ICTC’s software request review process, and ICTC will recommend funding for qualified applicants through the Computer Laboratories’ Wireless Deployment Phase II funds. Priority will be given to those proposals that clearly integrate instructional goals and needs.
Recommendation 12: ICTC recognizes and supports the initiatives of the Network Communication Committee in developing wireless security and compatibility approaches through a campus-wide policy on wireless access.
Faculty Technology Training
Technology training and support for faculty continues to be an important activity. Current efforts include the Libraries, Computing and Technology Training Program (LCTTP) and the Libraries, Computing and Technology Faculty Seminar series.
Training and education efforts must be relevant in regard to new and emerging technologies. Training and education efforts should likewise take into account the instructional and intellectual needs of faculty as they test and adopt new technologies.
Recommendation 13: Libraries, Computing and Technology should continue its commitment to education and training to help faculty take advantage of existing and emerging technologies.
Recommendation 14: ICTC supports VUDAT’s budget requests for ANGEL support and for the proposed TA Instructional Technology Certificate Program. This is especially crucial as ANGEL use continues to rise, and as Blackboard is phased out at the end of spring 2004.
Faculty Support for the Development of Hybrid Classes
Hybrid classes--defined by the Chronicle of Higher Education as courses with some of the traditional/physical class meetings replaced by online sessions--can be an excellent use of physical space, faculty creativity and technology know-how, and electronic networks (http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm). When integrated and implemented appropriately, hybrid classes can create a space for faculty to translate excellent teaching and information-delivery skills to online spaces, and to create student-directed, student-centered spaces for learning well-supplemented by classroom instruction.
ICTC supports University efforts to launch more hybrid classes, and makes the following recommendations regarding hybrid classes:
Recommendation 15: As the primary instructional platform for the delivery of online learning at MSU, ICTC supports VUDAT’s budget requests for continued ANGEL development and faculty support.
Recommendation 16: Efforts should be initiated to educate faculty about hybrid learning and to encourage faculty development of hybrid courses. Workshops, forums, and other campus-wide discussions are necessary to educate the University community regarding both the promises and drawbacks of hybrid learning. Such educational efforts will support faculty, departments, and units as they consider hybrid delivery.
Recommendation 17: Support should be provided for those faculty teaching courses that lend themselves well to hybrid delivery. Support might include, for instance, course-release time to develop a durable hybrid course.
Recommendation 18: ICTC recognizes the importance of platform standardization and supports University efforts toward further integration and continued support of ANGEL. At the same time, ICTC urges the University to recognize that a standard platform may not support the pedagogical needs of all faculty; faculty should thus have some flexibility in selecting and implementing alternative courseware (e.g. LON-CAPA) that provides capabilities lacking in the standard courseware platform. The committee thus recommends the continued centralized funding of LON-CAPA support staff at a minimum of the current level.
Recommendation 19: Because hybrid courses often change instructional dynamics and students’ physical access to one another and to their instructor, innovative methods of student support should be developed, such as the Lyman Briggs Collaborative Learning Lab (http://www.lite.msu.edu/kortemeyer/helproom/) and the Writing Center’s Digital Consultancy (http://writing.msu.edu/about/digital.html).
Instructional Technology Evaluation and Feedback
To evaluate the effectiveness of the University’s instructional technology efforts, it is crucial to directly solicit student feedback. To meet this goal, during spring of 2003 and fall of 2004, ICTC invited representative groups of students to join the committee and discuss their technology goals, concerns, and successes. These discussions with students were incredibly valuable, and we encourage the office of Libraries, Computing and Technology to adopt similar approaches and to also extend this approach by capturing feedback using systematic surveys from a larger base of MSU stakeholders.
Recommendation 20: ICTC should continue to be a portal through which student experiences can be gathered and disseminated to the University community. ICTC recommends that focus groups with students become part of the committee’s charge and that the committee be required to submit reports, for instance, to Libraries, Computing and Technology; to the Vice Provost of Student Affairs; and to the Provost’s office. These reports should also be published on the ICTC web site and the results of the focus groups should be represented in the policy recommendations ICTC prepares as part of the annual APP&R process.
Recommendation 21: A systematic survey for investigating student and faculty attitudes regarding instructional technology experiences should be developed and implemented. ICTC recommends an approach that would generate accessible data not anchored to specific courses or individual faculty members. A survey could be linked from and implemented through ANGEL (e.g., from a link on the main/index page of MSU’s ANGEL space, http://www.angel.msu.edu). ICTC is available to develop, implement, and report data through such a survey.
BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Priority Order by Unit (1 indicates highest rating/priority; 10 indicates lowest rating/priority)
| Requesting
Unit Priority Rating |
Requesting
Unit |
Description |
Amount |
ICTC
Rating Average(1–10) |
| 1 |
Libraries |
Compact Shelving |
300,000 |
4.0 |
| 2 |
Libraries |
Electronic Resources |
250,000
|
3.3 |
| 3 |
Libraries |
Public Computer Upgrades |
200,000 |
4.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
BCS |
Upgrade 1208 and 1220
Engineering Building Instructor Monitors |
12,400 |
4.3 |
| 2 |
BCS |
Upgrade Remote Site
Viewing in 145 Communication Arts |
20,000 |
4.0 |
| 3 |
BCS |
Upgrade to 133-D Erickson
Hall |
16,500 |
4.5 |
| 4 |
BCS |
Wireless Microphones |
6,600 |
4.8 |
| 5 |
BCS |
Upgrade Status Monitors |
4,700 |
5.7 |
| 6 |
BCS |
DVD Recorder/Players
|
9,000 |
4.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
VPLCT |
New Technology Classrooms |
475,000 |
3.5 |
| 2 |
VPLCT |
Upgrade (replace) technology
classroom projectors, computers, and other equipment (amplifiers, VCRs,
etc.) |
511,500 |
3.7 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| --- |
LC&T |
Hybrid course development
(HOTPAC) |
300,000 |
2.2 |
| --- |
LC&T |
High performance computing
upgrades and software |
300,000 |
5.3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
AIS
|
Web Enrollment and
Registration Database Replication and Messaging Middleware |
400,000 |
4.3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
VUDAT |
Streaming Server Storage
Expansio |
100,000 |
3.7 |
| 2 |
VUDAT |
TA Instructional Technology
Certification Program |
--- |
4.2 |
| 3 |
VUDAT |
ANGEL Student Assistance
Program |
--- |
5.5 |
| 4 |
VUDAT |
Digital Still Camera
& Accessories |
2,800 |
4.5 |
| 5 |
VUDAT |
MSU Photo/Graphic Repository
Server |
5,000 |
6.3 |
| 6 |
VUDAT |
Non-credit Subscription
Storefront Enhancement |
7,500 |
7.2 |
| 7 |
VUDAT |
Portable Web Demo Kit |
5,500 |
6.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
CL |
Michigan Dark Fiber |
2,500,000 |
4.7 |
| 2 |
CL |
ANGEL Course Management
|
176,400 |
3.7 |
| 3 |
CL |
Microlab upgrades;
all teaching labs now >=1GHz |
300,000 |
3.5 |
| 4 |
CL |
Microlab software renewals/upgrades |
200,000 |
3.5 |
| 5 |
CL |
Wireless deployment;
Phase II |
150,000 |
2.8 |
| 6 |
CL |
Classroom network upgrades |
178,000 |
3.8 |
| 7 |
CL |
Next-generation storage |
60,000 |
7.0 |
| 8 |
CL |
Business continuity:
mail.msu.edu |
260,000 |
6.0 |
| 9 |
CL |
Business continuity:
angel.msu.edu |
100,000 |
6.7 |
| 10 |
CL |
Campus backbone 10Gbps
upgrade; Phase I |
100,000 |
4.2 |
| 11 |
CL |
Network management
software |
52,000 |
5.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
CAO |
Support for UsableNet
Lift Products for Web Site Accessibility and Usability Evaluation and Remediation |
18,000 |
5.2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
IMC |
Laptop Computers |
13,800 |
4.2 |
| 2 |
IMC |
DVD/VCR Players |
2,000 |
3.8 |
| 3 |
IMC |
Multi Format DVD Player |
600 |
5.0 |
| 4 |
IMC |
XGA-high resolution
document imagers |
17,640 |
5.8 |
| 5 |
IMC |
Video Projector Security
in Tech Rooms |
15,000 |
6.0 |
| 6 |
IMC |
Power Speakers for
Video Projectors |
1,400
|
5.3 |
| 7 |
IMC |
Wireless Remotes for
slide projectors |
1,390 |
7.3 |
| 8 |
IMC |
Zoom Lenses for slide
projectors |
675
|
7.3 |
Priority Order by Rating (1 indicates highest rating/priority; 10 indicates lowest rating/priority)
| Requesting
Unit Priority Rating |
Requesting
Unit |
Description |
Amount |
ICTC
Rating Average(1–10) |
| --- |
LC&T |
LC&T Hybrid course
development (HOTPAC) |
300,000
|
2.2 |
| 5 |
CL |
Wireless deployment;
Phase II |
150,000
|
2.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
Libraries
|
Electronic Resources |
250,000 |
3.3 |
| 1 |
VPLCT |
New Technology Classrooms |
475,000 |
3.5 |
| 3 |
CL |
Microlab upgrades;
all teaching labs now >=1GHz |
300,000 |
3.5 |
| 4 |
CL |
Microlab software renewals/upgrades |
200,000 |
3.5 |
| 1 |
VUDAT |
Streaming Server Storage
Expansion |
100,000 |
3.7 |
| 2 |
VPLCT |
Upgrade (replace) technology
classroom projectors, computers, and other equipment (amplifiers, VCRs,
etc.) |
511,500
|
3.7 |
| 2 |
CL |
ANGEL Course Management |
176,400 |
3.7 |
| 2 |
IMC |
DVD/VCR Players |
2,000
|
3.8 |
| 6 |
CL |
Classroom network upgrades |
178,000
|
3.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Libraries |
Compact Shelving |
300,000
|
4.0 |
| 2 |
BCS |
Upgrade Remote Site
Viewing in 145 Communication Arts |
20,000
|
4.0 |
| 3 |
Libraries |
Public Computer Upgrades |
200,000
|
4.0 |
| 1 |
IMC |
Laptop Computers |
13,800 |
4.2 |
| 2 |
VUDAT |
TA Instructional Technology
Certification Program |
--- |
4.2 |
| 10 |
CL |
Campus backbone 10Gbps
upgrade; Phase I |
100,000
|
4.2 |
| 1 |
BCS |
Upgrade 1208 and 1220
Engineering Building Instructor Monitors |
12,400 |
4.3 |
| 1 |
AIS
|
Web Enrollment and
Registration Database Replication and Messaging Middleware |
400,000
|
4.3 |
| 3 |
BCS |
Upgrade to 133-D Erickson
Hall |
16,500 |
4.5 |
| 4 |
VUDAT |
Digital Still Camera
& Accessories |
2,800 |
4.5 |
| 1 |
CL |
Michigan Dark Fiber |
2,500,000 |
4.7 |
| 4 |
BCS |
Wireless Microphones |
6,600 |
4.8 |
| 6 |
BCS |
DVD Recorder/Players |
,000
|
4.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
IMC |
Multi Format DVD Player
|
600 |
5.0 |
| 11 |
CL |
Network management
software |
52,000 |
5.0 |
| 1 |
CAO |
Support for UsableNet
Lift Products for Web Site Accessibility and Usability Evaluation and Remediation
|
18,000
|
5.2 |
| 6 |
IMC |
Power Speakers for
Video Projectors |
1,400 |
5.3 |
| --- |
LC&T |
High performance computing
upgrades and software |
300,000 |
5.3 |
| 3 |
VUDAT |
ANGEL Student Assistance
Program |
--- |
5.5 |
| 5 |
BCS |
Upgrade Status Monitors
|
4,700 |
5.7 |
| 4 |
IMC |
XGA-high resolution
document imagers |
17,640 |
5.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
IMC |
Video Projector Security
in Tech Rooms |
15,000
|
6.0 |
| 8 |
CL |
Business continuity:
mail.msu.edu |
260,000
|
6.0 |
| 5 |
VUDAT |
MSU Photo/Graphic Repository
Server |
5,000 |
6.3 |
| 9 |
CL |
Business continuity:
angel.msu.edu |
100,000 |
6.7 |
| 7 |
VUDAT |
Portable Web Demo Kit
|
5,500
|
6.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
CL |
Next-generation storage |
60,000 |
7.0 |
| 6 |
VUDAT |
Non-credit Subscription
Storefront Enhancement |
7,500 |
7.2 |
| 7 |
IMC |
Wireless Remotes for
slide projectors |
1,390
|
7.3 |
| 8 |
IMC |
Zoom Lenses for slide
projectors |
675
|
7.3 |
|