1
Instructional Technologies
Instructional Technologies
a Strategic Environment Scan of Academic Computing
Use and Instructional Appropriateness
August 2004 for
CreightonUniversity
Office of the President and Office of Academic Affairs
prepared by
Amber Gravett, PhD, 6SBB
Division of IT, Department of Academic Computing and e-learning
1
Instructional Technologies
Abstract
This white paper examined the idea of instructional appropriateness as it applies to academic and instructional computing technologies currently employed in U.S. tertiary education. Exploration was performed within the dual context of appropriate research and an operational and environmental scan suitable for use in an organizational strategic planning process. While no recommendations were pursued by design, numerous existing and widely adopted technologies were explored in terms of efficacy, adoption by competitor institutions, and general feasibility at CreightonUniversity. Emergent trends, operational risks, human and systemic impact of said technologies were also addressed.
Table of Contents
Academic Computing and Instructional Appropriatenessp. 01
State of Academic Computingp. 02
Primary Extant Instructional Technologiesp. 05
Wireless Networks (WLANs)p. 05
Portals, Web Delivered Services, eCommunitiesp. 07
CMS, ePortfolios, Synchronous Toolsp. 11
Non-Technical Trends in Academic Computingp. 19
Comparative Peer and Competitor Institutional Usep. 24
Impact and Risks of Technology Adoptionp. 31
Emergent Trends and Candidate Technologiesp. 37
Referencesp. 45
Appendicesp. 49
Appendix A: Example Portalsp. 49
Appendix B: ePortfolio Definitionsp. 52
Appendix C: Glossary of Termsp. 53
Appendix D: Per Building Assessment of Network p. 54
Health and Upgrade Expense
List of Tables
Table 1 Portal Accessed Service Challengesp. 10
Table 2 Outcome Oriented Technology Servicesp. 11
Table 3 Peer Institution Comparative Adoption Matrixp. 25
Table 4 Impact and Risk of Service Interruptionp. 33
Table 5 CreightonUniversity Corrective Actionsp. 34
List of Figures
Figure1 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Trendsp. 06
Figure 2 Portal Trendsp. 09
Figure 3 Course Management Systems (CMS) Trendsp. 14
Figure 4 ePortfolio Adoption Ratesp. 16
Figure 5 IT Budget Trends by Academic Functionp. 22
Figure 6 Relative Complexity and Adoption of Extant Technologiesp. 27
Figure 7 Comparative Adoption of Network Technologiesp. 28
Figure 8 Comparative Adoption of Web-Derived Services and Toolsp. 29
Figure 9 Comparative Adoption of Synchronous and Collaborativep. 29
Technologies
1
Instructional Technologies
Academic Computing and Instructional Appropriateness
It is challenging to address academic computing and technologies from a perspective that is solely information technologies centric. An issue central to meaningful consideration of academic computing systems and tools in the active learning environment is the idea of appropriateness. Thus, it is within that context that existing instructional technologies will be profiled and examined in relation to CreightonUniversity’s academic and faith derived mission, with attention afforded to the idea of instructional appropriateness. A brief exploration of exigent risk and infrastructure impact to existing systems, alignment with peer or competitor institutions and feasibility associated with said technologies will augment the broader trend analysis. Ultimately, this consideration will provide an environmental scan of the current academic computing and e-learning environment, as well as theoretical and applicative basis for further strategic decision implementation germane to CreightonUniversity’s unique positioning.
In 1973, economist E.F. Schumacher advocated the concept of appropriate technologies and the importance of purpose when assessing systems. Admittedly, his concerns centered upon rudimentary hardware and advanced mechanical system integration into human-organic systems, rather than instructional design (ID); but, his espoused principles remain valid in the academic context more than three decades later. Essentially, Schumacher contended that the highest degree of technology is not necessarily the wisest export into any human system. Appropriateness of the innovation in terms of impact, is of greater importance than intrinsic advancement (Schumacher, 1973). Dr. Leslie Briggs, an educational systems and ID researcher at FloridaState expanded Schumacher’s work into the realm of instructional computing, likening academic computing systems to cars, universities to roadways and students, to drivers:
The Cadillac has many desirable features and in some situations, such as
transporting heads of state or participating in funeral processions, it is a clear
choice, particularly when compared to lower cost vehicle such as a Chevy.
However, it is important to recognize that both the Cadillac and Chevy
will get you there (Briggs as cited in Ragan & Smith, 1999, p.372).
Appropriate technology therefore translates into appropriate instruction when academic computing systems and e-learning technologies are involved.
CreightonUniversity must consider the availability, feasibility and most importantly the advisability of particular instructional technologies. Further adapting Brigg’s analogy, while a fully integrated student personal area network (S-PAN) with virtual university, e-book cache and e-community system inlets, and routing streamed digital cable represents the educational Ferrari of the status quo, Creighton University’s constituencies might be best served by a nicely appointed Toyota Forerunner. While this whitepaper is not directly concerned with instructional content and curricular formation, the inescapable reality of instructional technologies’ impact upon the former will be noted and addressed through this notion of technological and instructional appropriateness and advisability. While conclusions are offered, recommendations have been intentionally excluded in an effort to ensure objective consideration of the issues offered herein.
State of Academic Instructional Technologies
“I’ve been having these two parallel dreams about e-learning. One is rosy and rich with possibilities. The other isn’t quite a nightmare, but has people running down corridors and bumping into walls” (Rossett, 2002, p.3). Although dramatic, the statement does reflect the state of academic computing and e-learning, a composite portrait of frenetic adoption and application balanced by the realities of steadied implementation, overdue infrastructure improvement and client use. Prior to assessing dominant technologies of the status-quo and near horizon, the current state of affairs merits some inclusion. The Van Buren report-- a collective attempt by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), The Higher Learning Commission (NCA) and Department of Education to gage the impact and future of instructional technology—quantifies this sense into a duplicitous reality. In 1998, educational leaders and corporate executives predicted that 23 percent of training and education would be delivered via instructional technologies of some ilk by 2000. In 2001, the aggregated numbers for United States’ universities and training programs had reached only 8 percent (Van Buren, 2001). The Van Buren report concludes that actual measures so very different from initial want dictate resource assignment to delivery technologies and platform infrastructure. Attention to cohesive strategic planning around instructional computing is critical and is also indicated.
Looking to the year 2004, the Taylor, Nelson & Sofres (TNS) educational consulting firm report commissioned by the ASTD, American and Canadian governments, sought to benchmark academic technologies integration and e-learning adoption use by 2004. The TNS report echoed Van Buren’s findings to some degree in that only 43 percent of education, government and corporate institutional participants had implemented technology delivered training and degree programs. However, it was slightly more optimistic in its findings that 85 percent of respondents intended to continue aggressive pursuit of technology integrated curricula, 33 percent with goal timelines by 2004 (Taylor, Nelson & Sofres, 2001). More recent survey data garnered solely from accredited, traditional universities validate the predictive elements of the TNS study.
Data collected by Kenneth Green for the Wharton School, in conjunction with University of Pennsylvania’s Syllabus journal “…reveal that over half (51.4 percent) of the survey respondents report that their institution has a strategic plan for deploying course management tools, compared to 47.5 percent in 2002” (Green, 2003, p.13). This is in addition to basic campus services (registration, transcripts, book reservations), found in the same study to be delivered via academic technologies at a rate of approximately 55.4 percent (Green, 2003). The state of academic computing and instructional technologies is thus ripe in 2004, for selective adoption or honing of fully integrated services/systems. This is highly dependent upon a candidate campus’ infrastructure and modal acuities with the various delivery mediums. How might a large, Midwestern, Jesuit university with varying degrees of integration throughout its programs thrive in this technologically ripe environment?
For Creighton University, thriving versus surviving for the next 125 years is dependent upon an accurate profile of extant academic computing technologies (instructional and learning supportive) and the exigent benefits and threats wrought thereof. Consider remarks from the 2004 convocation address heard by CreightonUniversity students:
For Creighton the exciting results of integrating the high tech knowledge age into our quality academic programs has two distinct but related goals. First, the growth and endorsement of “E”-learning (electronic learning) will encourage and sustain learning communities that enhance the educational, personal and career development of our students.Second, the integration of learning information technologies into quality programs, curricula and administrative processes are guided by our vision of a Creighton “learning network…This goal seeks to integrate information and communication technologies within and beyond the classroom and to create an “anywhere, anytime access” learning network which ensures students and faculty a universal and equal access to information technologies and resources…It is our intent that the Creighton learning network will strengthen the University’s strong tradition of academic excellence by combining it with advanced technological infrastructure to create a fully connected living and learning environment (Schlegel, 2004, sec.5,para.5).
The remainder of this discussion will focus upon said technologies and their potential use within the CreightonUniversity system. Peer institutional use, as well as near-analog institutional competitive use will be addressed pursuant to technology trends validated as truly national or international in scope among accredited universities. Within the aforementioned constraints of appropriateness and technology,feasibility and impact will be addressed for this ripe technological environment.
Primary, Extant Academic and Instructional Technologies
Wireless Networks (WLANs)
The survey data from Green’s Wharton Syllabus study suggest that community colleges and universities continue to pursue wireless technologies. What can be characterized as dramatic gains over the past year regarding campus planning for and the deployment of wireless networks has occurred. Roughly 77.2 percent of respondents reported wireless local area networks (WLANs). Other data mark the continuing expansion of wireless services. For example, 14 percent of higher education institutions claim full-campus WLANS are up and running (Green, 2003):
Figure 1 Wireless LAN trend demonstrating increasing adoption
(Green, 2003, p.12)
The trend is reflected across the array of learning institutions and is even somewhat underreported by this survey given the adoption by corporate universities and training entities, already hovering at levels of 28 percent in 2001 (Horton & Horton, 2001). Wireless services on campuses and in the consumer and corporate sectors are improving at a pace equal to its adoption. Rising expectations about wireless services are fostered in part by the recent, dramatic growth of inexpensive services in the consumer sector. This could create a perception and reality gap should inbound student classes arrive expecting wireless services similar to their home environment. There are two seminal wireless protocols in market at the time of this document’s preparation: Bluetooth and WiFi. Bluetooth is named for Harold Bluetooth, a tenth century Viking king who was noted for constructing bridges to link his otherwise disparate kingdom. Bluetooth is best suited to moderate-bandwidth (memory and power consumption) environments such as transfer between pocket computers and laptops. Bluetooth’s broadcast rate is modest at 700 kilobytes per second, but is adequate for most basic academic purposes (Horton & Horton, 2003).
A more robust standard is 802.11a also known as WiFi. WiFi operates with greater efficiency and at higher bandwidths than does Bluetooth. CreightonUniversity currently employs the 802.11a WiFi protocol. WiFi can broadcast 300-1000 feet and at 11 megabytes per second. An emergent variant of WiFi is 802.11g. This newer WLAN protocol transmits at 54 megabytes per second. It is fast and efficient, but far more costly than 802.11a or Bluetooth (Pillous, 2004). Commercial service providers will likely circumvent other slower WiFi standards in favor of offering consumer audiences the fastest possible service and security for the price. It is worth considering the ideal WLAN protocol for expanded wireless campus deployment in terms of fluid transition for students. As payingconsumers of CreightonUniversity’s wireless 802.11a services, they potentially arrive on campus with 802.11g experience and expectations.
In early 2004, CreightonUniversity’s IT department undertook a comprehensive assessment of each building on campus. The assessment was intended to garner a sense of overall network and wireless health, as well as identify priority candidates for scheduled improvements. Addressing the existing infrastructure and bringing the ten most urgent buildings to a stable wireless standard will cost an estimated $6,230,000 (Mattson, 2004). This estimate includes: the LawSchool, BoyneDentalSchool, AdministrationBuilding, CardiacCareCenter, Bio-InformationCenter, Criss I, and UniversityCollege. Service for several residence halls in the priority candidate list are being addressed through vendor channels. There are an additional 27 buildings across campus requiring some degree of upgrade to attain a fully enabled, robust, wireless and Ethernet standard of consistent quality (Appendix D offers a consolidated view). Conservatively, the potential cost to bring CreightonUniversity to a collective internal parity and state of national leadership in network services and wireless capability will exceed $20,000,000.
Although CreightonUniversity faces some wireless networking challenges, it has also been recognized as a leading wireless campus for students. It ranks 46th nationally pursuant to assessment reported in the Intel Corporations "Most Unwired College Campuses" survey. The annual survey ranks the top 100 schools in the nation for wireless computing access. Creighton is the only university in Nebraska to be included on the list and is one of a handful of Jesuit universities listed. The survey reveals a growing number of schools across the country where students have the freedom to wirelessly access the Internet on notebook computers—without a traditional wired connection—and stay connected and informed (Sperling, 2003).
Portals, Campus eServices and Communities
US universities continue to progress in implementation of web portals. A web portal can generally be thought of as a “website designed for people to visit when they are looking for links to other sites or information” (Downing, Covington,Covington, 2000, p.375). While the concept is proven, portal strategies have been (in recent history) the purview of private industry, rather than a model of website taxonomy. The aforementioned Syllabus survey documents the growing number of institutions that have adopted campus portals as a means of accessing services and information:
Figure 2 Portal trend demonstrating increasing adoption
(Green, 2003, p.13)
Adoption of a portal strategy is most recently confirmed at 28.4 percent of participant campuses in 2003, a seven percent increase since 2002. “Another fifth (20.4 percent) of the survey respondents report that the campus portal is “under development” or being installed in the current academic year” (Green, 2003, p.12). Perhaps more importantly, instructional design communities and e-learning practitioners place a lofty emphasis upon the portal as a proverbial lynch pin for successful central access to services, information and research resources, online social events, and course offerings or materials (Clark & Mayer, 2003).
Web delivered university services represent the use of a web site and portal taxonomy most immediately and often useful felt by campus systems, personnel and students.Web-accessed and in some cases delivered campus services have tripled since 1998, particularly in the areas of registration and records and admissions. Recalling that more than half of America’s universities can accept application or tuition payments online, makes this immediacy and utility concrete. While Creighton University and its sibling institutions can feel positive about these initial steps, higher education’s primary clientele—students ages 17 to 67—often look at many campus portals and find them wanting (Green, 2003). Effective portal sites for example, online banks, online malls such as Overstock and Amazon, file sharing such as Apple iTunes, or education as with WaldenUniversity, offer increasingly customized web delivered services that have become the standard.
The impetus for the growth of portal access and web delivered university services has been the importance placed on student life outside the courses themselves. Many colleges have actually created noteworthy student services web portals. However, most do not address the churning student environment. Student expectations, access and operational pressures, service demands and technology costs are impacting higher education institutions as never before. Ultimately web portal and online services strategies must address the following challenges:
Table 1 Portal accessed service challenges
Environment / CharacteristicsCompetition / Non-traditional, entrepreneurial universities
New markets / Global opportunities, market-oriented students
Expectations / Personalized services, on-demand help, no delays
Mass Customization / Individualized services, flexible processes
Virtual Community / Internet access, mobile, distant
Electronic, Digital / Web, services to match new instructional technologies,
Cost / Benefit / Reallocation of operating funds for education
(Haugen, 1999, np)
Institutions must refocus, redesign and optimize their student and personnel service
systems with processes that are:
Table 2 Outcome oriented technology centric university services
Attribute / OutcomeSelf-service / Increased use of portal delivered "one or none"-stop service
Student-centered / Renewed focus on serving students, parents, alumni and community
Streamlined / Greater efficiencies, less or no paperwork, better accountability, instant completion
State-of-the-art / User-friendly/convenient technologies
(Haugen, 1999, np)
These technology centric and revitalized student services can improve customer support by providing flexible, focused processes for students who value time, want anytime support and expect fully integrated and portal delivered services. Further, a robust portal services solution can produce cost-efficiencies by reducing paper use, extending service availability without extra office hours, and align proper tools for expedient and effective solutions. Ultimately this supports the academic mission by minimizing administrative support costs, thus protecting educational funding thereby fostering positive public and alumni relations (Haugen, 1999 & Palloff & Pratt, 1999). The notion of student life and community can also be enhanced with an effective portal strategy. This extends beyond the notion of chat rooms. Comprehensive e-community efforts and web service portals benefit students and school equally. They extend access for current and prospective students by exploiting telecommunications and information technologies. The university’s stakeholder community can also benefit from portal accessed alumni, area employer, government agency compliance and outreach focused pages. Student constituents are increasingly computer savvy and expect web-based information services, interactive systems, Internet access, chat services, e-braries and e-mail communications (Gravett, 2004).