Student
Technology Enhancement Plan
Steve Hicks (Chair), English Dept.
Dwayne Allison, Student Life
Jason Bronner, Art Dept.
Mark Cloud, Psychology Dept.
Michelle Eaton, Health & PE Dept.
Walt Eisenhauer, PA Program
Rick Harvey, Student
Bill Irwin, Financial Aid
Rey Junco, Counseling Dept.
Stephen Lee, Admissions
Rick Lilla, Library
Mark Luther, Head Football Coach
Don Patterson, Computing Services
Chris Turner, Student
The Student Technology Enhancement Task Force (TF) began work in November 2004. After four meetings of the entire group, they came to the following recommendation.
The university needs to proceed towards a standardization of computers through a series of steps that may eventually include a laptop requirement, which are outlined in the following report. The TF, after lengthy discussion, voted not to recommend a laptop requirement in the near future, but most agreed it is a likely event. Instead, the TF decided to lay the groundwork for such a requirement by pushing LHU technology into a more laptop friendly, network friendly direction.
Here are the steps generated by the task force: 1) create a wireless network on campus; 2) develop standardization of student computers; 3) supply students with information on the “standard” computer through web links, one to a computer vendor with whom the university has a contract; 4) create a technology certificate to confirm to employers that LHU students are technologically prepared; 5) initiate a faculty development program so faculty can provide ways to use laptops academically.
Projected Costs of TF Recommendations
|
Recommended Steps |
Timing |
Dollars |
|
Wireless |
AY 04-05 |
$286,000 |
|
Tech certificate |
AY 06-07 |
??? |
|
Faculty development |
AY 05-06 |
$101,000 |
|
Total |
|
$387,000 |
The Laptop Task Force
(henceforth “TF”) was constituted in early November 2004 in response to a
faculty request to President Miller. The
TF was asked by President Miller and Provost Hossain to “articulate and recommend
a university policy regarding student technology implementation.”
The TF met four times,
dividing into subcommittees at the first meeting. These subcommittees did the balk of the work
and were responsible for development of the steps laid out in this document. After some discussion, it was determined that
three subcommittees were needed: one for technology, to determine the hardware
and software needs of a laptop university (and manpower needed, too); one for
finance, to determine the ramifications on LHUP of laptop implementation; one
for education, to determine the value of laptops to LHUP’s educational
mission. Rick Lilla of the library was
asked to provide research; the web links created can be found at www.lhup.edu/library/home.htm.
Each of the four meetings
had full discussion of various aspects; the second meeting included outline
reports from the three subcommittees and a few words from Mr. Lilla on
available research.
At this meeting, the technology
subcommittee laid the groundwork for many of the steps outlined below. First was a recognition that wireless
networking was forthcoming at the university anyway, but was a necessary part
of the “laptop” process. Second was the
need for more technicians in the computing department: hiring two more was
advised based on the
A major point made in this
report, a bit stunning to many on the TF, was that no current wireless
technology would allow a classroom full of laptops – 25 to 40 laptops could not
connect effectively to a wireless module, and only one wireless module would
really work in a room.
Further information
provided at this meeting included the determination by the finance
subcommittee, after researching five public institutions with laptop
requirements (Northern Michigan University, SUNY-Morrisville, Winona State,
University of Minnesota, Crookston, Mayville State University), was that
student recruiting did not seem to be ill effected, though the admonition was
to “make sure that students use them enough once they get here to feel they
have gotten their money’s worth.”
The education subcommittee
reported that they had little success in finding an educational explanation for
a laptop requirement: universities who had made the commitment to laptops had
not revealed a pedagogical reason for doing so; it was apparent why certain
programs – engineering, sciences, even education – desired and could benefit
from laptops, but how comprehensive institutions did so was unclear. Even the Longwood information provided no
clue. The subcommittee was asked to correspond
with departments on campus requesting suggestions for educational use.
A final point of discussion
was the report from Paula Bell’s CIS class.
That report listed many issues that needed thought and recognized that
for a laptop requirement to be instituted, it needed to be done correctly.
The third, and longest,
meeting included a report from the education subcommittee on faculty use of the
possible required laptops. The
subcommittee received no response from departments on ways to use the laptops;
research found little in the way of broad-based plans for laptop use.
A major piece of the
discussion was over Mark Cloud’s proposal, titled “Ubiquitous Computing @ Lock
Haven University.” This outline began
with four premises: a wireless network, student choice for computer purchases,
standardized minimums in hardware and software, faculty and student development
of skills. The group agreed essentially
with these components, though much time was spent working on the details.
The final meeting of the TF
was spent attempting to generate consensus.
In the end, everyone agreed with some basic principles: a wireless
network on campus, standardization of machines and some software (MS Office, an
anti-virus program, XP Professional), a need to develop faculty-driven
classroom use of laptops, and that laptops could not be a requirement for Fall
’05. These basics were agreed upon;
much discussion covered the tone of the TF’s recommendation and the nature that
recommendation should take.
Before finishing the
written report, an open forum was held on 12 January 2005. This forum was attended by around fifty
people and outlined the TF’s recommendations and asked for input. The most noteworthy suggestion that is not
incorporated in the outlined steps is the need for student support:
currently, LHUP does not support students’ computing needs. We need a culture of such support before a
laptop requirement is instituted that is carried on heavily once one is.
The following pages lay out
a program for LHUP to enhance the current student technology by creating a
wireless network, standardizing computing on campus, providing access to
incoming students to standardized equipment from vendors solicited by the
university, and generating academic uses for laptops in the future through a
general education proficiency requirement and faculty developed
implementations.
The TF recognizes that
laptops will become more common on campus, as other campuses have announced
laptop requirement programs, and sees these steps as a way for LHU to be ready
for the likely possibility that it will become a “laptop university” maybe as
soon as the fall of 2006.
In order to have a
successful implementation of a notebook requirement, it is necessary to have
the appropriate infrastructure in place.
In the case of LHU, the deployment of wireless needs to be
expanded. The benefit of a notebook over
a desktop computer is portability.
However, the advantage of portability is diminished without network
access. Currently, wireless access is
available in two residence halls (McEntire and High), Stevenson Library, Raub
Hall, Sullivan Hall, and portions of Robinson Hall. Wireless should be available in all major
academic buildings (Ulmer, Akeley, Zimmerli, Sloan, East Campus, and Founder’s
Hall in
Wireless deployment
generates several benefits. In theory it
would be access for everyone anytime, anywhere.
This gives students much greater flexibility when it comes to where and
when they can study, do research, or simply read their email. There is also value in having a wireless
campus when it comes to recruiting regardless of a computer requirement. This could be one of the preliminary steps
put in place to support a future requirement.
Direct costs, support
costs, and the cost of technical obsolescence are part of any commitment to
technology. Currently it costs about
$15,000 to deploy wireless in a typical building (of course this varies with
size etc.). So there is an initial cost
depending on the number of buildings.
The additional support
staff for both the wireless deployment and the anticipated number of student
computers that will be added to the network is costly; the TF roughly estimated
$100,000 for two new staff members. This
estimate matches the increase reported at Longwood when they moved to a laptop
requirement.
The amount of bandwidth to
the internet needs to be evaluated and upgraded if necessary (which needs to be
done regardless). Also, as the wireless
infrastructure ages, a plan needs to be in place for financing upgrades and
replacement equipment.
Along with a wireless
network, the university would need to establish minimum software and operating
system standards and settings for access to that network. For example, everyone
must have an updated version of McAfee antivirus software and Windows XP
Professional (or Macintosh OSX) with personal firewalls turned on. We could
also standardize a set of recommended applications (e.g., MS Office
Professional, Acrobat Reader, FrontPage).
Students could be assisted
in fulfilling these standards by creating a recommended set of hardware and
software requirements for new desktop and laptop computer purchases listed on
our website(see next recommendation). There could also be links to purchase
student-discounted versions of MS Office Professional, McAfee and other
recommended applications.
We should also establish an
agreement with a vendor(s) to offer computers (both laptops and desktops) for
LHU students that meet all the standards with the needed software preinstalled.
This would provide the easiest method for students to accomplish the standards.
The vendor could also provide on-campus support that would increase the
likelihood that students purchase a compliant computer.
Implementation of this
program requires a strong University advocacy of the adopted standards (e.g.,
brochures, campus visitations, orientations, faculty support, web pages). Our
advocacy of purchasing laptops in such forums can help guide students to the
wisdom for such a choice without forcing students to choose a laptop.
Standardization generates
many benefits: (1) it should make academic computing on the network more secure
and free of viruses; (2) instructors can be assured that students’ computers
will have a standard set of computing power and software applications; (3) we
improve the computing atmosphere and tools of students while (at least
initially) preserving student choice---no mandate; (4) the process of
standardization affords an opportunity to transition to more stringent
requirements. Thus, as early as fall 2005, standards could be established for
students to serve as recommended “guides” for personal purchases. In the
future, the same standards could be become a requirement (i.e., you must have a
laptop or desktop that meets the standards). The addition of a vendor would
help expedite the establishment of standards; (5) if we were to require
exclusively laptops in the future, the standardization process would help make
the campus ready.
There are costs to
implementing a standard, though they are “hidden.” A sufficient staff is needed
to assess compliance with the standards. A procedure must be created for annual
vetting of computers that do and do not have the necessary software. You could
bring your computer with XP Home version for example, but it would not be
allowed on the network. Also, to assist
students in making the adoption of the standardization worthwhile, we will need
to provide additional support for student computing. That can be partially
realized through a vendor, however, additional staff will be needed to help
students keep their computers in good working order.
Advocating a standard will
create several problems that need to be solved.
How do we establish standard hardware and software recommendations for
both Macintosh and Windows-based computers? How do we create publicity (e.g,
web-pages, brochures) to support the initiative? How do we obtain vendor
agreements? How do we encourage faculty utilization of the new standards in
their classroom teaching?
The TF recommends that
standardized software and hardware requirements be established every year for
all in-coming students. These requirements would clarify, before a new student
arrives on campus, what hardware and software a student’s computer must
include. These requirements will be
generated from the standardization process outlined above.
To effectively communicate
these requirements, the following web sites will need to prominently display
the computer specifications: Admissions, Student Life/Orientation and the
As it is expected that some
students will not have a computer that meets the university’s requirements, all
communication (web postings, letters, emails) will include a recommended third
party source for purchasing a computer with approved hardware and software. To
establish what third party vendor LHU will recommend to students, an RFP will
need to be sent out to vendors.
The computer center would be
most suited to handle the RFP and to answer questions from students about the
hardware and software specifications. In light of the increased workload this
endeavor will entail, an evaluation of the computer staffing will need to be
conducted and more staff may need to be added.
A desired outcome of having
faculty versed in incorporating technology into the classroom is the ability to
enhance the technological skills of LHU students. In today’s workforce, employers
demand that college graduates exhibit a minimum level of computer skills,
however, this is often difficult to assess other than by asking the
uncomplicated question “are you computer literate?”
The TF recommends that LHU
adopt a Student Technology Competency Requirement in order for students to
graduate. Completion of the Technology Competency Requirement would be
indicated on the student’s official transcript, thereby informing employers,
graduate schools, and other interested parties, that the student has met a
minimum level of technological skill. The actual competencies required would be
open to debate by faculty and would be flexible enough that they can be changed
in order to respond to emerging technologies. As of this writing, technological
skills for the Technology Competency Requirement could include being proficient
in the use of Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Internet Explorer, and
internet search tools. Furthermore, a Technology Competency Requirement
reinforces the university’s commitment to technology and communicates a
tangible value-added dimension to prospective students and for PR purposes.
There are a number of ways
that a Technology Competency Requirement can be implemented at LHU. Some
possibilities include:
·
Incorporating a
technology requirement within existing general education requirements. A
student would be required to take a course (or series of courses) that would
enhance their technology skills.
·
Including
Technology Competency as part of general education overlays and offering
courses throughout the curriculum that would meet the guidelines of the overlay
(much in the same way as the Writing Emphasis or Informational Literacy
overlays are structured).
·
Providing an
online learning venue where students could learn the skills necessary to meet
the Technology Competency requirement. An online learning venue would include
interactive training and embedded assessment to solidify a student’s skills.
Whichever option is decided
upon, LHU will need to assess students’ technological skills in order to
determine whether or not they meet the standards to be able to graduate. For
instance,
Feedback to the taskforce reinforced the concept that if laptop computers were to be required that application of their use in the classroom would significantly increase the value of the requirement. A recurring question in TF discussions was “why should we do this?” The financial subcommittee, the CIS class report, and several sources (most notably the University of Minnesota-Crookston) indicate that if the university is going to do this, strong faculty-classroom reinforcement is necessary. The assessments at Crookston, a long-term laptop university, show that even after nearly ten years, faculty are not on board enough to fully reinforce laptop adoption. The benefits of this initiative as viewed by the taskforce includes the fact that faculty and students will learn “in step.” The laptop initiative will also demonstrate significant leadership and initiative on the part of faculty and administration and would serve as a significant public relations tool for the University.
The overall impression of the taskforce was that while the “divide” in technologic expertise between LHUP students and faculty has decreased over the past five to ten years it continues to exist. The use of laptop computers within the classroom setting would not apply to some disciplines and faculty should always retain the autonomy to decide if they desire to introduce laptop computers, or technology for that matter, into their instructional armamentarium. Of those faculties that desire to add this tool into their classroom strategies many do not possess the requisite knowledge and skills to migrate to the online environment or effectively use laptops in a classroom setting.
The proposal of the TF is that the university allocates funds for the 2005-06 AY to run several (as many as the guiding committee deems viable) faculty developed pilot programs. The RFPs for these funds will provide guidelines so that the resulting proposals generate classroom-driven laptop reinforcement. These proposals might include release time for faculty, or groups of faculty (it may be possible the entire freshman seminar program might propose laptop use), and/or providing laptops for part of the projects, part of the student body.
This proposal calls for a commitment of faculty development funds of approximately $50,000 – (six faculty members on quarter time release for a semester).
It might also be necessary (and this may be a requisite step towards “laptop university”) to “hard wire” one room on campus, as the Physician Assistant Program dedicated classroom is wired, so that a whole class might have internet access via laptops at once. The cost of hardwiring the Zimmerli 7 classroom in 1998 (for the PA program) was $26,000. An additional $25,000 dollars would be required to assure that faculty were provided with laptop computers (10 faculty at $2,500 per unit) having similar hardware and software specifications as those required by the students. This would enable them to adequately prepare for deployment and anticipate the barriers that students may encounter to successful implementation.
University administration would also need to work with faculty to determine the mechanisms by which these funds would be allocated and how the faculty development initiatives would be implemented on campus. Several existing resources such as the TLC and the office of distance education would represent logical resources that could be tapped to provide the leadership and expertise that would be required to carry this initiative forward.
Part of the charge of the
TF was to report ways to assess what we propose.
We submit that the best
assessment is for the TF to convene once each semester in AY 2005-06 to assess
how the above points are being implemented.
It would be necessary for the staff from the computing center (represented
on the TF by Don Patterson) to inform the TF about the incorporation of
wireless technology; representatives from computing and admissions to discuss
the website for standardization; student life to indicate any surveys or
anecdotes they may be aware of indicating purchase and use of computers; the
committee in charge of distributing faculty development funds to report on
their charges. The TF will then report
to the President on progress towards a laptop university.
The TF was created by
President Miller in part due to negative reactions to the possibility of a
“laptop requirement” among both faculty and students. The members of the TF discussed their
impression of technology frequently, and almost always positively – more than
once it was voiced “I’m a supporter of technology (sometimes specifically
laptops), but…”
The recommendations above
attempt to respond to some extent to the “but” in the sentence: the TF was
pretty unanimous in the assessment that LHU is currently not prepared in
hardware or staff to accommodate a laptop requirement.
However, one point of
consensus of the TF is that some type of technology is likely to be mandatory
for students in the near future: the longer we put off that mandatory date, the
more possibilities for what type of technology became realistic (whether they
be PDAs, view screens, or some new, small technology). There was much discussion about “laptops”
(notebook computers) and the upside to desktops (longer lasting, faster hookup
through Ethernet, larger screen), but the pizzazz of laptops (portability,
mobile internet links) have made them the technology of choice on campuses.
In the end, we recognize
the innovation of technology and its probable impact on our campus – the
Student Life survey indicating that 89% of our students already bring computers,
along with various studies on the shifts in student psychology in the new
millennium (the ubiquity of cell phones, PDAs, laptops, and other technology),
indicate the shift is already at hand. The
announcement in the fall that all of the
LHU needs to prepare for
more demand for technological expertise from prospective student employers and
prospective students. The steps outlined
above are meant to point the President in the direction of a more computerized
student body, and, possibly a laptop requirement in the future.
Recommendation
|
|
Time
|
Cost
|
Wireless Campus
|
10 buildings @ $15,000
each (hardware only) |
ASAP |
$150,000 |
2 New
Technicians
|
Est. $50,000/yr, each |
ASAP |
$100,000 |
Increased
bandwidth
|
$3000/mo. |
Fall 05 |
$36,000 |
Subtotal |
|
|
$286,000.00 |
Faculty Development
|
|
|
|
Hard-wired room |
$26,000 |
|
$26,000 |
Faculty laptops |
$25,000 |
|
$25,000 |
Faculty release time |
6 1/4 –time releases |
|
$50,000 |
Subtotal
|
|
|
$101,000.00 |
Total hard money cost[1]
|
|
|
$387,000
|
Periodicals
Campus Technology (formerly known as Syllabus)
Campus Technology is the only monthly publication
focusing exclusively on the use of technology across all areas of higher
education. Campus Technology
provides in-depth, aggressive coverage of specific technologies, their uses and
implementations, including enterprise resource planning; eLearning and course
management systems; presentation technologies; communication, portal, and
security solutions - all the important issues and trends for campus IT decision
makers. Launched in October, 2004, Campus Technology replaced the highly respected Syllabus magazine, a recognized leader in
the coverage of technology on campus since 1988. Campus Technology will continue to uphold Syllabus' mission of serving as a
complete resource for academic and administrative IT leaders in higher
education, and will provide in-depth coverage of specific technologies, their
uses and implementations on campus. (From Campus Technology home
page)
Educause Review
EDUCAUSE: a nonprofit
association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the
intelligent use of information technology.
AACE Journal: International
Forum on Information Technology in Education
The AACE Journal
(AACEJ), originally a print journal entitled Educational Technology
Review (ETR), has been transformed into an online publication to not only
increase timeliness of content but also to enhance every issue with the current
and future electronic resources and tools available on the Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) website.
AACEJ provides a multidisciplinary forum and focal point for AACE
members to exchange information between disciplines, educational levels, and
information technologies.
“
Akinmoladun, A.
“Wireless Laptop Computers in the Classroom and How it Revolutionizes
Teaching Methods.” AACE - World
Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health, & Higher Ed. Vol.
2004, Issue 1.
Alexander,
Ayers, Edward
L. “The Academic Culture & The IT Culture: Their Effect on Teaching and
Scholarship.” Educause Review:
November-December 2004.
Barak , M. “Wireless Laptop Computers as Means for
Facilitating Studio-based learning in Higher Education.” AACE - World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health, &
Higher Ed. Vol. 2004, Issue 1.
Becker , Helmut. “Advancements in Wireless
Networking...Not Just for Large Campuses.” Campus Technology: November
12, 2004.
Brass,
Brass,
Brown, David G. and Karen R. Petitto. “The Status of
Ubiquitous Computing.” Educause Review:
May-June 2003.
Brown, Ray. “