California State University, Fresno

 Technology Strategic Plan Task Force Reports

Executive Summaries

November 2000

Complete reports 
http://www.csufresno.edu/ait/

Table of Contents
Background
President's Introduction
Smart Classrooms
Faculty Commitment, Support, and Professional Development
Courseware Development
Academic Technology Resources
Student Online Administrative Services
Funding Technology Initiatives

Background

 For decades California State University, Fresno has recognized the central role of computers and other technologies in fulfilling its mission. The university has provided workstations to its faculty and staff and state-of-the-art computer laboratories for its students. Its student body is increasingly computer literate, and 85 percent of students have their own computers. The university has a long-standing commitment to provide training to faculty in state-of-the-art technologies, currently fostered by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning and the Academic Innovation Center. As instructional technology can contribute to academic excellence, administrative technology can contribute to service excellence. Implementing state-of-the-art administrative technology can provide the foundation for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of university business processes. In 1996 a strategic plan was developed to guide the next five years of technological development (http://www.csufresno.edu/ait/baseline.html), identifying the steps needed to build upon the existing foundation to provide cutting-edge student educational experiences for the 21st Century. The policy of the university is to provide a communications and information technology infrastructure to enable and facilitate state-of-the-art education, research and service opportunities for its students, its faculty, and, through them, the people of California.

 The rapid development of hardware and software in communications and information technologies is continuous and dynamic. This university's policies and planning envision continuing growth and change, not only in the nature of the communications and information infrastructure, but also in the use of these technologies to support our central mission in instruction, research and service.  The purpose of the use of technology is to advance the university’s mission of serving society by producing a scholarly community of students, staff and faculty who are changed and empowered by the learning environment to be competent, productive and socially responsible citizens.

 The central technology goal of the university is the wise application of technology to serve its primary customer, the student. In doing so, the university will:

 ·        Establish an environment supporting and facilitating technological
innovation and experimentation.

·        Allocate technology resources optimally to provide as close to state-of-the-art technological resources for each discipline as possible.

·        Utilize limited resources wisely through effective intra- and inter-campus communication, sharing and cooperation.

·        Empower individuals to manage and control their technology environment wherever possible, consistent with university-level needs.

 This mission statement reinforces the commitment of the university to make technological decisions in the long-term interests of its students. It distinguishes between the innovative nature of academic computing and the need to apply technology following more traditional criteria in non-academic areas. The statement also reiterates the importance of empowering members of the campus community to influence the technology environment in which they operate while being sensitive to the resource constraints and economic realities under which the university must operate.

Table of Contents

 President's Introduction

 The university's Information and Educational Technology Coordinating Committee (IETCC), along with several other participants, held a retreat last spring to examine the purpose and role of technology in teaching and learning at California State University, Fresno, and to identify campus priorities in the area of technology for the months and years ahead.

 Through a series of small group sessions, retreat participants identified six key strategic goals and priorities:

 ·        Smart Classrooms

·        Faculty Professional Development

·        Courseware Development

·        Academic Technology Resources

·        Online Administrative Services for Students

·        Funding for Technology Initiatives

 At the conclusion of the retreat, six task forces were formed to develop plans to implement these priority areas. IETCC members worked through the spring and summer months to develop and define the plans for the priorities identified. The task forces have submitted their reports to the committee and have provided the following brief summaries. The complete reports are online and can be accessed at http://www.csufresno.edu/ait/. We invite you to review the recommendations and will be looking forward to receiving your input and suggestions in the weeks and months ahead. It will require a campuswide effort to move us to the next level in the use of technology, and we need everyone's best ideas to refine, prioritize and accomplish our goals.

 The retreat report states, "The purpose of the use of technology is to advance the university’s mission of serving society by producing a scholarly community of students, staff and faculty who are changed and empowered by the learning environment to be competent, productive and socially responsible citizens." Our students have grown up with computers and consider them no more exotic than the telephone. Used to purchasing from online retailers, students expect the convenience of online application and registration. Students are familiar with computers as productivity and learning tools. They compose at the keyboard, rather than in longhand, and are accustomed to learning from video.

 Instructional technology can increase student access to higher education, extending opportunity to students whose location or work schedule interferes with a traditional college experience. Appropriate application of instructional technology may allow universities to accommodate an expanding student population without building additional physical plants.

 But more important, instructional technology has the potential to transform higher education, improving the quality of student learning. Nationally, most students taking Web-enhanced or Web-based courses are regularly matriculated, on-campus registrants. Faculty members are experimenting with new ways to deliver course content and build communities of learners. Instructional technology provides new means of information access, including nonlinear, hyperlinked and customized presentation of information. Convenient communication strategies, including asynchronous discussion, may allow the instructional approaches used in Ph.D. programs (apprenticeship, collaborative research and problem-based learning) to be applied to undergraduate curricula that emphasize interdisciplinary knowledge management (Weigel, 2000. Change 33:10-15). Technology has transformed the world of work, and it presents higher education with exciting challenges and opportunities.


Table of Contents

Smart Classrooms

 Members:

 Chair - Otto Benavides (ottob), Robert Boyd (robertb), John Cagle (johnca), Don Coleman (donc), Hye Ok Park (hyeok), Susan Kincade (susank), Ethelynda Harding (lyndah), Kenneth Shipley (kenneths), Max Tsai (janq), Mohamad Yousef (mohamad)

 Goal:

 To configure and equip 100 percent of classrooms and laboratories to support the appropriate use of technology.

 Recommendation:

 Upgrade 20 percent of all classrooms (including lecture halls and teaching laboratories, but not computer laboratories) each year for five years

 Rationale:

 A critical weak link in our instructional infrastructure is the scarcity of computers and data/video projectors for classroom demonstrations, the use of computer applications and network access for traditional instruction. Users need to be confident that technology will work in the classroom without assistance and that, once in the classroom, setup will take just a few minutes. The baseline Smart Classroom will include a secured lectern with a computer, video player/recorder, data/video projector or flat screen, microphone and sound amplification and network access. In some cases, for example in large lecture halls, a larger capacity data projector may be required. In addition, some teaching facilities may require HVAC, lighting or electrical modifications.

 The task force also considered other critical barriers to the integration of technology in the curriculum, including the lack of faculty workstations, the lack of instructional design support, technical support and production assistance for faculty efforts, and faculty isolation and lack of knowledge concerning the potentials of instructional technology.

 Budget Summary and Description:

 First year: $520,000
Five year total: $2,580,000

 The baseline Smart Classroom is estimated at $13,000. Classrooms that require more extensive reconfiguration will be more expensive, as high as $34,000 per classroom. The lower number is used in the group's budget estimate.

Table of Contents

 Faculty Commitment, Support and Professional Development

 Members:

 Chair - John A. Cagle (johnca), Audrey Anderson (audreya), Otto Benavides (ottob), Roy Bohlin (royb), Robin Chiero (robinc), Max Futrell (maxf), Ethelynda Harding (lyndah), Susan Kincade (susank), Jim Kus (jamesk), Karl Longley (karll), Genie Montanyne (geniem), Ed Nelson (ednelson) and Todd Wilson (twilson)

 Goals:

 ·        Provide support so faculty will have full access to professional development in technology for teaching and learning.

·        Provide support to assist faculty to integrate technology effectively into their teaching.

·        Provide faculty with a support team for Web-enhanced and Web-based course design and delivery.

·        Provide incentives and support so faculty will develop and implement plans that effectively integrate technology into their courses.

·        Provide training and resources to meet student needs for information competency, including training in the use of the campus's baseline software, hardware and network tools, in order to ensure student readiness for instruction using technology.

 Recommendations:

 ·        Endorse the proposal from the Task Force on Courseware to create a new production and training unit called E-course Development and Administration Team (EDAT)

·        Create of an effective Web-based teaching resource Web site

·        Produce an associated publication on technology resources at the university

·        Continue evaluation of emerging portal technology

·        Continue support of the IETCC survey of faculty and expand to survey staff in alternate years.

·        Improve the university network infrastructure to support technologies such as streaming video.

 Rationale:

 The needs, resources required and assignments of responsibility within the scope of the goals were described. Many of the needs identified are now being met by ongoing university programs such as the Academic Innovation Center, Information Technology Services, the Library and the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. These programs are expected to fulfill their missions and responsibilities. For new programs and projects that involve new costs and resources, a five-year plan was presented, including the development of a baseline for assessing the current state of goals and progress in achieving them. Barriers and critical success factors were enumerated, emphasizing the dynamic interconnections among the goals of all the task forces (e.g., "The pace of smart classroom implementation will determine the rate of faculty commitment to technology integration").

 Budget Summary and Description:

 First year: $163,000
Five year total: $697,000

As a supplement to the EDAT proposal, we recommend an additional fund of approximately $89,000 for faculty incentives (e.g., 10 faculty associates in a train-the-trainer-type program, providing "just in time" roving consultation in faculty offices) and $40,000 for 10 additional student assistants (who would be assigned to each of the faculty associates). Web site development costs are estimated at $27,000, with continuing assigned time for one faculty member to maintain the site. The written publication describing campus technology resources will cost approximately $3,000 each year published; it was envisioned that this publication might be published about every two years. This budget does not include costs of upgrading the network infrastructure.

Table of Contents

Courseware Development

 Members:

 Chair - Hye Ok Park (hyeok), Brent Auernheimer (brent), Mike Botwin (mikeb), Jim Bryan (jimb), Glenn DeVoogd (gdevoogd), Ethelynda Harding (lyndah), Susan Kincade (susank), Ed Nelson (edn), J. Michael Ortiz (mortiz), Mike Spiess (mspiess), Harvey Wallace (harveyw), Sam Wilkerson (samw)

 Goals:

 ·        Ensure that instruction is effectively adapted to the learning needs of students

·        Provide an electronic courseware production unit to include design, production, research, beta testing and marketing teams

·        Develop electronic courses to be used by our students, as well as to be marketed externally

·        Establish procedures for the adequate compensation of faculty

 Recommendations:

 ·        Adopt of Blackboard5 (Level III Elite) as the university's main platform for course development and management program based on the selection criteria for e-courseware/portal partner, using the Blackboard ASP (Application Service Provider) hosting option in the first year

·        Create an E-Course Development and Administration Team (EDAT) to support faculty in developing Web-enhanced and Web-based courses

·        Adopt a policy on intellectual property and copyright issues for Web-based courses

·        Augment WTUs for online courses with large enrollments

·        Adopt policies that recognize and reward the use of technology in the RTP and FMI processes

 Rationale:

 Blackboard5 is easier to use, more intuitive and promises to be easier to integrate with student services than the current WebCT courseware. WebCT will be maintained during the transitional period. Using the ASP hosting option will expedite the implementation of the system and allow the campus the time to set up the EDAT operation and train the faculty. We would begin with Level II, which provides unlimited use and support in year one, upgrading to Level III, which integrates student services, in years two through five.

 The best use of faculty time is in developing course contents and teaching. The EDAT will provide instructional design, technical assistance, consultation and support for production and development.

 The remaining recommendations deal with the recognition and reward of faculty contributions to Web-based and Web-enhanced instruction. A well-designed policy will protect both the faculty and the university and will encourage e-course production. The university needs to recognize and compensate the time-intensive nature of online course development and teaching. If the development of online courses is a university priority, it must be recognized in faculty personnel decisions.

 Budget Summary and Description:

 First year: $581,000
Five year total: $2,924,099

1.      Blackboard5 Courseware  and Portal Management System

BlackBoard 5 Level II is $29,000 per year. Level III is $60,000 per year. The ASP hosting server and software setup requires a $30,000 one-time expenditure. While this option costs $2,500 per month, it eliminates the need for a full-time operating systems analyst. At the end of the first year, the ASP option may be reviewed to switch to local hosting if preferred.

 2.   EDAT

Approximately $394,000 will be needed to create the EDAT team, which includes a program director, administrative support coordinator, instructional designer, technology support, media production specialist, graphic artist, graduate and undergraduate student assistants. Approximately $98,000 will be needed to create a physical facility for the EDAT team.

 3.   Faculty stipend and program development

 A special stipend of $2,500 to encourage and compensate the faculty on the development of online courses is recommended. Due to the uncertainty in number of stipends needed, this is not included in the above budget projection.

Table of Contents

 Academic Technology Resources

 Members:

 Chair - Jim Morris (jim), Brent Auernheimer (brent), Otto Benevides (ottob), John Briar (jbriar), Theresa Eurich(Theresae), Brandt Kehoe (brandtk), Darrell Martin (darrell), Genie Montanye (geniem), Lars Newlander (newl), Hye Ok Park (hyeok), Joe Sanders (joe), Sam Wilkerson (samw)

 Goals:

 ·        Provide all students, staff and faculty with a seamlessly integrated computing environment, built on a solid infrastructure that uses current and cost effective technology that prepares our campus for emerging developments (wireless, high bandwidth, local and remote)

·        Ensure that every student has access to a digital device and anytime/anywhere access to electronic resources, including the library

·        Ensure that all faculty and staff have digital facilities appropriate for their needs

·        Ensure that digital facilities are fully supported and refreshed whenever needed

 Recommendations:

 Faculty, Staff and Student Workstations

·        Provide most (80 percent estimated) of the campus population with a Distributed Desktop Environment (DDE) (Winframe/Terminal Server), with workstations to be reviewed every two years, and refreshed every seven years. The rest (20 percent estimated) of the campus population would be provided individual workstations to be reviewed every two years and refreshed every three years

·        Continue campus site licenses of mission-critical software

·        Implement electronic workstation configuration analysis software

 Network Infrastructure (Wireless)

·        Implement a wireless "Red Zone" (from the east end of the rose garden to the west end of the library, including the internal USU and food service areas) and develop a comprehensive plan to extend wireless to the entire campus

·        Add 75 additional units to the sub-notebook inventory for wireless check-out in the library

·        Purchase two mobile wireless lab carts each year that can be moved into a lecture room for network access

 Network Infrastructure (Copper & Fiber)

·        Complete the network “band-aid” project

·        Explore contingency funding sources for the Telecommunications Infrastructure Initiative build-out

·        Replace the aging telephone switch by installing Voice Over IP technology in one building prior to expanding campus wide

 Rationale:

 The Distributed Desktop Environment (DDE) approach allows individuals with older technology workstations to utilize a high powered server to run complex applications. The workstations could still be used for basic functionality, but would connect to the DDE facility for advanced requirements. This methodology is extremely cost effective, but may not be as attractive as providing fully functional workstations for everyone.

 The Telecommunications Infrastructure Initiative would require expanding and adding additional wiring closets. In some cases, the consulting engineering firm has identified current faculty/staff offices or other instructional spaces to be used for this purpose. These spaces need to be studied carefully, and long-term plans made to relocate the existing occupants or functions to a new location.

 Workstation configurations on campus are a continual mystery, which makes it impossible to make knowledgeable decisions for hardware and software. An automated configuration inventory analysis system would provide summary information regarding workstations on campus.

 It is predicted that future network technologies will embrace wireless capability where appropriate. There is still a requirement for fiber and copper, but in many cases the distribution of the network in a wireless fashion has significant advantages. The proposal to develop a wireless red zone, and a campus master plan, positions the campus to take advantage of these technologies as funding becomes available.

 The pilot project to provide wireless checkout devices in the library has proven to be an impressive success. This proposal provides funding to purchase additional units, as the existing 25 units are in use most of the time. The wireless mobile carts are an attempt to utilize normal classrooms as ad hoc “smart classrooms”. The carts would be self-contained with laptop computers, wireless modems and a wireless transmitter. Faculty could move the cart into any classroom with an ethernet connection and have full network access for each student.

 The existing telephone switch on campus is approximately 10 years old. Compare this to a computer workstation of that era, and it is easy to imagine the limited functionality and reliability. This proposal suggests that we adopt the emerging concept of convergence of voice and data over the same network and utilize workstations as voice appliances where appropriate. It is predicted that within the next decade, Voice over IP will be commonplace and will provide significant improvement in functionality with less cost.

 Budget Summary and Description:

 First year: $1,622,434
Five year total: $4,668,370

Additional undetermined costs to replace all telephones and purchase application software

The cost to provide fully featured workstations to 20 percent of the campus users and DDE services to the other 80 percent is $3,158,370, a savings of $3,400,000 over the five-year cost to provide fully featured workstations to 100 percent of the faculty and staff.

For Voice over IP, the cost for the first building ($270,000) includes most of the infrastructure necessary to implement the remainder of the campus (total estimated cost: $995,000). These costs include the servers, the upgrade of network components and some VOIP telephone handsets to replace the aging Fujitsu system. Costs for associated software applications and total handset replacement are not available at this time and will be in addition to these estimates. The Wireless Red Zone is budgeted at $40,000 in year one. Additional low cost Windows CE notebooks are recommended as Wireless Library Devices, along with associated wireless modems at a per unit cost of approximately $1,000, for a total of $75,000, all expended in year one. The wireless mobile lab carts include a wireless network access transmitter, a heavy duty cart and 30 low cost Windows CE notebook devices with associated wireless modems ($63,000 in year one, $315,000 total).

Construction of the TII Network, at $28,373,077, is not included in the proposed budget.

Table of Contents

Student Online Administrative Services

 Members:

 Chair - Bernard Vinovrski (bernardv), Brad Barker (bradb), Thea Beddingfield (theab), Nancy Bjordahl (nancybj), John Briar (jbriar), Jim Bryan (jimb), Rik Clausen (rikc), Dianne Dickerson (dianned), Tamara Durant (tammyd), Candace Egan (candace), William Fasse (williamf) Jim Franklin (jimf), Steven Katz (skatz), Susan Kincade (susank), Jim Morris (jim), Judy Sakaki (judys), Mohamad Yousef (mohamad)

Goals:

·        Provide the university with user friendly on-line, Web-based, processes for student administrative services

·        Implement PeopleSoft Student Administrative System Web-based version 7.6.

Recommendations:

Based on priority and interdependencies, these are the Web implementation projects the task force recommends for completion in the next 18 months.

·        Financial Aid Scholarship Application

·        International Application

·        Applicant Status

·        Regular University Registration

·        Regular University Registration Fees

·        Student Account Status

·        Bookstore Purchases

·        Transcript Requests

Rationale:

The Task Force selected services to be deployed via the Web that would serve a wide population, including prospective students, applicants, currently enrolled students and alumni. The committee examined best practices and services at other colleges and universities and reviewed the functionality of our current student record system (SIMS/R). Tasks were prioritized by rating the importance of each activity and the degree of difficulty to deploy the service to the web. Finally, the committee acknowledged the likelihood of PeopleSoft Student implementation within the next five years. Should California State University, Fresno, be selected as a pilot campus for the CMS project, this will necessitate possible changes to the timeline and priorities established in this plan.

Budget Summary and Description:

First year: $246,000
Five year total: $6,556,100

The budget includes $144,000 for the Student Affairs Web Infrastructure, $795,000 for Credit Card Web Payment and $5,616,000 for CMS Student Administration Implementation. The budget is based upon using current staff in ESIS and ITS to complete the Web deployment strategy. Training cost is slightly higher in year one versus years two through five due to the need to train more people early in the project. Successful deployment of certain services is greatly enhanced by purchasing a cashiering system, which is necessary to handle credit card payments for Web transactions. IBM, a possible implementation consultant partner, provided the CMS student administration system cost estimates. The university is currently engaged in negotiations with the Chancellor's Office for support for the project.

Table of Contents

Funding Technology Initiatives

 Members:

  John Welty (johnw), Bill Fasse (williamf), Ellen Gruenbaum (elleng), Randy Larson (randyl), Karl Longley (karll), Tom McClanahan (tommcc), Robert Monke (robertmo), Lars Newlander (newl), Ben Quillian (quillian), Kenneth Shipley (kenneths), Peter Smits (psmits)

  This committee was involved with helping collect proposed costs and begin looking, on a preliminary basis, at possible sources of funding for the various projects. The Task Force operated with the following assumptions:

  ·        50 percent of funding would occur through the identification and possible reallocation of internal funds. The remaining 50 percent would need to be generated through new resources.

  ·        Multiple funding sources, including state funds, grants and contracts, gifts and donations, partnerships and others, would be necessary to fund the initiatives.

  ·        Certain initiatives would be more amenable to specific funding sources than others. For example, the Smart Classroom initiative is a good prospect for donor funding with naming rights for classrooms. Certain professional development initiatives would be amenable to grant development, other initiatives could be funded through strategic alliances and still others from state resources.

  ·        The concept of "challenge matches" should be explored fully. For example, perhaps a donor would match 50 percent of what could be internally funded.

  ·        The sequence of various initiatives needs to be carefully considered as certain initiatives cut across other initiatives. Also, with some projects, certain milestones need to be accomplished before others for optimal use.

  ·        The Funding Task Force was charged with collating data and suggesting possible alternatives to Task Force proposals. This Task Force did not attempt to review or alter any submission.

  The Task Force collected the financial estimates provided by each of the other task forces to estimate costs and begin looking at possible sources of funding. Each of the other task forces was asked to identify possible sources of funding that could be investigated further.

  Both cost approximations and preliminary, general estimates of funding possibilities were developed. Many of the projects are continuing to evolve and will go through a process of campus-wide comment, so specific funding proposals have not yet been developed.

Table of Contents