Technological Innovations and Facilities Working Group - Final2

The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy. 

February 23, 1994

INVENTORY OF PEOPLE AND IDEAS

This section contains an inventory of individuals---faculty, staff, administration---who have expressed interest or expertise in technology and who are willing to assist UO efforts to employ technological innovations to improve overall productivity. In addition, it contains an inventory of specific ideas of how technological innovations might improve overall productivity at the University of Oregon.

[The full list of 140 names of individuals and their interests is available in the hard-copy version of this report.]

IDEAS

There is an extensive set of ideas detailed below. In reflecting on possible productivity improvements, the TAFPG notes that productivity improvements can fall into a number of intersecting areas:

Instruction (I) Large Scale Classes (LSC) Distributed Classes (DC) Self Access Instruction (SAI) Administration (A) Advising (AD) Paperwork Reductions (PR) Student Productivity (SP) Faculty Productivity (FP)

These examples also tie into the action recommendations discussed above (AR 1-6). We have indexed many of the specific ideas here to the action recommendations. Please note also that in the spirit of assembling the largest set of ideas we can initially, the ideas are included in unedited form.

•  (1) Upgrade the campus wide communications net. The present system in all buildings consists of twisted pair wiring. This does not have adequate bandwidth to handle any new innovative approaches, such as the use of TCI cablevision.
• (2) We probably need to install Local Area Networks in all departments. We need to improve drastically the ability of our individual departments to carry out their present functions and get ready for the use of new approaches such as computer instruction and the use of various networks(INTERNET, NERO, LANENET, etc.).
• (3) Administrative uses of computing need to be designed to take advantage of EDI, Electronic Data Interchange technology. Right now we key and re-key data many times over -- there is little sharing of data among administrative functions. This is why, although we now register students electronically for courses, we can not use this data to assist in course planning in advance of need. Also, support staff spend hours of time each week filling out paper forms, which must be mailed to other offices, and reviewed and handled, and then mailed back, for the simplest procedures. This handling results in errors, time, and duplication of effort.
• (4) In order for faculty to learn to integrate technology into their curriculum either for presentation in the classrooms suggested above or in other ways, I also suggest that your work group recommend establishing a multimedia laboratory/resource center for their use. During the 1992 Strategic Planning funding, with the support of several other faculty I proposed such a facility and presented some details of components and costs. I would be glad to share those with you if you like.
• (5) I think it is imperative that we build into our resource center concept a distributed system of computer support technicians who work in each of the UO colleges/schools. We have a computer support technician in AAA (one very over- worked person!) and he is quite valuable because he knows our faculty and students, our software and hardware needs, and is available to answer our particular questions. Each unit on campus needs these kinds of individuals, who can provide both technical and training support. A central pool of people won't work the same way -- they need to be able to get to know the needs of the people they work with. For a while at least, we need lots of these folks -- one person is not enough for a School the size of AAA.
• (6) We also need to vastly expand the availability of computer labs to our students. If I wanted to use a computer based lab session with my intro class, there would be no way I could do so now given the limited space available to social science classes. Ideally, each department should have the space that SSIL has (and the staffing). Again, such support is common in other schools, and we are way behind the times. Also, it is typical in other schools to provide even beginning social science students with experience with real data. Our students are not getting a fraction of the preparation that students in other schools are getting -- at least partly because of the lack of technological support.
• (7) Build a network of free-ranging technology consultants, who take consulting services directly to departments and faculty. This helps with solving immediate problems, overcoming resistance to technology, and overall training issues.
• (8) Might it be time to again ask for a different way of looking at the funding for the computer center and seeing it as integral to the daily functioning and well being of the campus of the library, and thus making it just as accessible to all? -- especially as technological innovations become more important to our work?
• (9) MOBILE BROADCAST TV CAPABILITY. The equipment designated for classroom interactivity will not be suitable for transmitting over Ed-Net. The quality of this campus interactive equipment configuration will not meet Ed-Net or FCC standards, thus the requirement for a mobile TV broadcast quality equipment package.

The recommendation for the mobile TV equipment package, which can be brought to a campus site would allow transmission over the upgraded campus coaxial cable system to the IMC Headend and eventual transmission over Ed-Net (Net I). Estimated cost of a broadcast quality mobile television production capability = $65K.
• (10) IMC STAFFING IMPROVEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF DISTANCE LEARNING. Recommended minimal staffing at IMC would require the hiring of a course work designer (curriculum developer) to assist faculty who want to teach over electronic media (TV). Teaching over television requires a significant change in course work design to insure learning effectiveness. Traditional teaching methodologies and learning strategies must be designed into the presentations along with revised course syllabi and student study guides. Approximate cost: $45K (w/benefits).

Additional IMC staffing consisting of an additional TV director, and one (1) writer should be planned for later hire to support the above requirements for increased faculty productivity (approximate cost: $90K).

 
• (11) Ability to register for sections on-line. Students would be able to look for open sections, add, drop, list their class schedule, find out meeting times and places (especially useful for late additions to the schedule, or moved classes), requirements, etc. Some campus locations could provide hard copy of student schedule, etc.
• (12) Look-up of course information, similar to the information in the General Bulletin. Additional information could be provided by interested faculty. This feature would be especially useful for experimental, etc. courses which are not described in full in the bulletin.
• (13) Look-up of student progress report. Student (and advisor) could look at progress, to date, which would include any late grades changes, etc.
• (14) Look-up of UP TO DATE student grades for any term. Students can track replacement of incompletes, etc.
• (15) Look-up of selected information about faculty, including, possibly, faculty office hours, office phone/location, and comments placed by interested faculty.
• (16) Ability to apply for graduation, and track graduation application progress.
• (17) Ability to apply for admission, and track admissions progress.
• (18) Ability to change student address that is stored in system. Currently the student waits in line to change, or even to simply confirm, an address.
• (19) Ability to apply for financial aid, and track application progress. Look-up of scholarship information. Student could search for eligible scholarships.
• (20) Look-up of account balance information. Some campus locations could provide a hard copy form as well.
• (21) Ability to test degree progress under different majors, with a "best fit" (i.e. quickest way to graduate) option.
• (22) Ability of a department to post notices to students in certain majors.
• (23) Ability of a student to post a question to department or professor.

•  (24) Multimedia-capable personal computer(s). As both Windows and Macintosh systems are heavily used on campus the decision as to which platform (or both) to install in the classroom may depend on the faculty who use the room. In either case the computer needs to be powerful enough to support multimedia uses -- at least a 486SX or 68040 processor, lots of RAM and disk space, sound capabilities, and easy expandability (room to add more memory, free slots for more boards, bays for more drives, etc.) The computers must have properly licensed software installed that the faculty will need for class instruction. Allowance must also be made for the option for faculty to bring their own portable computer into the classroom and easily plug it in for full access to the other devices.
• (25) PERIPHERALS. Equipment such as hard disks, CD-ROM drives, modems, tape backup drives, and removable storage devices could be preconfigured in the computer or attached externally. Also provided could be laser disc players, VCRs and other multimedia devices depending on the specific needs of the room's users. The computers must have the appropriate cards and cabling to work with the components. The devices should be remotely controlled when possible so that the instructor can lecture from a more comfortable position (preferably facing the class with a place to put notes) or move about the room during the class. Again, allowance must be made for faculty to easily use their personal peripherals and materials with the setup.
• (26) HIGH-QUALITY PROJECTION UNITS AND SCREENS OR MONITORS ADEQUATE FOR THE SIZE OF THE ROOM. In larger classrooms, even a large presentation monitor would not display a big enough image to be visible by most of the class. LCD panels or higher-end RGB projectors must be positioned to project a suitable image. They should be able to handle multiple video sources. Rear projection and remote control are desirable features.
• (27) SOUND PROJECTION. Good microphones and speakers to enable students to easily hear both the professor and any audio presentations from the equipment. The presenter should have some flexibility to move around the classroom and still be heard.
• (28) CONNECTIVITY TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. Classrooms should minimally have UOnet connections, preferably 3 types - AppleTalk, thinwire and 10baseT Ethernet. The possibilities for other long distance computer collaboration such as telecommunications and video conferencing might also be needed.
• (29) CABLING. There should be adequate cabling for all possible equipment connections which is easy to identify and connect.
• (30) PROPER LIGHTING. The instructor should be able to easily control the lighting in the classroom to suit the presentation. The room should be able to be adequately darkened when projection devices are used so that the images will be visible and legible, yet allow note taking by the students. Focus lighting is needed for the instructor to be able to see notes or equipment.
• (31) SECURITY. Is the classroom security adequate? Are keys or combinations controlled? Are there windows that may present theft opportunities? Hardware should have security devices or storage areas. Computers should also have software protection. Both hardware and software security methods should not impede their use but prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Use an alarm system to protect the area when the room is not being used. Remember that the faculty who teach in the room may need access to it outside their class time.
• (32) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS. Technical equipment can be very sensitive to fluctuations or extremes in temperature, humidity, and electricity. Make sure there is sufficient ventilation space around the equipment. Consider factors such as ac/heat monitoring, fire or water hazards in or nearby the classroom, power protection, static electricity or dust residue.
• (33) ACCESSIBILITY. Instructors using these technology- fitted classrooms need to know that when they walk in to start their class what they need is there, is working and they can use it comfortably. Of course this means physical access during class and preparation time. It also requires technical support to keep the equipment well maintained and provide emergency extras such as backup bulbs, spare cables, etc. And it also includes training of the faculty using the classroom in the use of the facility. Specific responsibilities will need to be coordinated among organizations such as the Computing Center, IMC, and user departments.
• (34) DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-DIRECTED, SELF-ACCESS FOREIGN LANGUAGE COURSES.
•  o beginning and remedial foreign language education
•  o uncommonly taught languages for which faculty will not be hired (e.g. Hindi, Korean...)
•  o atypical learners (faculty, third or fourth language learners...)
• (35) Development of courseware development infrastructure (encouraging and supporting entrepreneurial academic efforts).
•  o team approach: design team, implementation team, evaluation team
•  o tech staff and support: video tech, audio teach, programmers, graphics tech
•  o marketing and production support
•  o rewards and incentives (more than money...)
• (36) Focus on developing TOOLS as well as COURSEWARE. Tools create the conditions for learning more.
•  o tools include things like word processors, stats software, databases, libraries, schedulers, experiment management software, graphics/animation tools, simulations (on the boundary between tools and software) (e.g., CHILDES database for child language acquisition or COALA second language acquisition analysis tool)
• (37) Development of authoring templates for courseware and tool development
•  o why recreate the wheel each time a new course idea emerges?
• o identifying commonalities in courses: e.g., beginning foreign language or intro to culture/history/literature of
• (38) Build infrastructure for training faculty
•  o Faculty must buy into tech for any gain
• o Faculty must be trained, especially for high end tech (like EdNet or even Yamada labs)
• o Training not routine or convenient
• (39) Develop an on-going strategic planning process to deal with the steady and compelling advance of technology (significant changes expected every 3 yr.).
• (40) Encourage and develop teams linking subject matter experts with multimedia or other technology experts to develop innovative instructional programs.
• (41) Shift money into equipment or tech support for instruction from other places (ASA accounts...).
• (42) ADVISING. Develop an electronic adviser to handle bookkeeping and accounting details for students, freeing advisers to concentrate on academic program advising. Because there is only so much time in the day, if time spent on other tasks could be reduced, more time would be available for advising. Higher quality advising could, in theory, result in earlier graduation.
• (43) Tie dorms to rest of campus electronically. Library access, course notes, e-mail communication with peers and faculty, research interest groups, all could be made available to students. Once networking is available, students should be required to submit all written assignments in electronic format. This could also cut down dramatically on the paper waste at the University.
• (44) A fully equipped lab having the necessary tools for multimedia curricular development would minimally include Macintosh and Windows workstations, video and digital cameras, scanners, graphics tablets, laser printers, and CD- ROM drives; a range of software to support the development of curricular materials, videodisk instructional models, CD-ROM instructional materials, and miscellaneous materials and supplies to support the activities of the facility.
• (45) Russian Department employs an arena style advising session to humanize the DuckCall registration procedure.
• (46) Develop a computer training program, a computer training facility, and add additional computer support staff. UO falls well below national average for support of faculty needing training for innovations in research and instruction.
• (47) Articulation project with 4J and UO through NSF to create technology based partnership to convey university material to high school site via the Internet (G. Bothun, Physics).
• (48) Admissions active in using and developing technological innovations for recruiting and, eventually, for processing admissions. Some transcripts currently conveyed electronically; soon all in-state transcripts so conveyed. Eventual world-wide recruiting via MOSAIC--sound and video can be sent this way.
• (49) Arts & Administration developing departmental level database for maintaining electronic files for graduate student records and advising.
• (50) College of Education uses e-mail and electronic bulletin boards extensively for faculty communication and for posting information on federal programs, bills under Congressional action, and numerous other resources.
• (51) Develop more convenient bulletin board system for intra- University conversations and interaction.
• (52) Need to develop software for electronic publications.
• (53) Present an "emerging technologies" symposium in the Spring Term, 1994.
• (54) Proposal to OSSHE to deal with copyright issues and electronic image archiving and access (AAA Library)
• (55) Change campus e-mail standard from CC:Mail to something else.
• (56) The Art Museum is creating a database of more than 12,000 works of art. Intention to produce a CD-ROM of images for student use. Interactive introductions to the collection and the cultures from which they derive.
• (57) Knight Library proposal to digitize and archive special photographic collections and fragile text materials.
• (58) CBA project on the "virtual organization"--flexible learning organizations that change continuously and solve problems spontaneously.
• (59) English faculty member wants to produce electronic literary journal.
• (60) English faculty members want to create a composition network as well as electronic forums to discuss issues across departments.
• (61) Journalism project to provide distance education to community colleges.
• (62) Journalism project to create multicasting facility, connecting Journalism to the rest of the world. Electronic on- line newspaper.
• (63) Journalism has a futurist group, exploring technology and education systematically and collectively.
• (64) EMS is interested in developing simulation software to accompany its courses on human physiology and anatomy.
• (65) Single Card System: All UO community members would have a single card containing pictures, bar codes, mag strips, etc. that permits appropriate access to all UO facilities and activities-- everything from books to room access to vending machines to tuition to Library privileges.
• (66) UO provide universal access to microcomputers through some sort of lend/lease program with costs/payment included as part of tuition/tuition payments.
• (67) SNEP: permits UONet outlet for every faculty member, many GTFs, and many classrooms.
• (68) Compressed Digital Video Conferencing. Telecom and others are at work on examination of technology to support distance learning and local broadcast learning via videoconferencing.
• (69) Human Resources Information Project (HRIS): upgrade current human resources and payroll software to provide better reporting of data, less paper processing, and greater productivity.
• (70) Orbis: an Oregon higher education union catalog that combines the resources of UO, EOSC, WOSC, SOSC, OIT, Willamette, and Linfield.
• (71) The Bookstore would like to make book requests and notification possible via e-mail; also provide book lists via e- mail.
• (72) CD ROM courseware to train learners in effective strategies for learning foreign languages.
• (73) Require students to bring their own computer to the UO as part of their admission or enrollment requirements.
• (74) The exam scoring scanner service in the Computing Center is currently used as an evaluation tool by many instructors and departments. It is an especially useful tool in large lecture classes. However, departments are funded to use the service very differently. Some are regular users; others report they have no S&S funds for this purpose. If exam scanning was centrally funded (similar to course evaluations), more instructors and departments could increase their productivity by using the service.
• (75)There is interest among users of the exam scoring service in a grade book facility. In addition to scoring exams, the service could accumulate student's scores during the term and provide faculty with information (rosters and histograms) on which to base grades. Software to support a grade book capability needs to be purchased or developed.
• (76) In courses that focus on vocabulary-building, concepts, and problem-solving, computer-based testing systems can play a significant role in the instructional process. These systems can provide students with multiple opportunities to get instantaneous feedback on course materials. They are a productivity tool for both students and faculty to monitor progress in understanding course materials.
• (77) There are a number of model projects at other universities to introduce automated instructional delivery systems into selected areas in higher education. One such project currently underway at the University of Utah is called COMPUTER TUTOR. Its goal is to improve the way instruction is delivered to students. These projects are frequently described in a periodical, T.H.E. Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), which is an excellent resource on applications of technology to instruction.
• (78) The UO needs to have a continuing coordinator (administrator and faculty committee) role whose assignment is to evaluate, promote, and fund academic delivery systems. These systems have enormous potential to leverage faculty expertise and increase productivity. But a decentralized approach fails to recognize the strategic role academic delivery systems can play in the mission of the university.
• (79) Expert systems technology can provide an important component of the faculty advising system. These knowledge- based systems supplement the mentoring role of faculty advisors by providing accurate, readily available information on requirements, course options, and related advisory information. They are a productivity tool that impacts both students and faculty advisors.

 

Web page spun on 25 June 2002 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises