ITP Phase II Task Force Report

1. ITP Phase II Task Force Report October 13, 2000

2. Charge from the President • Develop a thorough proposal to • Acknowledge success of ITP • Prepare CCSU to capitalize on the successes • Position CCSU to transition to the next phase of the project

3. Charge from the President • Advise CCSU on the next iteration of technology • Review the existing policies and practices of ITP to determine and articulate modifications • Identify the best means for students and employees to be equipped with appropriate technology

4. Charge from the President • Present a budget for Phase II of ITP that does not require any debt on the part of CCSU • Present an implementation plan for ITP Phase II • Provide a public relations plan for ITP Phase II

5. Description of the Process • Began with no preconceived judgments • Completely open both to questioning the current system and to formulating various options • Significant part of the early stages of work involved designing, distributing, compiling and analyzing surveys for faculty, staff and students

6. Surveys • Faculty, staff and student surveys were conducted. • Surveys were not scientifically designed: self-selected volunteers, no statistically planned samples. • Possibility of bias in survey results exists.

7. Faculty Participation

8. Student Participation

9. Survey Results • Results for selected questions, relevant to the options under consideration, are provided. • Results for all survey questions are available on the Web at: http://science.clayton.edu/campbell/ITP2/SurveyIndex.htm

10. Do you think that learning is enhanced by the use of technology? Faculty Survey: Question 30

11. Do you think that your learning in courses is enhanced by the use of technology? Student Survey: Question 14

12. In a typical course that you teach, how often are your students required to use notebook computers IN THE CLASSROOM OR LAB ROOM each semester? Faculty Survey: Question 2

13. In a typical course, how often are you required to use notebook computers IN THE CLASSROOM OR LAB ROOM each semester? Student Survey: Question 2

14. If students in your classes did not have notebook computers, but did have access to computers at home and to computers in computer labs on-campus, how greatly would the quality of your teaching be affected? Faculty Survey: Question 20

15. Do you own a Personal Computer (PC) that connects to the Internet? Student Survey: Question 22

16. If you did not have the notebook computer provided by CCSU, would you have a computer readily available that would enable you to complete your academic work at CCSU? Student Survey: Question 23

17. Assuming that students will not be required to have notebook computers in the future and given the fact that instruction in major core courses in some disciplines now relies upon the use of the computers in the classroom, do you think that computer labs with primary assignment to those courses should be provided on campus? Faculty Survey: Question 24

18. Referring to the last question and its assumption, do you think you are teaching a course this semester that would qualify for primary assignment to a computer lab? Faculty Survey: Question 25

19. Range of Options • #1: No computers required and no computer labs • #2: Computer labs provided on campus with no student requirements to purchase/lease or own computers • #3: Minimum hardware/software requirements for students without on-campus labs

20. Range of Options • #4: Minimum hardware/software requirements for students with computer labs provided on campus • #5: Student choice of notebook computer with minimum hardware/software requirements • #6: CCSU designated notebook computer with minimum hardware/software requirements

21. Analysis of Options • Each option was debated/analyzed in the light of survey data and in terms of advantages/disadvantages in areas such as: • Teaching and learning • Costs • Financial aid • Student needs and training • Faculty needs and training • Image and marketing

22. Analysis of Options • Options #1-3 were emphatically rejected due to: • Loss of developments in new strategies for teaching and learning • On-line course development • Communication via e-mail • Degree programs in IT • Failure to comply with a key part of CCSU’s institutional mission • Regression in terms of our niche within our service area

23. Analysis of Options • Option 4 and a combination of options 5 and 6 were selected as the most workable for CCSU. • Task force members unanimously agree that Option 5/6 is the most desirable,reaffirming CCSU’s commitment to using technology to enhance learning.

24. Analysis of Options • As described below, Option 4 is viewed as the most feasible on an interim basis only. This option provides • A continuing commitment to technologically enhanced education • Time for CCSU to obtain financing/funding for a long-term solution

25. Assumptions • The task force made certain assumptions about students’ ability and willingness to purchase a notebook computer. • To test these assumptions and acquire additional input, the task force recommends several open forums to be held on campus before any final decision is made.

26. Descriptions of Options 4 and 5/6

27. Option 4 • Student choice of desktop or notebook computer • Minimum hardware/software requirements to be determined by a faculty-driven committee • On-campus computer labs for those courses that require use of computers in the classroom or lab room

28. Option 4 (continued) • Use of existing notebook computers in on-campus labs (classroom and open labs) • Limited rentals of existing notebook computers aimed at students unable to buy/lease • Staff personnel required to maintain computer labs

29. Option 5/6 • Student choice of notebook computer • Minimum hardware/software requirements to be determined by a faculty-driven committee • Preferred vendor arrangements • Training for staff personnel • On-campus assistance for preferred vendor computers/software only

30. Common Features of Both Options • Current teaching strategies and capabilities continue • E-mail communication, list serves • On-line courses • Internet use • WebCT • All other Web-based materials • Out of class assignments • Publisher Web sites • CD-Rom textbook packages • In the classroom uses

31. Common Features (continued) • CCSU technology mission remains central. • Financial aid implications are the same. • Students will need assistance with criteria for hardware/software. • Students may use any ISP.

32. Common Features (continued) • Dramatically reduced technology fee. • IT program requirement for notebook computers for each student is satisfied. • Diversity of machine types will cause training problems. • Make/model suggestions to assist students.

33. The Central IssueCost to Students and Impact on Enrollment • Based upon the surveys, • ~78% of our students have access to computers that allow them to meet our academic requirements, • ~46% of faculty never or very infrequently require student use of computers in the classroom (vs ~41% with considerable student use of computers in the classroom), and

34. ~59% of the faculty think the quality of their teaching would not be affected at all or be improved by Option 4 (vs ~14% seeing a substantial reduction in quality). • Based upon the information currently available, the committee thinks the costs to students for notebook computers may be viewed as unacceptable and/or unaffordable by many and may lead to a significant enrollment shortfall. • Given the above, the committee thinks the level of risk of Option 5/6 to CCSU is unacceptable.

35. Impacts of Option 4 • Average cost is lower to students than Option 5/6. • An increase in the enrollment of one-course part-time students is probable. • A loss of some enrollment by students unhappy with the change is possible.

36. Impacts of Option 4 • Some value from sunk costs for current notebook computers is provided. • The flexibility afforded by mobile computing is lost. • The level of peer learning opportunities is reduced or lost.

37. Impacts of Option 4 • Students have greater freedom of choice in selection of computers. • Scheduling, support and training problems for computer labs will be demanding. • The expansion of student in-class activities is limited by the number of computer labs available.

38. Impacts of Option 4 • Computer training for students is limited by lab availability. • Consistency in marketing CCSU as a notebook university ends while Option 4 is in effect. • The changes might imply failure of ITP1 to students, faculty, staff and public.

39. Impacts of Option 4 • Old notebook computers may become lowest common denominator for computer/software requirements. • Enforcement of the computer requirement can only be assessed by course requirements.

40. Impacts of Option 4 • In comparison with Option 5/6: • Loss of opportunity to provide • On-campus resources for centralized computer repair and help for students with preferred vendor notebooks • Training of student assistants by preferred vendor • Less reliance on the faculty for troubleshooting for student computer technology problems • Less pressure on faculty to use notebooks in class to justify their requirement • Diminishment of the notebook culture at CCSU

41. Time and Option 4 • Option 4 is an interim solution only: • Life remaining in current notebooks for lab and rental use is limited. • Costs for furnishing new computers for labs are very high. • Option 4 provides time to • Investigate funding sources for a long-term notebook project • See how new technology develops

42. Conclusions • Restate the success of ITP. • Survey results • Chronicles of change • Strides made to enhance learning • On-line courses • Use of technology in and out of the classroom • Anecdotal campus evidence/cultural changes

43. Conclusions • Strong preference of the task force to continue with the notebook program and technologically enhanced learning

44. Conclusions • Concerns about cost to purchase notebook computers and students’ willingness and ability to purchase and/or finance notebooks caused reluctant selection of Option 4 as more feasible at this time. If there were a change in circumstances and/or assumptions, the task force would want to review its options.

45. Conclusions • Option 4, while not the most desirable, still would enable CCSU to • Continue to use technology to enhance learning • Continue to offer on-line courses • Retain the advances made in pedagogy • Continue to allow the use computers in the classroom, but in computer labs

46. Conclusions • Continued: Option 4, while not the most desirable, still would enable CCSU to • Continue to encourage/require student use of computers outside of the classroom • Use existing notebook computer for the computer labs, reducing costs for the near term to a minimum • Provide a limited number of the existing notebook computers for rental to students

47. Conclusions • The task force believes that Option 4 should only be viewed as an interim solution (12-24 months). The task force strongly recommends that this time be used to find alternative financing or funding vehicles that would lower students’ costs to acquire notebook computers.

48. Conclusions • Option 4 would result in a substantial reduction in the Technology Fee from $300/semester to $38/semester. The task force recommends that the Fee be used for revamped HUB services and the costs to provide student assistants and security to the computer labs.

49. Conclusions • Dean Shakun strongly believes that IT students be required to purchase a notebook computer regardless of the option selected for the other schools/programs at CCSU. Because of the specialized nature of the IT program, the Task Force defers to Dean Shakun’s judgment.

50. Conclusions • Continued The task force has not analyzed the impact of such a requirement on enrollment in IT programs, financial aid for IT students, etc.