Reflections and Projections Twenty Years of Requiring Computers

Reflections and Projections: Twenty Years of Requiring Computers – and Beyond Rich Ranker, Ed. D Director of Instructional Technology Services Drew University Madison, NJ February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Overview • • About Drew and ITS Computer Initiative (CI) History Present Effect on Learning at Drew – 2004 Student Survey – 2003 Faculty Survey – 2005 faculty Survey (in progress) – Senior Faculty Reflections • Future • Lessons Learned February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

About Drew • Located in Madison, NJ • 2400 FTE Students • College of Liberal Arts, Graduate School, Theological School • Top tier (U. S. News and World Report) • #12 Most Connected (Forbes/Princeton Review) • EDUCAUSE Pioneer February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Drew’s Early Involvement February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Drew’s Early Involvement February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

About Instructional Technology Services (ITS) Organization + Staffing FT Stu • 1 0 Director • 3 5 Faculty Lab (Mgr, Instr Design, Comp Tech) • 3 15 Media Res. Ctr (Mgr, Video + Event Coord, Media Tech) • 1 5 Student Tech Ed Lab (Mgr/Tech) • 1 5 Staff Lab (Mgr/Tech) 29 Mediated Classrooms February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Overview • • • Establishing the Program Institutional Identity “The Network” Laptops and Notebooks Evolving the Network Bringing Faculty Along February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - The Beginnings • 1983 – Faculty members suggest the idea of computers for all incoming students – Brought to a vote of the College faculty – 64 -2 vote in favor of program, labeled the Computer Initiative (CI) – CI also provided desktop computers to all fulltime faculty February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Implementation • • • Computer was mandatory for all students Tuition increased to fund cost of computer Computers purchased outright by University Not broken out as a line item Students take computer with them upon graduation Students who leave before 4 years could either return computer or pay balance of cost and take it with them February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - The First CI Computer (Fall 1984) • Epson QX-10 – – 128 KB RAM Z 80 CPU 2 5. 25” floppy drives (400 K) Software • Valdocs • Peach. Calc • CP/M – Printers shared one per room February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - National Attention • Articles in the Chronicle, NY Times, etc. • Question on “Jeopardy!” • First liberal arts university to provide computers (Drexel, Stevens beat us by a year) • Increased admissions during a demographic downturn February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Access Is Not Enough • It was assumed just providing computers would bring about their curricular use • Faculty also supported projects to use technology in classes • A few pilot projects started • Computers used primarily for word processing, however • More work would be needed February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History – 1988 - The Knowledge Initiative • First Campus-Wide Information System • Campus-wide voice/data telephone system (9600 bps serial data) • Everyone had terminals (PCs with MSKermit) and email accounts • Labeled at the time as “the network” • By 1990, 2/3 faculty used email regularly February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Further Innovations • 1988: First laptop (Zenith Z-181) • 1992: First notebook (DEC 320 p) • 1995: First color screens (DEC Hi. Note) February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Bringing Faculty Along • Pilot projects for curricular software – Underfunded until early 90 s • 1993: First Faculty Development Workshops – 1 week sessions, guest speakers, enabling multimedia – Still occurring today, but… February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Grants Fund Innovation • 1993: First Faculty Development Workshops • Over $500, 000 in grants from Culpeper, Arthur Vining Davis, others fund continued faculty development in the mid-late 90 s • By late 90 s most faculty had been in a workshop • Faculty Lab takes off February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - The Network • 1993 -1996: Internet access is textbased, through Lynx on a VAX • Convince faculty and staff that “the network” is not “a network” – Students already getting it at this point – Academic Technology “guerilla networking” February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - The Network (cont’d) • 1996: all faculty and staff given access to a Net. Ware 4. 1 file server, Netscape Navigator 3. 0, Windows 3. 1 • Windows 95 later • 1997: begin networking students – Network cards included in computers for first time February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Leveraging the Environment • 1998: all student rooms networked • 2000: all configurations have network cards • Everyone has personal drive space, departments have shared space • Web publishing is simple matter of saving files to network drives February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Beginnings of Course Management • 1998: Created shared folders for each course, rights assigned to group • Automatic based on registration data • Email, forums, Web interface • Network drive for course materials still widely used February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Drew, Late 1990 s • All faculty, staff, students networked • Email is ubiquitous • Information sharing through LAN ubiquitous • Computers indelible part of University culture – Completely integrated and pervasive February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

History - Summary • • • Establishing the Program Institutional Identity “The Network” Laptops and Notebooks Evolving the Network Bringing Faculty Along February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

The Present February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - This Year’s Model • IBM Think. Pad R 51 – 1. 7 GHz Centrino – 512 MB RAM – 80 GB HDD – 802. 11 b/g wireless February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Campus Network • e. Directory and Active Directory trees – Synchronized with Novell Identity Manger • Student laptops all in AD domain – “e. Xtreme Deployment” • 1 port per pillow • Wireless ~50% of campus and growing February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Laptops as Institutional Computers • Only 92 public computers for whole campus (25 tng, 14 lab, 13 MM lab, 15 lang lab, 25 library) • No labs in residence halls, student center – Student laptops serve that purpose • Student computers used in class • Fewer staff needed (economies of scale) • Space concerns (32. 5 sq. ft/lab computer) February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Shared Issues • Problems discovered affect hundreds of people • Solutions fix for hundreds of people • Systematic problems cause headaches, also thorough resolutions (2002) February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Cost Savings 25% 50% 75% Drew Deficit People/IT staff incl. media 60. 6 72. 3 94. 7 92. 1 9. 1 FTE People/IT staff excl. media 60. 6 72. 3 94. 7 98. 0 11. 1 FTE $ IT /person (excl. CI) $927 $1249 $1547 $813 $1. 3 M $ IT/person (incl. $927 $1249 $1547 $1146 $317 K CI) Source: COSTS project data, 2003 February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Why Cost Effective? • • Less lab management Efficiencies of standardization Customer responsibility for management Other reasons for low IT spending February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Present - Trends in Higher Education • 2003: 6% of all BA institutions provide a computer to students, 1. 2% require computer • 79% of all students at BA institutions are using their own computers • Computer ownership among incoming Drew students approaching 100% – 1984: 5. 1% of households had PCs (US Census) (source: EDUCAUSE Core Data Service, 2003, http: //www. educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/pub 8001 e. pdf) February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

The Present • Personal computers as Institutional Computers • Instructional technology without student computer labs • Ubiquitous networking • Support perspectives • Economies (and pitfalls) of scale February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew • • 2004 Student Survey 2004 Chair Survey 2005 Faculty Survey Senior Faculty Reflections February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew 2004 Student Survey • April 2004 • By ad hoc computer committee • 460 respondents out of 2050 (22%) February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew 2004 Student Survey Courses requiring you to bring your laptop to class Acad Year 0 Frosh 33 Soph Jun Sen Total February 17, 2005 1 2 3 or Freq % More 48 39 23 17 35 29 26 8 27 29 25 18 28 32 35 76 138 129 109 17% 31 % 29% 24% ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05 143 32 107 89 113 452 27 20 25 104

CI Effect on Drew 2004 Student Survey • 83% of respondents use their Drew computers. A majority of those who do not are seniors. • 89% of respondents do not have any other computer that they use on campus. A majority of those who do are seniors. • 50% of respondents have had their computers repaired at the CNS help desk. 33% of respondents have had their computers reimaged at the CNS helpdesk. • Full results of the survey are posted at: http: //www. depts. drew. edu/univtech/computersurvey. html February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew – 2004 Chair Survey • April thru August 2004 • Requested by Student Computer Program Committee • Conducted by Academic Computing Advisory Council • Survey of Department Chairs – all but one responded but…~2/3 of all courses February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew – 2004 Chair Survey Number of Course Sections Reporting Use Frequent Occasional Future Laptops in Class 20 36 9 Software fr Network 40 44 15 Files on K: Drive 102 50 13 Class files fr Network 25 51 5 Course-wide email 131 44 4 Blackboard 26 7 30 February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew – 2005 Faculty Survey • • F 2 F survey of all faculty By Rich Ranker Spring 2005 Purposes: – Assess use of instructional technology – Assess use of and satisfaction with ITS facilities and services • Not yet complete February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew – 2005 Faculty Survey Preliminary (small N) Observations: • ITS services and facilities well rated • Faculty feel students have no software, hardware or network access problems • Time is faculty’s biggest impediment • CMS (Bb) growth, but… • Faculty using older office and ‘network’ tools • See http: //depts. drew. edu/its/needs_survey_results. php February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew – Senior Faculty Reflections • • Dr. Alan Candiotti, Prof of Mathematics and VP for Univ Technology, 25 years at Drew Dr. Wendy Kolmar, Prof of English and Director of Women’s Studies, 22 years at Drew Dr. David Miyamoto, Professor of Biology, 18 years at Drew Full interviews will be at http: //depts. drew. edu/its February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

CI Effect on Drew • • 2004 Student Survey 2004 Chair Survey 2005 Faculty Survey Senior Faculty Reflections February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

The Future February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - Presidential Planning Commission • Fall 2002: Reexamine CI and determine goals and effectiveness • Surveys and work February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future – PPC Goals • • “Develop a true computing community” “Drew standard software package” “ 24 hour access” “Reasonably current machines for both students and faculty” “Equity for all students and faculty” “Appropriate teaching spaces” “Support” “Create a computing system which allows for facile expansion and future growth” February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - Survey on Ubiquitous Models • 90% of College faculty endorsed required, standard computing package – Slightly more than half of those wanted no changes – Slightly less than half endorsed a program allowing students to bring a compatible computer of their own instead. February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - President’s Strategic Plan, Spring 2004 • “. . . the University will no longer include the cost of a laptop in its tuition. • “Incoming Drew University students will be able to either purchase a system-compatible laptop from the University or bring their own computer, as long as the computer meets Drew’s specifications. The tuition funds this makes available will be redirected to expanding the University’s academic programs and course offerings. ” February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - Implementing the Change • First year especially, allow few exceptions – Adhere to tight standard, and/or limit support • Add ¼ FTE to help support non-standard computers – Create configuration process • Purchase computers, resell them to students – Offer up-front purchase, 4 year financing, or 2 year financing to buy new computer junior year February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - Goals for Next 1 -2 Years • Expect program to remain largely intact – RPI purchase program 96% compliance • Use goals from PPC Technology report as guidance • Emphasize advantages of purchasing Drew computer package over going it alone – Price, support, configuration • Analyze effect of making students buy computing resources that other places provide February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future - Faculty/Staff Computing • For now, continue centralized purchasing, desktop model – Laptops available as extra cost option – Non-standard (Mac) available to faculty after first computer cycle • Very limited support February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Future – Options? • • • Change of administration Consider what “ubiquitous computing” means Pervasiveness of personal devices Enabling technologies Standardization of protocols Can we provide goals of standard computing on non-standard hardware/software? • Should we make investment in computer labs and be “just like everyone else”? • Admissions advantages/disadvantages to our new program? February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

The Future • • “No Free Computers” Strategic Perspectives Sophisticated (? ) Students Reaffirming the Program, With Caveats February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Lessons Learned • Standardization diminishes costs • IT needs to ‘sell’ its successes better • Separate cost of CI components to decrease target size • Need a different faculty development plan to continue growth of technology use • Keep records of technology use February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Summary • • About Drew and ITS Computer Initiative (CI) History Present Effect on Learning at Drew – 2004 Student Survey – 2003 Faculty Survey – 2005 faculty Survey (in progress) – Senior Faculty Reflections • Future • Lessons Learned February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Credits Mike Richichi, “CI@20: The First Two Decades of Ubiquitous Computing at Drew University”, EDUCAUSE presentation, 2004 Computers of the Computer Initiative, at http: //depts. drew. edu/cns/museum/ Shawn Spaventa, video editor February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05

Questions? February 17, 2005 ©Rich Ranker – SALT Orlando 05