Report of the Task Force On New Learning Technology
McMaster University

September 24th, 1996

v.2.5

Download Word or Wordperfect Version

Table of Contents

1. Table of Contents
2. Introduction
3. Recommendations
4. Images
5. Terms of Reference and Process
6. Principles
7. Reconfiguration of Learning Technology Resources
8. Instructional Development
   1. Tenure and Promotion
   2. Two Paths to Promotion
   3. Salary
   4. Educational Direction
   5. Faculty Development
   6. New Learning Technology Leaves
   7. Instructional Software Library
   8. Instructional Technology Grants
   9. Instructor Training
   10. FASITT: Faculty - Student Instructional Technology Teams
9. Responsibilities and Evaluation
10. Student Acceptance
11. Conclusions
12. List of Task Force Participants
13. Appendix 1: Costs
14. Appendix II: Process
15. Appendix III: Course Evaluation

Introduction

Post-secondary education in North America has been placed in the contradiction between a sudden explosion in electronic sources of knowledge, and the ability to provide faculty and students with adequate access to such resources through electronic networks and computers. Knowledge is no longer acquired in specific places like the university or at certain times of day – students are increasingly holding part- or full-time paying jobs with implications for course scheduling. Global databases can be accessed almost instantaneously at any time, while faculty are on call at all hours of the day and evening via e-mail and voice-mail, and courses and curricular resources are being shared between institutions and countries. The traditional classroom is being replaced by alternative learning spaces networked regionally, nationally, and globally, and students in the same course sometimes find themselves miles apart geographically, if not culturally.

At the risk of oversimplification, at McMaster the problems are focused on over-stressed Computing and Information Services student computer labs unable to keep up with the expectations of instructors and students; inadequate instructional software available to students and instructors; inadequate faculty incentives for experimenting with, and implementing, the new learning technologies in their courses; an anachronistic administrative and technical infrastructure no longer suitable for the changed times; and a system of course and instructor evaluation that has not adequately incorporated the impact of new learning technologies. McMaster confronts these problems while sharing similar regional and national problems as elsewhere - rising student demand for access to e-mail, listservs, Usenet discussion newsgroups, and the World Wide Web, and accelerated changes in instructional software, hardware and opportunities, all within the context of rising costs and declining revenues.

The Task Force on New Learning Technologies has endeavored to arrive at a set of recommendations while navigating the web of potential problems. It is recommending an evolution to a set of flexible options, including student purchase of computers; a system of centralized and specialized student computer labs; a new management structure that places technological means under pedagogical goals; new faculty incentives around promotion, tenure, salaries, training, leaves, experimentation, and access to software and hardware; and a new method of student evaluation that includes questions specifically on the impact and importance of new learning technologies.

Stress on the Present Configuration

The present learning technology configuration at McMaster has the following characteristics:

• The oversight for central support of instructional technology comes from the Learning Technology Committee while educational oversight comes from the University Committee on Teaching and Learning.

• Computing and Information Services (CIS) maintains a number of student computer labs that are open to all students and consist mostly of networked IBM/PC type computers served by instructional servers.

• CIS also maintains a number of network services that have an educational role. They are MUSS - the student e-mail server, the free modem pool, the pay-for-service modem pool, World Wide Web servers, and the network itself.

• Audio Visual Services (AV) provides learning technology such as traditional video equipment for classrooms and has a number of video conferencing facilities suitable for instruction.

• The Instructional Development Centre (IDC) provides traditional instructional support and training while CIS/AV provide technical support for learning technology and some development support.

• Many faculties and departments have their own labs and related staff, supported to a greater or lesser degree by CIS.

This model is stretched to the point of breaking. As more and more instructors use learning technology and as more and more students use computers independent of course assignments, the CIS-run labs are becoming overcrowded, and we will soon have to ration services. The system of existing labs simply cannot handle the increasing demand by instructors and students for access to computing without a significant increase in funds and space. There are other signs of stress. Classrooms are falling into disrepair when we should be investing in new flexible spaces. Administratively there is a tendency for technological decisions to be made that affect instruction without leadership from the committees that provide central oversight for teaching and learning. Finally the level of instructional development, both traditional and technological, is insufficient to encourage innovation in teaching.

The obvious solution to the problem of the direction of instructional technology and the support of instructional development is to merge committees to provide a single central Education Committee and properly to fund a Faculty Development Centre that in addition to maintaining the level of traditional instructional development support that exists would be enhanced to support instructional technology support in various ways.

One possible solution to the problem of the stress on computer labs is drastically to increase the number of computers available. Even if we could solve the space problem it is doubtful we could afford the demand during the key periods of stress. It has been estimated that students will eventually need to use computers for as many hours a day as faculty and staff have to; an estimate which will mean that someone has to provide one computer for every two or three students during certain periods of the year. To support and maintain that many computers in labs would put an intolerable strain on the resources of the University. As long as our main venue for computers is University-managed labs we run the risk of not having sufficient access. This, along with inadequate instructional support, stifles innovation and experimentation by instructors. If we want an open environment where any faculty member can experiment with learning technology, then we need to move to a student-centred model where McMaster finds ways to make a personal computer available to each student. Once all students have access to their own computers, we will no longer have to worry about rationing access.

Future Configuration

Therefore, we propose that the University move carefully to a student-centred configuration that is based on students owning or having access to a standard computer that can connect to the network along with expanded instructional support to assist faculty to take advantage of this higher level of student access. The new configuration proposed in this document will have the following characteristics:

• An Education Committee will provide direction to all central units that provide instructional services.

• A Faculty Development Centre will provide a coordinated set of services for instructors. Instructional design support, help with assessment, technology support, instructional grants, instructional technology leaves, and instructional development should all be available through this Centre.

• The Library will be funded to build an electronic text/data service that will acquire and make available research information tools to both students and faculty. Where possible these will be made available over the network with assistance from CIS. The Library will have stations available for using these materials and for accessing the other network learning services.

• Students will be encouraged to buy a "standard" computer. For students who cannot afford the standard computer, funds will be set aside for a student Computer Aid programme. Faculties and student groups, with support from CIS, will offer extensive computer training to students.

• CIS will maintain a lab of standard computers for use by students when they are on campus or for students who cannot afford the standard. Use of this lab will be paid for by users and by a student Computer Aid programme.

• CIS will lead in the provision of advanced networked learning services including a WWW server that both faculty and students can use to publish materials, faculty servers designed to serve the specialized labs run by faculties, a general instructional file server(s) on which all faculty will have space, and conferencing services for instruction. All of these networked services will be accessible from any standard networked computer on campus or off.

• CIS will provide network connections into classrooms, student spaces, faculty offices, and an expanded pay-for-service modem pool for connection from the outside. Students and faculty will be able to connect easily to the networked instructional services from their offices or homes.

• Audio Visual will be funded to install multimedia presentation systems in selected classrooms and to create new flexible learning spaces. AV will also provide digital imaging services for instruction.

• Non-standard computer facilities will be provided by faculties or departments in specialized labs. CIS will assist with the networking and network services for these labs, but will not be responsible for their staffing or equipment.

One aspect of this proposal is an expansion of instructional support and faculty incentives. The other is the move to encouraging a standard level of computer functionality for students. Once we have such a standard, then we can efficiently gear services to it including network services and instructional development. We can also better support specialized non-standard uses of computers through faculties and departments. This model would not only make the provision of services more efficient, but it would also encourage all McMaster students to learn to set up and use a computer in their learning rather than depend on a preconfigured one. We believe that it is as important to create extra-curricular learning opportunities for students as it is to use computers in courses. When students control their own learning technology, they will use it in ways beyond what we imagine.

Recommendations

Principles

1. The introduction of learning technology should be informed by explicit educational values such as student directed learning, active learning, ability to synthesize knowledge, ability to understand different points of view, communication among students, communication among students and instructors, and understanding of what students know and how they can apply it outside the University.

Reconfiguration

2. McMaster should move to a technology model where students are encouraged to acquire standard computers, CIS should focus on the provision of network instructional services, AV should support the technology in instructional spaces, and specialized instructional technology should be managed by the faculties and departments which need it.

3. A committee should be struck to develop the administrative structure, policies and procedures for the offering of electronic degrees, diplomas, certificates, and courses. This committee would examine such issues as inter-campus scheduling of courses; accreditation; payment of fees; invigilating exams on the Internet; the sharing of courses with other institutions in the development of virtual degrees; contact hours; and faculty workload.

4. The University should not build new lecture halls. It should network existing classrooms and should plan to create instructional spaces that support alternative learning strategies, and new learning technologies. These spaces should be built for flexible configurations of students, learning, and technology.

5. The Library should be viewed as an essential partner in the delivery of self-directed technology based learning. Its role should be to make general information and research resources like CD-ROMs and electronic databases available to all.

Instructional Development

6. A two-track career model (research and teaching, and teaching) should be adopted at McMaster that provides explicit recognition of contributions to teaching in general, and to the development of instructional technologies in particular.

7. McMaster’s CP/M policies and documents should be modified to give due recognition to faculty activities in the creation, development, and implementation of new media technologies over and above what is ‘normally expected’ in the performance of teaching duties.

8. The Learning Technology Committee should be collapsed with the University Teaching and Learning Committee to form a new Education Committee. This committee should direct the spending of central funds on instructional technology, direct central units with respect to their instructional support (such as CIS, AV, the proposed Faculty Development Centre, and the Library), and ensure that decisions about instructional technology are informed by good pedagogical practice.

9. The IDC should form the nucleus of an expanded Faculty Development Centre to which new resources should be allocated to support both traditional instructional development and instructional technology. The Faculty Development Centre should provide a single coordinated venue for the support of teaching, including the support for instructional technology. The director of this Centre should report to the proposed Education Committee.

Responsibilities

10. McMaster should develop a clear policy on the division of roles and responsibilities of institutional units and individual faculty members in the development of technology rich curricula. When there is substantial University investment in instructional technology, the University, instructional staff, and students have responsibilities to make sure the technology is used appropriately. These include the responsibility to make sure it is adequately supported, and its impact documented.

Student Acceptance

11. Students should have a central role in the deployment of technology. Students should be able to learn about and with technology outside the opportunities set up by instructors. Students should be able to develop their own learning materials and use technology in their extracurricular activities. Student organizations should be invited to become partners in the deployment of technology.

Images

Sophia

Sophia never felt comfortable with computers. She was worried about the literature she received from McMaster suggesting she get a "standard" computer when she starts her undergraduate degree. During orientation she discovers that there is a well coordinated set of services designed to help her to buy, to learn, and to use the recommended computer. For example, the Bookstore has a financing scheme that lets her pay for the computer in small installments. It also has negotiated terrific prices from a couple of vendors. There was an off-the-truck sale in the first week where she got just what she wanted for much less than she would have paid in a store.

So she bought a notebook computer with a communications card that allows her to either connect over the phone from her house or to connect to a network access stations in the Library and cafeterias. She was worried that this laptop, once she bought it, would sit unused like her father's computer in the basement, but CIS and the MSU have set up a series of training sessions at the University Centre. When she couldn't get her modem to work she just brought it in to a Fix-It Centre open late at night and they had her up and running in half an hour. Before she knew it she had too much e-mail and was creating her own Web page on newMUSS.

When her mother asked her how she used her computer she realized that what was important was not the computer but the discussion lists, her e-mail friends, and all the information she had on-line for her courses. For example, most of what used to be handed out in class was now up on the Web. Just about every class had one or more discussion groups set up. Often if an issue came up that there wasn't time to discuss in class the professor would just continue it on-line. In some cases the professor would even create a discussion group on the fly and let Sophia and her classmates peel off to discuss the issue. In many courses she also got floppy disks with interactive lessons to work through at her own pace. She liked being able to work on things on her own in the middle of the night and still get immediate feedback especially when it came to Italian grammar. When she had problems she often found there was someone on-line in one of the chat areas on newMUSS to talk the problem over with.

Dr. Tourdivoire

Dr. Tourdivoire used to be intimidated by all the technology his students and colleagues were using. On a whim he wandered into the Faculty Development Centre and made an appointment with a consultant. Without having to wander from one place to another he got useful answers from one person who knew what it was like to teach. The University had managed to bring all the support groups under one umbrella organization so that a Development Consultant could help him plan to use instructional technology in his courses in an appropriate fashion.

Tourdivoire began by using the multimedia facilities in the lecture halls he already taught in. He rather enjoyed working with a graphic designer from AV to enhance his lectures with appropriate graphs and images. Using the networked servers and University licensed presentation software he could prepare his lecture at his desktop computer, include graphics digitized by AV, save it to his area in the instructional server, and then run the presentation from whichever class he was assigned. He could also save the presentations to a conferencing area where students could get at them. When there was material for the course that he didn't want to cover in class he could put it in the conferencing area for his courses and then send an e-mail message to the students.

After getting used to using the instructional servers Tourdivoire decided to experiment with some student-directed materials. For this he applied to the Faculty Development Centre for a grant to hire a graduate student to create self-testing modules for the students to use. The modules, because they were programmed for the student standard computer, could be distributed on floppies or on the instructional servers and students could work on them on their own.

As he had received a grant to create these modules, he was asked to organize an evaluation with input from his department. Having no experience with the assessment of instructional technology, he went back to his consultant who organized an evaluation. The results were sufficiently interesting that Tourdivoire published a paper in a journal devoted to teaching in his discipline with the consultant. This in turn was counted when he came up for promotion as an example of "scholarship in education." All of a sudden he found himself the department's expert in instructional technology and has arranged a teaching leave to work with a number of colleagues at designing materials for a large introductory course. Next he will probably redesign a upper-level course that has had low enrollment so that it can be taught to not only McMaster students, but to students at other institutions.

Samuel

Samuel didn't have the money to buy the standard computer when he came to McMaster. He was worried that he would be disadvantaged when all his friends had computers, but he found there was excellent support for students like him. CIS ran a central computer lab that he could use 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, with the standard computers. Most students had to pay to use the lab; once he had shown that he needed the support, he was given a pass to use the lab for free.

He spent so much time in the computer lab that he eventually got a job at the University Centre teaching courses to incoming students. His job was to help students learn how to use the software package licensed for their standard student computers. He would teach an introduction to the standard software at the beginning of the year and then provide peer-to-peer counseling after that.

There were things, however, that he could not do in the central labs. Spread out through campus there were computer labs for specialized uses that the standard computers all students had access to could not handle. There were multimedia labs where you could use CD-ROMs, there were CAD stations, GIS stations, and computers used for laboratory simulations. There were also the computers spread out through the libraries. These were for searching the on-line card catalogue, but some of them could also be used for searching the Web and the growing collection of electronic resources the Library was making available. It was great to call up an encyclopedia, dictionary, or full text copy of a journal article when researching a paper.

In his third year Samuel created an interactive timeline of the history of the Americas. He did this partly as a way of organizing his notes for a course and partly to help friends who were in the same class. When he showed it to the professor she was sufficiently impressed to want to use it in the course. She then got a grant from the new Faculty Development Centre to hire him to complete the interactive timeline. He now has a summer job that is giving him development experience at the same time as furthering his interest in history. Why isn't more instructional software coming from students?

Via

Via graduated from a professional faculty and found a job in her field far from Hamilton so she got an alumnae account on the McMaster system so that she could keep in touch with friends. One instructor, who found out she was lurking around in some of the discussion groups, asked her to make a virtual visit to his class to talk about the profession. She soon found that one of the advantages of the Mac connection was that it allowed her to hear about innovations in the discipline and it gave her access to some of the learning resources that she had used in the problem-based courses she took. The information resources were definitely better than what her small company had, and given that she was one of the few specialists of her type in the company she needed a community of fellow specialists to bounce ideas off. Often she found the best source of ideas in her field were her old classmates.

Maintaining contact with her classmates and instructors was not enough. She felt she needed to take courses to upgrade certain skills. When she found out that McMaster was beginning to offer courses over the Internet she was one of the first to sign up and she convinced her company to pay for them. These courses were first developed for McMaster students and then scaled out for others. They offer the perfect way to stay on top of a discipline if you are motivated enough to do the work and if you have an Internet connection. Having used a lot of the instructional technology needed when she was at McMaster she was not intimidated by learning off the Internet. Rather, she is wondering if she could get another degree if she takes enough courses. A couple of colleagues in her company who have heard her talk about these courses were intrigued enough to try one out - she finds herself chatting with people on-line through McMaster who are two doors down the corridor. Now the instructor who invited her to address his class is suggesting she actually teach a section given her facility with the environment. Next she will probably find herself signed up for organizing alumnae in her area.

Terms of Reference and Process

The Task Force on New Learning Technologies (TF-NLT) was formed by President Peter George and given the following mandate:

"The purpose of this task force is to outline our options with respect to the adoption of computer aided instruction, courses on television and video, and video-links with other institutions. We are concerned with the availability, viability and cost of a variety of options."

The Task Force was asked specifically to:

• Provide an inventory of existing options.

• Estimate cost implications.

• Identify the need for new personnel.

• Estimate the degree of resistance or receptivity of faculty and students to new forms of teaching.

• Consider whether existing evaluation techniques are adequate for these technologies.

The Task Force met regularly through the months of February, March, April, and May. The following people and organizations were consulted:

Dale Roy, Instructional Development Centre

John Drake, Computing and Information Services

Paul Knowles, Audio Visual Services

Don Woods, on Problem-Based Learning

Michael Atkinson, Associate Vice-President Academic

Carl Stager, Learning Technology Committee

Marju Drynan, Library

To reach a broader audience we ran an ad in both the Courier and the Silhouette encouraging people to contact us. We also collaborated with the Task Force on New Educational Opportunities on a questionnaire that was circulated to chairs of departments, heads of programs, and other selected administrators. All participants gave generously of their time.

In order to limit our investigation we adopted the following definition of a "new learning technology":

A new learning technology, for the purposes of this report, is either a technology that has only recently been adapted to education, or one that most instructors are not familiar with for the purpose of teaching.

In particular we have concentrated on electronic technologies like computers, data/video projection systems, video, and the Internet. By contrast books, libraries, card-catalogues are learning technologies that have been used for some time and most faculty and students are familiar with their educational role.

Principles

The Task Force agreed on certain principles and starting points for our discussion. These principles are the starting points from which this document flows.

1. Our first principle is also our first recommendation:

Recommendation 1. The introduction of learning technology should be informed by explicit educational values such as student directed learning, active learning, ability to synthesize knowledge, ability to understand different points of view, communication among students, communication among students and instructors, and understanding of what students know and how they can apply it outside the University.

We expect others will have different educational values; hence, the list provided is not meant to be exhaustive. The point of the recommendation is that, whatever your values, they should be made explicit and should guide the introduction of learning technology. Only then can we assess the effectiveness of the technology.

2. The existing facilities, especially the student computer labs, are under stress from the already increasing use of information technology in teaching. The decision to limit e-mail access and WWW access in the central labs is a recognition of this stress. Should the number of instructors using the facilities increase, we will have to consider rationing the resource. Further, if we consider that it is likely that students will need to use computers and the network much as staff do (and for as many hours a day as staff do), then the stress on the labs will only increase the need for rationing. McMaster cannot afford to keep on expanding the labs until there are sufficient machines for all the instructors and students.

3. Small steps are not adequate in the area of new learning technologies. We run the danger of maintaining both the old ways and the new. At some point the University has to have the courage to shift to a new paradigm, especially in the area of the use of computers. We believe a shift to a new distribution of computing resources down into the hands of instructors and students will eventually have to take place and when it does, the shift should be rapid and complete, rather than slow and step by step. A rapid shift, we predict, will be less painful and less costly if properly planned.

4. Learning technologies, especially computers, are no longer simply tools. They are also objects of study and objects of intense interest both within McMaster and outside. Whatever the uses of learning technology, we need to recognize that for some people technology is an object of curiosity, delight, and frustration. The most obvious example of this is the Department of Computer Science for which computing is a subject of scientific study. As a university we need to be willing to support a high level of experimentation, discussion, study, and research on the subject of computers and learning technology independent of their effectiveness.

5. Control over learning technology should be moved, where feasible, into the hands of the instructors and learners. As it is increasingly important to know about computers, over and above their use in instruction, the University should avoid sheltering students from mastering computers, but ,as part of their University education, should provide students with an opportunity to acquire the skills needed to control them. (See recommendation 11.)

6. Some of the best learning technologies are the real world tools and research technology that staff and faculty use. Consequently the University should invest in research technology for its faculty and students. The University should invest not only in learning technology for learning, but also in technology-mediated research tools like CD-ROMs, electronic texts, and electronic data.

7. Networks will increasingly become a mechanism for the delivery of instruction. Therefore McMaster should support the exploration, use, and development of network learning tools.

8. Collaboration with other organizations and Universities will become increasingly important in the delivery of a relevant educational experience. Not only will students expect to access resources elsewhere, but serious instructional development may demand the resources of many institutions.

Reconfiguration of Learning Technology Resources

Computer Labs and Student Computers

Recommendation 2. McMaster should move to a technology model where students are encouraged to acquire standard computers, CIS should focus on the provision of network instructional services, AV should support the technology in instructional spaces, and specialized instructional technology should be managed by the faculties and departments which need it.

At the present time, CIS provides direct educational support through the maintenance of a self funding modem pool, a common university network, instructional servers for common computer facilities, and labs in Engineering, Burke Sciences and Kenneth Taylor Hall. These facilities have been centralized as a consequence of perceived economy in administration support rather than best pedagogical practices. However, many faculty perceive that a significant impediment to the utilization of learning technology and education is the centralization of most computer aided instruction resources in facilities managed by CIS. The perception is that the central facilities are under stress and have not met the instructional needs of instructors as a consequence of difficulties in providing materials in a standardized environment, difficulties in arranging room bookings, access problems as a consequence of high demand, and lack of support for discipline-specific technologies. There is a consensus that provision of technological resources through the centralized facilities is not an appropriate model to encourage the development of good technological models, encourage students to adopt technology, or encourage faculty to develop and utilize existing technology. Several faculties or departments have been proactive in the introduction of computer facilities to meet departmental or faculty specific instructional needs. These include the Faculty of Humanities, the Department of Biology and the Department of Geography. In the model suggested here CIS would move to providing extensive network learning services and the central labs would evolve into cost-recovery labs. Individual faculties and departments would then be responsible for specialized labs that provide computing beyond the student standard. CIS would provide only network support and network services to these labs. This new model will require a significant financial investment and redistribution of existing resources.

Problems with the Present Configuration

More specifically the problems with the present configuration are these:

• If students are going to use computers for word-processing, e-mail, information access, instructional courseware, and research they will need access to a computer for at least 4 hours a day during the peak times of the year. The present lab model cannot support this level of use. There are not sufficient numbers of computers, nor if there were, is there the space to put them. Students are thus already forced to buy their own computers if they want, for example, to do word-processing at their convenience.

• Given that we already do not have enough points of access for students we are now being forced to ration services, as the move to restrict WWW access and e-mail shows. Students thus cannot access the Web during the day from the labs, arguably one of the richest educational resources around the globe. If McMaster wants to be a leader in the innovative use of learning technology it must remove barriers to access and create an environment where use of technology is not rationed. To restrict student access to the WWW, potentially the most pedagogically useful aspect of the Internet, effectively prevents faculty from experimenting with one of the most promising technologies around.

• What is putting pressure on the labs of computers is not only the explicitly instructional uses of computers, but the productivity uses of computers that faculty and staff take for granted. It is the use for word-processing, e-mail, and WWW that takes up time on the lab computers. If we expect students to write good papers then we should not be surprised if they spend hours at a word-processor editing their papers. While we cannot afford to give students access to labs for these tasks we need to recognize that these tools may be some of the most important in terms of their learning and computer literacy. Do we want an environment that discourages the use of these patently useful technologies, or should we not imagine a way to support students in their use?

• Another source of pressure on all instructional labs is their use for administrative purposes. As more and more administrative services are available over the network there is a danger that labs intended for instruction will be used by students for registering for courses, checking their financial status, and other administrative tasks, thus downloading administrative costs onto an instructional service.

• When computers are maintained by staff in labs, students do not control the technology, nor do they learn to run a computer themselves. McMaster should encourage all students to be able to buy, install, use, and maintain a computer as a basic skill. When computing is offered through labs students are presented with locked down devices that they are only allowed to use in prescribed ways so that they don't learn to take responsibility for the technology. We should expect our students to master information technology, not just use tied down computers like bank machines.

• Centrally run labs, to be cost-effective, have to standardize. This means that innovative uses of technology cannot be tried out if they do not fit in the standard. A significant impediment to the development and utilization of instructional technology comes from the limited access for specialized programs through the central facilities. As a result specialized labs have grown up to provide technology the central labs could not support. These specialized labs survive in a gray area with differing amounts of central support despite the fact they are often the most innovative and responsive. We need better ways of supporting these specialized labs and recognizing their role. We risk a situation where the central labs are so standardized they do not suit anybody and the specialized labs are so badly supported they frustrate everybody.

• The oversight on instructional issues and instructional technology issues is divided into too many committees. If instructional technology is to serve the interests of education then direction for instructional technology should come from the same source as the oversight for the other instructional services. Likewise, instructional support, what little there is, comes from too many different sources. Faculty should be able to get comprehensive support from a single office.

• McMaster has no formal mechanism for supporting research into instructional technology. Not having a Faculty of Education, we lack a focal point for instructional research despite the fact that there are many conducting such research. We need to find a way to support those who are engaged in serious research.

• Some of the existing networked classrooms are not compatible so that instructors with laptops are not guaranteed that they will be able to connect from any classroom.

• Many faculty who presently use instructional technology in their courses are not adequately supported. The University does not routinely provide instructors with appropriate computers with which to engage in educational innovation. Central support for the creation of original courseware is extremely limited. Faculty in some departments find they have to support instructional technology projects from funds from external agencies intended for other purposes.

• Permanent data projection devices are not installed in the vast majority of classrooms. As a result, an instructor who wishes to use multimedia presentations in many classrooms must haul a laptop, LCD panel, and projector across campus, often in winter, and set up the equipment before class begins.

• Other universities have a number of dedicated classrooms with network connections, and projection equipment, as well as computers suitable for multimedia presentations, that instructors can plug and play. McMaster has only a few of these.

• The video-conferencing links with other universities are badly supported. McMaster has not arranged with other universities a system whereby courses can be taught over video-conferencing links, but has left it to individual departments and instructors to strike their own deals. As a result, there is no synchronization of scheduling, curricular structure, library reserves, bookstore orders, etc. There is no plan for keyed access for instructors, or for facilitating the presence of a TA at the remote sites. Instructors who use the facilities are not trained, but have to get help from colleagues, and the technical support for the McMaster facilities is inadequate.

Possible Solutions

This Task Force considered a number of possible solutions:

1. Expanding the Labs. As mentioned above, we believe this would be too expensive and would only postpone the problem access. We also felt this would not move the technology and learning potential of the technology into the hands of the students.

2. Moving to Specialized Labs. If the central labs devolved to faculty or department run labs we might avoid some of the problems of standardization in the labs, but we would not, ultimately solve the problem of access.

3. Student-Centred Computing. While there have not been any reliable surveys of the undergraduate student population, some proportion of students already own a computer which is capable of performing basic tasks such as word processing. Unfortunately there is at present no standardization of platform or programs nor recommendations with respect to what might be perceived as a common minimal university standard. If the University cannot continue to provide all students access in labs, we need to encourage utilization of the limited University resources in a manner which compliments the resources that are already available to students. Hence we settled on a student-centred model that works with the computers they buy by supporting them extensively and building instructional services around them.

Student-Centred Computing

Given the stress on the present configuration we believe the University should move towards a model in which basic computing requirements such as word processing and accessing network services might be performed by students on their own standard personal computer. Specialized course specific tasks might be performed either on student computers or in University facilities. In this context students should be encouraged to buy a standard computer and to learn basic computer skills.

One of the principle advantages of such a model is that we can then move to orienting all the central services to this evolving standard. Students can be offered training and support so that they can all use their computers and connect to the Internet. Easy-to-use connectivity solutions can be offered so that all students with standard computers can connect easily. Instructional development can be aimed at using learning technology that students can then access for their computers, be it on floppy disk or over the network. Above all, if the standard includes easy connectivity to the network we can begin to exploit the network for instruction in a way that prepares us for offering alternative types of instruction at a distance.

Specifically we recommend that:

2.1. The University should advise all students that they will be expected to have access to a standard computer.

This standard should be defined in terms of functionality not precise brand names. For example, the standard might be a computer capable of connecting to the Internet ; able to run WordPerfect or a comparable word processor; able to run tutorial software prepared for Windows or the Macintosh; and able to run a package of licensed software. Examples of computers that meet the standard should be available to students in the Computer Store, but they should be able to meet the standard by upgrading existing equipment or choosing other vendors. The standard should be set by the proposed Education Committee in consultation with the faculties and appropriate instructional and technical staff.

This is the most sensitive part of our paradigm. We do not believe that students should be forced to buy computers, but that they should be expected to have access to a certain standard of computing. The standard should be sufficiently open that students need not buy only one brand, but can upgrade existing computers and make use of computers they have access to elsewhere.

2.2. The University should create a Computer Aid programme supported by vendors and the University. This program could take the form of guaranteed loans, financial aid towards the purchase of a standard system, or vouchers for use of certain labs.

If we are going to expect students to have access to a standard computer then we must be prepared to support those for whom this will be a serious financial burden. We believe that if McMaster makes this the cornerstone of its new learning technology strategy the problem of equitable access can be overcome through vigorous pursuit of vendor support, development of a guaranteed loan service, and vouchers. The creation of this Computer Aid program would be the most important feature of this proposal as it would allow the shift to student centred computing. We would not support a model such as that adopted by Acadia University in which students are required to buy a personal computer. Students should be given a choice in how they achieve access thus allowing them to pool their resources or to get aid.

2.3. CIS should maintain only a limited number of cost-recovery labs configured with the standard computer.

In order to have labs available for students when they are on campus and for those students with vouchers, we recommend that CIS maintain a limited number of labs that are funded on a cost-recovery basis. The labs would be paid for by a combination of:

• Computer Aid in the form of vouchers. This would provide a relatively stable income if students do not hoard their vouchers. It should be noted, however, that the money would come from the computer aid programme not the CIS budget.

• Rental of the labs to groups wanting to do hands-on training. No unit on campus could expect to use these labs without renting them. We should not expect CIS to run these labs on a cost-recovery basis and then expect them to do favours to other units in the form of free time. This would deal with the danger of instructional labs being used for administrative purposes thereby diluting the support for instruction.

• Hourly paid use by those who want access to computers during the day or night.

The cost of the cost-recovery labs could also be lowered by creating one large lab, a computer "cathedral", that can be efficiently run with fewer staff.

It should be noted that any groups that have depended on student labs need to either budget for their rental or reconfigure their services to use the network and the computers students will have.

2.4. CIS should concentrate on networked instructional services including: network services for specialized labs, instructional network services for all instructors, student network services like MUSS, and expanded network access service.

In this proposed configuration CIS will move out of the provision of instructional computing and instead focus on enhanced networked instructional services. This matches a general move to distributed computing where the central organization is responsible for the network and network services while the faculties and administrative units maintain their own local services. CIS should provide extended network services and technical leadership in the area. We expect that networked education will become increasingly important and feel that CIS should be given the mandate to not just cope with demand, but to provide excellent service. Some of the networked services we expect will be:

1. Faculty File Servers where any instructor can put materials and programs for students to access over the network.

2. Instructional Web Server for all instructors and students. The World Wide Web should be considered a basic means of communication now. All students and instructors should be able to create WWW materials as they wish. A parallel Common Gateway Interface (CGI) server should also be available for interactive WWW pages.

3. Specialized Lab Servers should be available for any specialized labs. CIS should provide the networking and network services needed by specializes labs. As these labs will not be standardized, since their role will be to meet needs not met by student computers, the CIS network services should be flexible and able to support any reasonable demand. CIS should, among other services, provide an authentication service for use in these specialized labs.

2.5. CIS and AV should provide support for instructor and student training.

Once we have a student standard we should be able to aim instructor and student training more effectively. Students will need training at the beginning of the academic year to be able to use the computers they are expected to access. CIS and AV would have a important role in providing technical training, though it should be coordinated through the Faculty Development Centre proposed below.

Space and Distance Education

Recommendation 3. A committee should be struck to develop the administrative structure, policies and procedures for the offering of electronic degrees, diplomas, certificates, and courses. This committee would examine such issues as inter-campus scheduling of courses; accreditation; payment of fees; invigilating exams on the Internet; the sharing of courses with other institutions in the development of virtual degrees; contact hours; and faculty workload.

The paradigm of post-secondary education is changing at an accelerated rate. Education is rapidly becoming distributed as information technologies and computer-mediated communications allow students to enroll and complete courses, diplomas, and degrees regardless of time and place restrictions. In the context of restrictive budgetary environments, universities are competing with one another and with private commercial vendors for students. Mass education via the traditional lecture in large classes is a thing of the past and for some disciplines constitutes an anachronism. Universities that continue to hold onto this outmoded teaching model will find their very existence threatened within ten years. The notion that a university is synonymous with physical plant and equipment - brick, mortar, and buildings - is no longer tenable.

Universities are also losing control over the innovative creation, provision, and distribution of information as other public and private organizations and institutions begin to commercialize and distribute information and knowledge across electronic networks. This opinion is not a fatalistic forecast, nor a ‘crank call to action’. It is merely reflective of changing patterns in higher education. It is an opinion shared by many. To take one example, Eli Noam, professor of economics and finance in the Graduate School of Business, and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, Columbia University, states: "The development of virtual degrees may be slowed down by problems of accreditation and other hurdles, but they represent the essential direction in which mass higher education will be changing. ... Ten years from now a significant share of conventional mass education will be offered commercially and electronically. ... this is an opportunity for early innovators. An institution that does so early and well can become the ‘University of North America’ and serve the entire world." The university that does not do so will increasingly become a satellite campus to those who do.

McMaster University prides itself in being a research intensive university and a leader in innovative pedagogical techniques, such as problem-based learning. However, it has relinquished leadership in this area as other institutions conduct research and begin to offer courses, diplomas, certificates, and even degrees on a distributed electronic basis. Other than a small unit in health and some programs in the Centre for Continuing Education, there is no Distance Education unit at McMaster. The current trend is toward a blurring of distance education institutions and traditional institutions, as the latter move into offering courses on a distributed basis. For McMaster, this would require the wholesale adoption of this model across all six faculties rather than the development of a specialized unit devoted to this mode of education. Therefore we recommend that the University immediately form a committee that is empowered to develop the structure for such alternative courses.

Recommendation 4. The University should not build new lecture halls. It should network existing classrooms and should plan to create instructional spaces that support alternative learning strategies, and new learning technologies. These spaces should be built for flexible configurations of students, learning, and technology.

There are signs that McMaster is not moving in this direction. Indeed, one response to the current budget restraint has been to build larger classrooms and to pack more students in larger lecture halls. It is an investment in the past. It is money ‘down the drain’ of a dubious teaching technique. The money would be better spent building the electronic networks that connect McMaster to other centres and the Internet, and in faculty human capital to develop the content in electronic format to be interactively delivered across such networks.

Specifically we recommend that:

4.1. McMaster should avoid constructing traditional new lecture halls and classrooms. Instead McMaster should build flexible networked spaces.

4.2. McMaster should adopt electronic networking, internally across the campus, and externally, as the major focus for upgrades to existing classrooms and the creation of new classrooms.

The University should plan to create spaces that can be used in more flexible ways and are not simply electronic lecture halls. Such spaces might be compared to the large and reconfigurable hotel ballrooms that are used for exhibitions and conferences and where there are tables that can be moved so that students can face each other for group work. This would create spaces that can be used for non-lecture teaching strategies. As for the upgrading of existing classrooms, the University should provide CIS/Audio Visual with the funds to upgrade selected classrooms with network connections and presentation technology like data/video projection systems. These network connections should be standardized so that instructors with properly configured equipment can connect to the network from any classroom.

4.3. Funds should be allocated to CIS to establish a network of network access points in spaces where students congregate like the Library, cafeterias, and other congenial locations.

Not only should the University create new flexible spaces it should also reconsider how it can provide access to the network from existing spaces that are not classrooms. In order to encourage the use of networked instructional services and to allow students to use the network where it is convenient, the University should consider creating access stations in commonly used spaces. Such access or docking stations could be placed in the Library, cafeterias, and other congenial locations. They would be spaces where one can rest a laptop, plug it in to the network, and plug it in to a power source. The University could approach the food-service providers to explore the possibility of setting up "Internet Cafe" style places with access stations and pay-for-use stations. Such initiatives would reduce the need for labs and allow students to access their instructional services where it is convenient and there is decent coffee.

Library

Recommendation 5. The Library should be viewed as an essential partner in the delivery of self-directed technology based learning. Its role should be to make general information and research resources like CD-ROMs and electronic databases available to all.

Some of the most useful technologies in learning are those devised for research and made available to learners. Such tools serve both communities and give students experience with authentic research tools. For this reason the Library should be funded to provide electronic research tools like CD-ROMs, electronic textbases, and electronic data banks. The Library has funds to set up a digital data/text service that would make CD-ROMs available in a lab and other texts/data available over the network, but they do not have the funds to run such a centre. Specifically we recommend that:

5.1. The Library should be given an annual budget for four years to run such a data/text service with the understanding that they will:

5.1.1. Give access to the data/texts over the network whenever possible (rather than at stand-alone stations)

5.1.2. Acquire data/texts relevant to all fields, not just quantitative data

5.1.3. Allow students to use the Library terminals to access networked instructional services when demand for catalogue access is low

5.1.4. Run a networked data/text server which could serve data and texts acquired by other units for research and instructional purposes

In addition, the Library should be included in conversations about networked learning services as their terminals could be one type of access point on campus. Their terminals should be available during off-hours for uses other than consulting the on-line card-catalogue, thus increasing student access to networked instructional and research resources. If network access stations are located throughout the libraries and if the Library terminals can be used to access instructional services, the instructional and research role of the Library would be strengthened. We believe it to be more conducive to the appropriate use of both electronic and traditional resources when they are brought together and students can focus on learning rather than dealing with an artificial segregation of information by its delivery mechanism. The Library is still the best unit for the long term maintenance of information and the most congenial space for its quiet appreciation.

Instructional Development

A close reading of current University documents leaves one with the impression that, at McMaster, scholarship, innovation and creativity occur, and are rewarded, in research, but do not occur in teaching and learning, and therefore cannot be rewarded. Teaching often appears as a routine, expected, unrewarded, residual category, piggybacked onto research. In fact, a number of faculty members interpreted as a punishment some recommendations in the 1993 Pagic Report mounting additional teaching responsibilities for instructors who were not sufficiently ‘productive’ in research (e.g. that the 10 per cent of faculty members identified as subpar researchers be required to take on an extra 6 to 12 units of teaching). Any statement on faculty incentives for the development of innovative new learning technologies must entail a modification of such policies, regulations, and assumptions, and the writing of new ones that bring about clear rewards for the development of innovative new media technology in teaching and learning, quite apart from the scholarly research category.

Tenure and Promotion

Recommendation 6. A two-track career model (research and teaching, and teaching) should be adopted at McMaster that provides explicit recognition of contributions to teaching in general, and to the development of instructional technologies in particular.

The criteria for scholarly achievement and effective teaching in McMaster’s current tenure and promotion document should be reviewed. More explicit recognition needs to be made of contributions in the field of teaching, especially the development of innovative curricula in general, and new learning technology aids in particular. We feel that tinkering with clauses in the present document will not suffice. Instead, we propose a two track route to tenure and promotion: a combined teaching and research route, and a pure teaching career, with proper incentives and rewards. In making this proposal, we make the following assumptions.

1. The boundaries between teaching and research are collapsing because of developments in new media technologies. Therefore, many of the ways in which McMaster has rewarded research should be extended into the area of teaching.

2. The development of new media technologies for teaching and learning is a creative and innovative endeavour, similar to such activities in scholarly research.

3. The products of the application of new media technologies are becoming increasingly public beyond the boundaries of the traditional classroom (e.g. on the World Wide Web, or mastered on CD-ROM discs) such that the criterion of external university evaluation may now be extended from the category of scholarly achievement to effective teaching.

We propose the following system, adapted from a previous proposal from Dale Roy at the Instructional Development Centre:

Two Paths to Promotion

Salary

Recommendation 7. McMaster’s CP/M policies and documents should be modified to give due recognition to faculty activities in the creation, development, and implementation of new media technologies over and above what is ‘normally expected’ in the performance of teaching duties.

Annual increments in faculty members’ salaries and benefits are based on a weighted combination of contributions to scholarly research, teaching, and administrative and community service on the basis of recommendations from department or unit chairs and faculty deans. Despite this, there is the perception that instructional development in general tends not to get recognized, and the enormous amount of additional time and resources required to develop technologically rich curricula and to teach in this mode do not receive adequate recognition under these procedures. This is not to say that a plea cannot be made on a case by case basis on behalf of an individual faculty member who has made an outstanding contribution in this area. But this places the burden of proof on the shoulders of the individual faculty members and their chairs. There is no systemic structure to this recognition. This acts as a barrier to the development of such resources. McMaster currently lags behind a number of other universities in this regard. A number of universities have added units of monetary value to a faculty member's income on the basis of:

1. Number of students taught over a certain number. For example, the University of Maine at Presque Isle has had a policy of granting extra percentages to load and overload salary for units of extra numbers of students taught.

2. Number of sites taught simultaneously in distance education courses. For example, the College of Engineering at Oklahoma State University gives faculty teaching simultaneously local and distant students an extra $50 per semester credit hour per student added, and another $50 per semester credit hour to her/his department, which uses the funds to reinvest in future equipment.

3. Amount of time put into new media courseware development.

4. Amount of training in preparation for offering a course with extensive new media technological support or facilities. For example, Southern Utah University adds $100 per hour for up to three hours per course to the instructor’s salary for basic training for distance TV courses.

We would not want this recommendation to be interpreted as saying that only technological innovation should be recognized. We believe that McMaster, if it wishes to encourage excellent teaching, must systematically recognize excellence in all its forms.

Recommendation 7.1. An individual faculty member’s salary be increased by an amount agreed upon with the Faculty Association for every non-McMaster student that is enrolled and completes a course offered to McMaster students.

One area where there should be a clear financial incentive is the sharing of profits from teaching non-McMaster students. If the University is going to encourage the offering of courses electronically to non-McMaster students so as to increase revenue, it must be willing to share the revenue with those who will bear the burden of teaching at a distance. A per-student bonus that could be woven into the fees charged that student would encourage faculty to make their courses open to distance learners.

Educational Direction

Recommendation 8. The Learning Technology Committee should be collapsed with the University Teaching and Learning Committee to form a new Education Committee. This committee should direct the spending of central funds on instructional technology, direct central units with respect to their instructional support (such as CIS, AV, the proposed Faculty Development Centre, and the Library), and ensure that decisions about instructional technology are informed by good pedagogical practice.

At the moment there is no coordinated direction of instructional development. The Learning Technology Committee advises CIS and AV, but focuses on technology. The University Teaching and Learning Committee is not involved in decisions about teaching and learning technology. We therefore recommend that they be merged to form a single committee that can provide direction on all issues regarding instruction. Not only would this reduce by one the number of committees on campus, but also, given the principle that educational values should inform decisions about learning technology, it should be an Education Committee that provides oversight.

Faculty Development

Recommendation 9. The IDC should form the nucleus of an expanded Faculty Development Centre to which new resources should be allocated to support both traditional instructional development and instructional technology. The Faculty Development Centre should provide a single coordinated venue for the support of teaching, including the support for instructional technology. The director of this Centre should report to the proposed Education Committee.

With a student standard computer McMaster should be able to create instructional technology support services. These services along with traditional instructional development services should be available through a single office. We therefore recommend the creation of a Faculty Development Centre to be directed by the Education Committee. This Centre would evolve out of the IDC with some support from AV. This Centre would provide coordination for all instructional support. A faculty member should be able to walk in, make an appointment with a consultant, and get support without having to go to any other organization. Services offered by other organizations should, where possible, be accessible through this Centre. Such a Centre might be usefully located near Audio Visual so that the overlap of services could be minimized and so that the services of both would appear to be closely integrated to an instructor. Some of the services of such a Centre, regarding learning technology, would be:

• The Centre would advise instructors on the use of learning technology. To do this at least one professional learning technology support person would have to be hired or seconded from elsewhere. From an instructor's perspective this Centre should be the only place they need to go to get sound advice on the use of learning technology and to get support for the central services.

• The Centre should be able to train, and support all instructors who wish to use the central services like the instructional file servers, the conferencing systems, the web sites, and the student standard computer. An instructor who wanted to create a student tutorial aimed at the computers students have should be able to get complete support from this organization.

• The Centre would assist with the assessment of the use of learning technology. It would help instructors develop formative evaluations for instructional technology.

• The Centre would have funds for a New Learning Technology Leave programme. (See below)

• The Centre would, in coordination with the Library, run an Instructional Software Library. (See below)

• The Centre would have resources and funds for supporting learning technology projects. (See below)

• The Centre would work with other organizations to run regular training for instructors who want to use the central learning technology services. (See below)

The Faculty Development Centre should first of all be an instructional development centre that is funded to provide traditional development services. In addition it should be expanded to support instructional technology and for that it should receive additional funding. This report should not be interpreted as recommending that traditional instructional development be replaced by technology support; rather, we believe the funding of instructional development should return to the 1992-3 level.

We expect that to adequately support instructional technology a Faculty Development Centre would need the equivalent of three new full-time employees (FTEs). We expect the equivalent of two FTEs to be available through a reconfiguration of CIS/AV. These two FTEs would be seconded to the FDC for the purposes of instructional technology development so that faculty can get support from one place. We expect the funding will then have to be found for one new FTE in the Centre.

New Learning Technology Leaves

9.1. McMaster should grant six New Technology Leaves per year. Departments, Faculties, and teaching units should play a central role in deciding on the faculty members to be granted such leaves.

The development of computer mediated curricula materials requires a commitment in time far exceeding, in many cases, that required of instructors to develop ‘normal’ courses from year to year. The total amount of such time often cannot be incorporated into the regular teaching duties and responsibilities of a faculty member during an academic year. If McMaster hopes to keep pace with the rapidly evolving curricular resources being introduced globally on a distributed basis with little regard to time and place, it should develop a "New Learning Technology Leave" to provide faculty members the resources in time and material support necessary to develop technological content in selected courses.

In 1992, the University Committee on Teaching and Learning (UCTL) developed an extensive Proposal for Educational Leave: A Policy on Educational Leave for Members of the Faculty. This was not adopted by Senate. Instead, the principle of an educational leave became subsumed under, and incorporated into, McMaster’s Research Leave Policy to read: "In some cases, a faculty member may wish to undertake educational research or professional educational development of potential value to the University as part or all of the project for a research leave. Such a proposal is eligible for consideration under the Research Leave Policy, provided that the faculty member meets all other criteria" (Senate Secretariat, 1994). We believe that a New Learning Technology Leave should be evaluated on its own merits rather than being subordinated to the Research Leave Policy. In particular, the criteria for assessing the worth and value of the product of such a leave may be seen by some as taking a non-traditional form of ‘publication’, such as the distribution and use of course materials on the Internet by teachers at various institutions. Instead of the criterion of scholarly publication, we believe that such a leave should be judged on:

1. the innovative and creative technical merits of the curricula resources;

2. the extent to which such resources have the potential to enhance the development of the students’ learning experience;

3. the contribution of the technologies to the enrichment of the pedagogical content of the subject matter;

4. the value of such curricular resources to the program of a department, unit, or faculty;

5. the potential for use in a distributed educational structure (either the adoption of the course material by instructors at other institutions, or the ability of students outside McMaster to make use of such materials in a distance education format);

6. the importance of proposed development to the goals of the department or faculty.

Instructors awarded this IT Leave would be given access to the facilities in the Faculty Development Centre and be expected to participate in appropriate activities organized by the Centre after the IT Leave. In particular they would be expected to provide specialized advising in their area of expertise. This would increase the variety of advice available at the Centre and it would increase the interaction between staff at the Centre and faculty.

Instructional Software Library

9.2. A central library of instructional development software and exemplary courseware should be established for instructors and students to borrow from.

Too often new media courseware development entails new software expenditures like authoring software and exemplary courseware. Faculty members engaged in innovative new media courseware developments should not be expected to cover such costs personally or out of their ongoing research costs; they ought to be covered by the University. Until McMaster provides such specialized software, and regular upgrades, new media curricular development simply is not going to happen on a large scale. We therefore recommend that the Library and the Faculty Development Centre be provided funds to set up an instructional software library which would:

1. Buy and maintain common development software for use by instructors. The software would go to a library of instructional development software that faculty could test and borrow for projects.

2. Build a library of exemplary instructional packages for students and instructors to borrow.

3. Negotiate University-wide licenses for useful instructional software.

This software library could be combined with a Library Text/Data Service (see 6.1 above) if there is the coordination with the Faculty Development Service.

Instructional Technology Grants

9.3. The Faculty Development Centre, in concert with the Education Committee, should establish an annual grant program to support new instructional technology projects in cooperation with the six faculties.

Specialized instructional projects need support including the allocation of human resources and money. The most appropriate body for doing so would be either the Faculty Development Centre or a subcommittee of the Education Committee. We therefore propose that the Faculty Development Centre manage an open and advertised grant program. There are five considerations that should be taken into account when setting up such a program:

1. Instructional technology projects should be adequately funded. Appropriate resources and monies need to be set aside for doing so.

2. Any central resources, such as programming or multimedia support that cannot be offered to all instructors, should be granted through an open and advertised grant program.

3. The application for the support of such projects must involve not only individual faculty members but their teaching unit. The relevant teaching units should be consulted when awarding these grants.

4. The application process for project funding needs to be coordinated with the applications for New Technology Educational Leaves. That is not to say that all funded projects need to be tied to new technology educational leaves, nor should the granting of a leave depend on receiving funding for an instructional project. Rather, there should be coordination where appropriate.

5. This fund should grant not only one-year but multi-year grants for ongoing projects.

Instructor Training

9.4. The Faculty Development Centre should coordinate free workshops and training courses on the appropriate pedagogical uses of instructional technologies. These workshops and training would be taught by the appropriate instructors, CIS staff, and AV staff. The Faculty Development Centre would have funds to reimburse the relevant organizations.

Traditionally faculty members do not receive special training to become university TEACHERS. We seem to leave this to ‘chance’, or to view this as a byproduct of good research (this is expressed as well in university documents). It is therefore not surprising that one form of resistance by faculty to the adoption of new learning technologies is the learning curve involved in the technical and pedagogical mastery of instructional technologies. Geohegen’s following five categories of faculty divided by time of diffusion, innovation, acceptance, and resistance to instructional technology, have been widely discussed in the literature.

Three issues must therefore receive careful consideration:

1. Compensating faculty members for the ‘extra’ time they put into receiving training on new learning technologies. At the present most of the available workshops and courses are on a fee-for-service basis. As long as this state of affairs continues, the majority of faculty members will simply refuse to seek out the required training, especially in light of Geohegen’s model of pockets of resistance. Faculty members as employees should not be expected to pay out of their own pockets the cost of on-the-job training.

2. The appropriate body and mechanism for providing new faculty with the pedagogical training in the use of new learning technologies. The most appropriate body for this will probably be the new Faculty Development Centre.

3. The appropriate body and mechanism for providing faculty with the technical training in the use of new learning technologies. This is quite separate from the issue of development of such technologies, or courseware. Training could be provided by CIS, Audio-Visual, a Faculty Development Centre, or by individual faculties.

One of the advantages of the proposed reconfiguration is that the training of instructors coordinated by the FDC could then be focused on the level of computing students are expected to have including the network services they would be expected to be able to get access to. We expect that the Faculty Development Centre would coordinate a collection of training opportunities some taught by FDC staff, some by CIS staff, some by AV staff, and some by members of the community.

FASITT: Faculty - Student Instructional Technology Teams

9.5. Each of the six faculties should put in place training programmes for students in instructional technologies based on joint faculty/student project teams.

At a number of universities, the development of new learning technologies for particular curricula programs are developed by faculty/student teams. The overall design of the project is the responsibility of the faculty member. The means, mechanisms, and procedures are developed by students under the guidance of the faculty member. The students benefit from training in rarely developed skills in an applied setting which may then be used to obtain a job after graduation. The faculty member benefits from being relieved from the more mechanical aspects of design and implementation. The University benefits from enhancing its critical mass of IT tools, while reducing the amount of scarce faculty time released from teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities. We therefore recommend that each of the faculties put in place mechanisms that would encourage the creation of such teams.

Student Training

9.6. Each of the six faculties should put in place student computer training programmes in coordination with the appropriate student organizations, and CIS. CIS should, in collaboration with the relevant student organizations, also offer a computer support programme for students using the proposed standard computer.

Encouraging students to buy a standard computer will not make learning technology accessible if there is not a comprehensive training programme for students aimed at showing them how to use their computers in their learning at McMaster. A training programme would be one aspect of a set of services designed to ensure that all students leave McMaster comfortable with computers and the Internet. The second aspect of a comprehensive strategy would be a support programme. We expect the training and support to come mostly from CIS, but to be adapted to the needs of the different faculties. We also believe the training and support should, wherever possible, involve students. Some services that might be offered could be:

1. At the beginning of each academic year each faculty would run training sessions for new students with support from CIS and their student societies. There would be a core of training courses that CIS would deliver aimed at the universal skills and there would be discipline specific additional training courses.

2. Throughout the year there would be special training sessions taught by senior students and coordinated by the Faculties. Some of these might be offered only to students of a specific course that uses a particular technology.

3. Throughout the year there would be a drop-in support centre that would be open at congenial hours where students could bring a standard computer and get immediate support. Such a centre should be able to fix any problem arising with the standard systems. This drop-in service might be run by the Bookstore in collaboration with the major student organizations. When the University Centre is built, that would be an ideal place to put the centre.

4. Throughout the academic year there should be on-line support discussion lists and chat areas available where questions about the use of standard equipment can be asked and answered by other students or staff.

Responsibilities and Evaluation

Recommendation 10. McMaster should develop a clear policy on the division of roles and responsibilities of institutional units and individual faculty members in the development of technology rich curricula. When there is substantial University investment in instructional technology, the University, instructional staff, and students have responsibilities to make sure the technology is used appropriately. These include the responsibility to make sure it is adequately supported, and its impact documented.

Funding and other university support for the development of instructional technologies should reflect mutually beneficial responsibilities on the parts of the faculty (or other developer of the resource) and the university. These might include:

On the part of the resource developer

Proposals for funding of instructional technologies should indicate the ways in which educational goals will be incorporated into the design and implementation of the technology.

Instructional technologies should be selected based on their compatibility with appropriate educational values, rather than on the availability of the technology alone.

Developers have a responsibility to seek pedagogical expertise in the design of an instructional resource.

In the allocation of funding, collaborative efforts between faculty members (content expertise), an instructional design group such as the Faculty Development Centre (design expertise), and CIS (or other groups with technical expertise) should be given preference.

To receive faculty or University funding, all instructional technology projects should have an evaluative component built in. This component should be developed in conjunction with the department and the proposed Faculty Development Centre.

The evaluation should be based on meaningful educational outcomes, which may only become apparent over a course of study. Short term studies of costs saved alone should be considered inadequate for faculty or university funding.

Proposals for funding of an instructional technology should consider how the technology will impact on (or depend upon) the university infrastructure and the likely infrastructure requirements should the technology prove successful.

On the part of the university

In consideration of the above, the University should allow experimentation with instructional technologies and provide sufficient infrastructure as to create an environment of exploration. This infrastructure should include training in new instructional technologies and technical and pedagogical design support as well as physical facilities.

The University should consider such experimentation a worthwhile academic activity. It should recognize that the development of new ways of learning takes much time and reflection. The academic reward structure should reflect this recognition.

The University should be willing to allow patterns of learning behaviour and educational resource utilization to change over time as the use of a new instructional technology matures. Short term increases in costs may be seen as students and faculty make the transition to a mature use of a technology and should not be seen as a negative outcome.

As the use of instructional technologies evolves and replaces other learning methods, the University should act in a way that ensures equity of access to the new learning opportunities for all of its students. As it is such a fundamental principle, lack of equity of access is likely to be a major impediment to the use of instructional technologies.

Where there is central University funding for instructional technology projects these projects should be documented and when appropriate, evaluated. We have provided in an appendix an Economic Analysis Checklist and a Sample of how an evaluation might be applied to a particular technology solution. Short term outcomes, such as use of the technology by students and faculty, access issues and student and faculty satisfaction will be important and can be measured over the initial implementation of a technology. However, longer term outcomes may prove more meaningful, both with respect to students’ learning and cost implications. While students may report high utilization and satisfaction with a technology, meaningful changes in what or how students learn may only become apparent over a course of study. The full economic impact, including benefits, of the technology may not be realized until users have time to alter their learning/teaching approaches in a way that makes appropriate use of the technology’s benefits.

Policies and Regulations

Many current McMaster University policies and regulations concerning faculty remuneration, tenure, promotion, workloads, research/educational leaves, scholarly achievement, and effective teaching, either do not encourage, or act as a barrier to, the development and implementation of new media technologies in learning and teaching.

McMaster, with few if any policies for encouraging faculty to develop and integrate new learning technologies into the curriculum, is currently on the bottom rung of universities in this regard. For example, Casey Green’s Annual Campus Computing Survey in the United States reveals the following relatively stable figures since 1990:

10.1. All relevant human resources and faculty and staff documents should be reviewed by appropriate units with a view to devising ways and means of inserting incentives for the faculty development of new learning technologies.

10.2. McMaster should develop a clear policy on the division of roles, responsibilities, and rewards of institutional units and individual faculty members in the development of technologically rich curricula.

Policies on faculty incentives for new learning technologies should include sections on the stake or benefit to McMaster as a whole, or to one of its faculties or departments, in granting merit pay and/or an educational leave to a faculty member for the development of a new learning technology project. There might be some contract, partnership, or agreement between the faculty member and his/her department/faculty regarding the exchange of monetary and/or time units/credits for an innovative technology-based curriculum development. A department might, for example, release an instructor from teaching duties for a calendar year in return for the development of an interactive courseware, which other instructors would be able to use in the future. The ‘product’ becomes the property of the department, and is to the benefit of the department and university.

Intellectual Property/Patents/Copyright

10.3. Present university intellectual property rights and patent policies should be amended to provide explicit statements on fair compensation for a faculty member for her or his contribution in the development of technologically rich curricular materials.

McMaster, like other institutions, has in place, and is currently revising, policies on IPR. One of the barriers to faculty investing time and resources in technological curricula content is the perception that ownership of the product remains either exclusively in the hands of the university, or that faculty are not properly recognized as partners in terms of ownership rights and royalties. Traditionally, universities do not receive part of the royalties from the sale of books and other materials published by faculty. Yet the trend is towards more electronic publication and products in which universities are increasingly exercising options as whole or part owners. This may act to discourage the development of technologically rich content curricula materials by faculty. There needs to be a much clearer statement at McMaster of the investment of time and human, material, and financial resources by the university and individual faculty members in technologically-rich curricula. Presently, several faculty members invest personal time and resources in the development of curricula from which the university and students are the sole beneficiaries. Such development takes the form of a ‘sacrifice’ by the faculty member in time and personal resources. Very few benefits accrue to individual faculty members. As long as this present state of affairs continues, faculty members have little incentive to engage in such ‘extra-curricula’ activities for curricular ends. A much clearer division of responsibilities and investments needs to be delineated between faculty member and university. Two principles need to be recognized.

1. The University may wish to develop particular courses with a rich technological content. Such courses may take a modular form, and be offered from year to year by different faculty members, with some annual minor modification in content and structure. The development of such materials should be based exclusively on investment by the University in which the faculty member who performs the development work assumes the role of contractor. Such a faculty member is granted the leave and other resources to perform the activity, with no ownership claim on the final product.

2. A second principle is the equation of curricula development with scholarly publication. The faculty member has considerable control over determining the content and direction of the development of scholarly research, and derives benefit in the form of material compensation and recognition by peers. The faculty member may utilize external sources of funding and personal resources to develop such materials. Minimal university resources are invested. In such cases, the university has less claim on ownership to the final product.

Students’ evaluation of a course which makes heavy use of an instructional technology

10.4. The University should develop formative course evaluation methods that reflect the differences between courses that use instructional technology and those that don't.

One problem with existing evaluations used for instructors is that they measure the teaching not the learning. As new methods and technologies are used that de-emphasize the instructor it is possible that existing student evaluations will cease to capture the impact of instructional technology. While students’ opinions about the effectiveness of their instructor are important, and should continue to be gathered, we believe that there should be additional formative evaluation methods available to help instructors assess the use of information technology.

Student Acceptance

The Student Point of View

Recommendation 11. Students should have a central role in the deployment of technology. Students should be able to learn about and with technology outside the opportunities set up by instructors. Students should be able to develop their own learning materials and use technology in their extracurricular activities. Student organizations should be invited to become partners in the deployment of technology.

The much-debated issue of learning technology and computers has advocates who describe its limitless possibilities, and critics concerned with the social and financial implications.

Technology is perceived to be a vital part of life in any university classroom setting, a sentiment echoed in comments by Snobelen on future goals for universities. It is important to have technologically advanced delivery systems, in order to remain competitive in the global education community, but what are the ramifications of this need for learning technology for the entire student body?

Two prominent concerns must be addressed, namely that of accessibility and teacher down-sizing. Universal accessibility appears to be threatened due to the financial constraints imposed by the increased tuition fees as well as the necessity to purchase state-of-the-art computer equipment. Equally important is the fear of a teacherless, pedagogically inferior classroom, with a CD ROM and computer tutorial delivering education.

The key to any reconfiguration will be to ensure that any changes being made are implemented to enhance the quality of our education, and not simply to cut costs. A change that happens to reduce expenses is fine, but one that reduces quality is not going to be accepted by students. The best way to ensure that students will accept the proposed changes is through thorough consultation with students. McMaster students are divided into three major groups, the McMaster Students Union represents full time undergraduates, the McMaster Association of Part Time Students represents part time undergraduates, and the Graduate Students Association represents graduate students. Each of these groups should be included in discussions regarding the implementation of new technologies.

Personal computers are the most common example of a new learning technology. Getting an education at McMaster has become dependent on access to a basic computer. Access means either having one for yourself, or having access to a computer lab. The question is what should be done to give students access to computers? Should we force students to purchase a specific brand and type of computer? Acadia is doing this, but it is not a good model. Forcing students to purchase a computer creates resentment by students who might want to use a different platform, and it increases the cost of coming to school. With the proven correlation between tuition fees and accessibility to an education, increasing the cost of attending McMaster University would not be beneficial to anyone.

The model proposed here of having a "standard computer" available to students who WISH to purchase it is a better one. Some definition of what the minimum machine would be comprised of would also be beneficial. (For instance, specifying a standard Word Processor and Spreadsheet.) This would not bind the students into using only these software packages, but would create some guidelines for the students who wanted to benefit from all the other services aimed at the emerging standard. The other advantage of having some standards would be with levels of support. If everybody is encouraged to use the same basic systems and software, supporting them would be standard as well. We expect that with a standard computer there could be far more extensive training and support available to students.

Why do we have computer labs on campus? The obvious answer is that they are to provide equitable and universal access. However, we need to look at whether it is feasible for the University to provide access to a computer in a lab to all students given the increase in use of computers. If there are labs all students should be allowed to use them, but those who own their own machines should be encouraged to use their own to reduce the stress on the labs.

The current state of site licenses should also be looked at. Students can now go into the over-used labs to use certain software packages that they do not own. This is creating traffic in the labs by people who own their own machines, and would otherwise use them at home. If the site licenses of the packages could be expanded to all STUDENTS of McMaster, rather than the computers on campus, traffic in the labs would be lessened and the people who need to use the labs would have the opportunity. For this reason a software library and funding for common licenses are important.

The CIS network should be expanded as well. With the growing popularity of lap-top computers, students could be given the option of "plugging-in" to the network from sites outside of the traditional labs. If areas existed (for instance in Libraries, Cafeterias, or the proposed University Centre) where laptops could be plugged in, traffic in the labs would be reduced as well. Finally, there are 2,200 students living in the eleven residences on campus. If these students were able to plug their computers in to the CIS network, the pressure on the labs would be reduced. The first step to this has been completed with the wiring for cable modems (which gives a really fast Internet connection), but in the future this might need to be expanded to include full access to the CIS software.

The World Wide Web (WWW) is something that we have not been using to its fullest potential. There are many ways that the web can be used to enhance teaching. Why have we not been using it properly? Students do not have proper access to it. They can get a "self-funding modem pool" account, which allows them a "SLIP" or "PPP" connection, but they must know how to set it up. The majority of the students on campus just don't have the knowledge, and the support systems in place are not adequate to deal with them. Again, some standard software to allow a proper PPP link would assist support and allow those students with computers to use them to their full potential.

Another type of technology which is being used (somewhat) today are computer tutorials for courses. These types of software packages are great as an addition to a course, but they must not replace the instructor. The implementation of these types of programs would be simplified by providing a standard system for students. The University must be careful when considering what types of courses to use these electronic tutors. That which is appropriate for grammar drill in a language course may not be appropriate for a Philosophy tutorial.

In the final analysis, students accept the importance of learning technology, and understand the learning technology may be used to make factual material available, thereby eliminating some face-to-face tutoring. However, it should never replace the mutual teaching/learning interchange between instructor and student, which is central to higher learning. We hope it will be used to extend the interaction between students and faculty, not replace it.

New learning technology will neither cure nor kill university education. Judiciously administered, it will free up some of the instructor's time for further research and dialogue with students. While traveling the information highway together, we should all take advantage of this new tool for life-long learning.

So what do students expect?

• Greater involvement in the deployment of learning technology.

• A recommended standard for computing. Not a recommended computer, but a functionality standard that would include the basic software (i.e. a Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Database functionality, etc.) expected to be used on the computer.

• Some sort of financing scheme to assist students in purchasing a computer.

• Some scholarships/bursaries dedicated to assisting students with the purchase of a computer.

• Training programs provided by the University / the MSU which will teach students how to use the basics.

• A University Centre with network access points for our lap-tops, which would allow access to the CIS networks (and therefore the programs).

• Affordable, if not free, access to computer labs which have both an adequate number of computers, and an adequate number of support staff available to answer questions, 24 hours per day.

• A support line that we can call with technical questions regarding our computers.

• If courses are going to put important information on the WWW, students should be able to have access to the web from computer labs, and be able to dial in from home.

There is a misconception that students are against new learning technologies. This is not the case. Students, however, are concerned with the direction the use of these technologies have taken in the past. We do not want to see traditional teaching replaced by television monitors and computer programs. Technology should be used to enhance, but not to replace teaching.

Conclusions

Throughout this document we have mentioned some of the advantages to the use of learning technology at McMaster, but we have not discussed them explicitly. While it is beyond the scope of this document to present the advantages for every discipline we will conclude with some general reasons for well funded support for instructional technology and some of the successes at McMaster on which we should build.

General Advantages

• In most disciplines we can no longer teach students everything there is to know. We have to teach the core content and methods, and then make sure that they can continue their education after they graduate. Learning technology will play an increasing role in ongong education and distance education. Just as we prepare students to use traditional information resources like a library, we should be preparing students to be able to continue learning using the Internet and interactive materials.

• The computer and communications technologies like the Internet are becoming basic tools in most of the professions our students are likely to pursue. The networked computer is an essential tool in many of the jobs our students will get. We have a responsibility to make sure that they have mastered this tool before they leave McMaster.

• An increasing number of people will want to take McMaster courses at a distance or will want flexible configurations of courses. McMaster, by encouraging the use of information technology in existing courses will lay the foundation for any expansion into distance education. We need to be ready to teach students who cannot attend class here.

• In order to preserve and expand existing programmes we will have to enter into alliances with other institutions where we share instructional resources. We need to put in place the administrative infrastructure and create the technical infrastructure to be able to pursue appropriate alliances.

• Computers and the Internet could have a significant impact on Canadian industry and culture. There is, both at McMaster and in the community at large, considerable interest in current developments in technology, especially in the use of technology in education. McMaster should participate in this larger dialogue about computers and communications technology. To participate fully we need to create an atmosphere of experimentation and informed discussion within our community. To do so we should provide instructors with the tools to experiment with technology in education and we should prepare students to think critically about technology, especially learning technology.

• Instruction and research are connected. One of goals as instructors should be to introduce students to serious research. To do so we need to make available to them the information and tools that we use, including technology rich research resources. As more and more faculty use computers in our research we should make sure that we can show students how to use them too.

Successes

• A number of instructors have been involved in collaborative interaction and learning among students using video-conferencing links between campuses, especially in joining inter-campus student presentations. Students give high praise to the opportunity of using technology rich classrooms, such as the video-link between campuses.

• The department of Biology has taken the initiative of setting up LearnLink, an information server and an interactive educational tool which can be remotely accessed by anyone with First Class Client software. A growing number of courses across campus and beyond are taking advantage of this initiative.

• The development of a Life Sciences computer cluster has permitted the adoption of instructional technology for undergraduate laboratories, independent student projects, and alternative models of student construction of knowledge, including problem based learning. In the past three years a significant number of Science faculty (Biology, Biochemistry, Psychology) have begun to use instructional technology as a consequence of access to the Life Science clusters and student demand.

• A number of instructors have developed interactive materials, including the Mediaeval Media Team who have developed an multimedia CD-ROM for teaching about women in the middle ages and a member of the Philosophy department who has developed software for Critical Thinking.

• Members of the department of Modern Languages and French have developed an extensive collection of interactive drill materials for language learning. A multimedia CD-ROM series for language instruction in ESL, Russian, Italian, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, and Zulu is now being completed in collaboration with other universities.

• Instructors from all faculties are developing World Wide Web sites for their courses including the ambitious GEL project from Computer Science. Many of these sites include interactive components that supplement the WWW with CGI programs.

• The Geography GIS lab in the Faculty of Science is offering courses jointly with Mohawk. This joint GIS programme brings in new types of funding for a state-of-the-art lab that can then be used by McMaster students.

• The Library and the Humanities Computing Centre have jointly created a WWW archive on E. Pauline Johnson based on materials in the archives. This was created by students with funding from Industry Canada.

List of Task Force Members

Geoffrey Rockwell, Chair

Department of Modern Languages

Carl Cuneo

Department of Sociology

Del Harnish

Department of Pathology and Biology

Steven Reader

Department of Geography

Michael Marrin

Department of Pediatrics

Joanne de Bruin

McMaster Association of Part-Time Students

Greg Kaufman

McMaster Student Union

Appendix 1: Costs

Note: As we did we were not provided with the budgets of the central units involved in instructional technology we were not able to develop an accurate budget. The following is a preliminary discussion of costs which must be followed by a more accurate accounting.

Redistribution of Existing Funds

This diagram shows one way to fund the model proposed in this report. On the left are presently funded resources with arrows showing how those funds would be redistributed. On the right are the proposed new funds and where they would go.

The core of the vision that we propose involves the redistribution of resources already being spent on instructional technology. If we switch entirely to a student centred model then we should be able to redirect the money now going into labs and their support to the new services. Therefore we have divided our discussion of costs into the revenue neutral changes and the changes that will involve new funds.

How would this work? At present central funds are going to the following services:

• Central labs

• Selected network services like MUSS

• Some money is directed to the specialized labs on a case by case basis

• Limited funds are provided for classroom technology

• Traditional information and imaging services like the Library and AV

• Traditional instructional development services like IDC

Under the new scheme the central labs would be run on a cost-recovery model. This would free up resources for the following services:

• Expanded student services, including network services, network access, and training

• Financial aid for students who cannot afford access to a standard computer

• Expanded instructional network services

• Expanded support for specialized labs

Also, under the new scheme, central funds going to the Library, AV, and IDC would remain the same or be supplemented as they are asked to perform new tasks. (See below)

Student Costs

The potentially most expensive and uncontrollable item on this new list of costs is the cost of financial aid for students. If we remove the central labs we have to ensure sufficient aid so that needy students can either afford the cost-recovery central labs or the price of a standard computer.

We believe, however, that money and in-kind donations for "computer aid" could be solicited from the community and industry. If McMaster actively promotes the vision of every student mastering a standard computer and using it in their learning we should be able to generate support in the community for universal student access. Computer bursaries, donations of equipment, or deep discounts should offset the need for central funds to be redirected entirely to computer aid and allow us to use some of the central funds for the expanded services that will make this model a success. In addition some of the other aspects of this model should also provide alternatives to the central labs for students. Expanded specialized labs will be available, as will network terminals and network access stations in places like the Library.

One possible model for how the computer aid program would work would involve a combination of vouchers and loans:

1. The University as part of a major development drive would work with vendors to get the cost of a standard computer down to approximately $1,500.

2. The University would work with a lending agency to set up a loan package that would allow all students to buy the standard for $1,500 or to pay four $500 payments, one a year. The University would set aside a fund of $200,000 to guarantee the loans so that no student would be refused the computer loan. The university would commit to topping this fund up as it is depleted. We estimate that $50,000 a year should be budgeted for this.

3. Students who still could not afford to buy the computer or take the loan could instead get a limited number of vouchers for time in the CIS labs.

Another model would be to enter into dialogue with student groups to see if the students would be willing to pay an additional computer fee which would go towards computer aid or the pay for service labs with matching funds from the University.

It should be noted that both of these models need considerable refinement and careful evaluation of the real costs. It should also be noted that other models might prove better. For example, it is possible that a programme could be set up that would take advantage of matching grants from the government for bursaries. For this reason we recommend one of first steps to be taken to implement these recommendations is the formation of a planning group that could develop and accurately cost a computer aid programme.

New Costs

Given that organizations like the Library, AV, and IDC keep their existing funding they will need the following additional funds for the new instructional services they will deploy. These additional funds are:

• Faculty Costs. Departments and Faculties must be prepared to invest a minimum of 2% in new instructional technology as the need for specialized labs will increase with the conversion of central labs and their funding is precarious. Faculties should expect to have to fund the provision of computers for their instructors where appropriate, to provide ongoing funding for specialized labs, and to support faculty specific initiatives.

• Change Costs. For some units there will be costs associated with the change from the present model to the proposed one. CIS may have to retrain staff and acquire new technology to set up the proposed new services. Some departments that have come to depend on the central labs as they are now configured may need funds to adapt by either setting up their own specialized labs or by adapting their courses. Money should be available to assist affected units. We believe a $500,000 IT Change Fund should be set up under the control of the Provost to assist in the transition. In principle it should be allocated evenly among the faculties and CIS.

• Specialized Lab Support. The specialized labs will need continued and guaranteed support. These labs should receive central funding to help with the buying of new equipment. For this reason we recommend that $75,000 be available for equipment acquisition. This fund should be divided equally among faculties according to enrollment and need.

• Network Improvement. Funds should be allocated to dramatically improve the ability of faculty and students to connect to the McMaster network from their homes. The cost-recovery modem pool should be expanded and support for its use should be dramatically improved so that anyone can easily get into the network. While some of the funding for instructional network services will come from a redistribution of existing resources we believe there will be capital costs for new equipment the first year. Therefore we believe $100,000 should be budgeted the first year and $20,000 a year for three more years for improved support. We also believe the calculation of the hourly charge for the cost-recovery modem pool should take into account the cost of excellent user support for the service.

• Classroom Technology. Additional funds need to be devoted to the maintenance of existing classroom technology and the acquisition of new educational technology for classrooms. We believe an annual budget of $200,000, such as proposed by the Task Force on Educational Opportunities and Challenges, would be sufficient. We recommend, however, that it not only be used to enhance the existing lecture halls, but also be used to create alternative technology rich spaces suitable for other teaching strategies. In addition we recommend a $500,000 fund be set up for creating new types of spaces.

• Library. The Library should be supported so that it can expand its instructional services. In particular it should be encouraged to offer networked information services and to make its terminals available during off-hours for uses other than consulting the on-line card-catalogue. The Library has funds to set up a digital data/text service that would make CD-ROMs available in a lab and other data available over the network, but they do not have the funds to run such a centre. The Library should be given an annual budget of $50,000 for four years to run such a data/text service.

• Network Access Stations. A fund of $50,000 should be allocated to CIS to establish network docking stations on campus in places where students and faculty tend to congregate.

• Instructional Development. Funds should be allocated for the better support of instructional development. Specifically this should involve:

1. A one-time grant of $30,000 should be allocated to AV and Instructional Development to allow them to create a joint Faculty Development Centre which would bring together instructional support and instructional technology support.

2. A one-time grant of $50,000 should be allocated to AV to extend their existing instructional services to include digital network oriented instructional services to be offered in coordination with the Faculty Development Centre.

3. An additional $60,000 a year should be allocated to the proposed Faculty Development Centre for a new employee for instructional development and instructional technology. This assumes that they will inherit the existing IDC budget.

3. $180,000 a year should be allocated for a Instructional Technology Leave programme. Instructors awarded this IT Leave would be given access to the facilities in the Faculty Development Centre and expected to participate in appropriate activities organized by the Centre. These leaves would be granted equally across faculties and would be awarded after consultation with faculties.

5. $30,000 a year should be allocated to the joint Faculty Development Centre/Library Software Library

3. $50,000 a year should be allocated to the Faculty Development Centre to be awarded to deserving instructional development projects on the recommendation of the appropriate faculty. This fund should grant not only one-year grants but multi-year grants for ongoing projects.

4. $20,000 a year should be made available for training. This would supplement the training provided by CIS.

Indirect Costs and Savings

Some aspects of this proposal will have indirect costs and others will lead to savings that, while difficult to quantify, need to be acknowledged. The indirect costs we envisage are:

• Changes to the tenure and promotion document could increase the number of faculty who get tenure or promotions on instructional grounds. Likewise changes in CP/M policies could have an effect.

• The call for assessment will put an additional burden on departments. The time consuming task of assessing instructional technology projects will fall on the staff of the Faculty Development Centre, if they offer assessment as a service, and on the Chairs of departments. Those involved in instructional development will also have the added burden of preparing their projects for assessment. Such assessments should, however, in the long run, save the University the embarrassment of misusing funds and not knowing whether expensive technology is pedagogically effective.

• Changing to the proposed model will be stressful for those closely involved in the support of the present model. The stress on CIS staff, IDC staff, AV staff, and others involved now in instructional technology will be considerable if we change. The administration should make it clear to those affected that the proposed change is not a reflection on the quality of service that has been delivered by the dedicated staff at CIS, AV, IDC and other places. The administration should also commit itself to not laying off any staff affected by the change. Instead staff made redundant should be retrained for the new positions that will be needed.

• The move to networked instructional services and the sharing of instructional events with other Universities should provide some savings. Networked services also provide the attractive potential for sale outside the University.

Summary of New Funding

The following is a chart showing the major new costs we envisage. This chart does not take into account the existing funding.

Appendix 2: Process

How could this change in models be implemented? As stated above we believe small steps are not adequate in the area of new learning technologies. This is especially true in the area of student access to computing. If we are to realize the redistribution of funds that would make such a change possible we cannot support two models at the same time. Rather we have to plan for a clean change that will realize the savings so that new services can be created. There are, however, steps that can be taken to make the change a smooth one. We therefore propose the following process:

Phase 1: Planning (1/2 Year)

1. The TF-NLT should make itself available to explain the proposed changes to interested parties. Once a concrete plan for the change is in place the TF-NLT will disband.

2. The Provost should appoint a committee to plan the transition.

CIS, AV, IDC, Development, Registrar, and Library management should be available to assist in this planning phase. The implementation plan should include:

2.1 Plans for staff reallocation

2.2 Space reallocation plans

2.3 Budget reallocation plans

2.4 Computer aid plans

2.5 A preliminary definition of the student standard

The implementation plan and related budgets go to the appropriate bodies for approval and modification. Student organizations should be involved in the design of the Computer Aid Programmes.

3. A committee should be struck to develop faculty related policies; specifically a New Technology Leave policy, changes in the Tenure and Promotion documents, and changes in CP/M policies.

4. A committee should be struck to develop the administrative infrastructure for electronic courses, certificates, and degrees.

5. A scientifically rigorous survey of student ownership of computers is commissioned.

Phase 2: Preparation (1/2 to 1 Year)

1. The Bookstore starts offering standard specials, encouraging students to buy to the standard.

2. Information is sent out to all students and faculty explaining the changes and the schedule of change.

3. Donations for the student computer aid programme are solicited as part of a major funding drive.

4. The Faculty Development Centre is formed out of the existing units and the associated instructional technology services are started.

5. The Library Data/Text Centre is set up.

6. AV starts offering digital imaging services.

Phase 3: Lab to Standard Change (1 Summer)

1. The central labs are handed over to faculties or converted to cost-recovery. Redundant computers are put in a pool for the student aid programme.

2. The Bookstore continues to promote the standard packages

3. A computer aid programme to help students buy to the standard is initiated with donor support.

4. Student support services are started.

5. Expanded instructional network services are started.

Phase 4: Evaluation and Extension (Ongoing)

1. The existing committees are reconfigured into a unified Education Committee.

2. The Education Committee sets up a mechanism for assessing the impact of the changes on learning at McMaster.

3. The software licensing and library project is started.

4. The network access stations project is started.

5. All central instructional technology services are aimed at the standard and networked services.

Appendix 3: Course Evaluation

The fundamental purpose of an instructional technology should be to enhance the quality of the educational experience for both faculty and students. While it is important to provide that experience at manageable cost, the success or failure of the technology rests on the extent to which it enhances teaching and learning.

Evaluation outcomes therefore should be based on our educational values and goals. Such goals might include:

• student directed leaning

• active vs. passive learning

• increased time spent on a subject (a critical factor in mastery of a subject)

• problem based learning as opposed to subject based

• ability to draw ideas / knowledge of many faculties / sources (as opposed to relying on sources from a single course / faculty)

• enhanced communication between student and teacher (not necessarily more, but more meaningful)

• a better sense of what our students "know" and how they can work with new knowledge

While it is important to focus on educational values, it can also be useful to evaluate the costs of a particular combination of instructional technology and teaching strategy. Here is an Economic Analysis Checklist to help you think through the costs and benefits of a technology rich course and an example of how one might be filled out:

Instructional Technology: Economic Analysis Checklist

Costs: hardware

1. List any hardware items and total capital cost

2. Can any of this hardware be used for other educational projects / activities?

If the answer to (2.) is "yes", how should the availability of the hardware be apportioned?

3. List the installation requirements and costs

4. List the ongoing maintenance and operation costs including costs of disposables or items requiring periodic replacement.

5. Estimate the annual depreciation on the hardware.

Total Costs for Hardware ____________

Costs: software

1. Estimate the costs of initial software purchase and /or licensing.

2. Estimate the ongoing costs of software licensing for the life of the resource.

3. Estimate the direct cost to individual students, if any, to make use of the resource.

Total Costs for Software ____________

Costs: training

1. What new skills must the resource developer acquire?

Estimate the time and other costs for this?

2. What new skills must the users of the resource acquire?

Estimate the time and other costs for this?

Total Training Costs ___________

Costs: infrastructure

1. What infrastructure will be required to support the use of this technology? Include items such as setting up for each use, time to set up for each use, transport between locations of use etc.

At the faculty level.

Is the existing infrastructure adequate?

What new infrastructure will be necessary to make maximum use of the hardware?

Estimate the costs associated with upgrading the infrastructure, if needed?

At the university level.

Is the existing infrastructure adequate?

What new infrastructure will be necessary to make maximum use of the hardware?

Estimate the costs associated with upgrading the infrastructure, if needed?

Total Infrastructure Costs _______________

Costs: development / opportunity costs

1. Estimate the faculty time required to develop the resource.

2. Estimate the time and hourly rate of others who will be developing the resource.

3. What other activities will receive reduced priority as the resource is being developed and implemented?

Total Development Costs ______________

Total Costs of this Instructional Technology ______________

Benefits: direct fiscal

1. Estimate any reductions in direct costs to the student for purchase of textbooks or other resource materials.

2. Estimate any reductions in anticipated need for faculty resources (physical or human, e.g. teaching assistants)

3. Estimate any reductions in anticipated need for university resources (e.g. classroom time)

4. Is this technology likely to increase access to a course(s) or university programs?

If so, estimate the revenue generated by these "new" students.

5. Is this technology likely to allow faculty to teach a larger number of students?

6. How might this technology make the ongoing development of educational resources more efficient or simpler?

7. Will this technology displace technologies currently in use?

If so, estimate the costs saved by no longer using the existing technologies.

Total of Direct Fiscal Benefits ___________

Net Costs / Fiscal Benefits _____________

Benefits: educational

1. How will this technology / resource enhance student involvement / self directedness in learning?

2. How will this technology / resource enhance / increase time devoted to the subject?

3. How will this technology / resource enhance communication between teacher and student?

4. How might this technology / resource enable the student to develop a broader understanding of the subject?

5. How might this technology / resource enable the student to develop skills for life-long learning?

6. How might this technology / resource enable the teacher to better understand / evaluate their students’ learning?

Economic Analysis Checklist Sample

The following is a sample economic checklist as it might be completed by a faculty member wishing to introduce a new technology into an existing course. The model assumes that this is an existing course so that the content has been worked out and evaluated in previous offerings of the course. There are 200 students in the course. Student are encouraged but not required to have their own computers.

The instructor has been frustrated by his inability to communicate with students. Attempts by students to contact him by phone result in rounds of "telephone tag". In frustration, students drop by his office unannounced, disrupting his already fragmented day. He is alarmed by the amount of paper he distributes each year and worries that, in an era of electronic capture and processing of information, his students are not able to integrate the information in his course handouts with knowledge acquired in other courses. He suspects that by reducing the amount of paper distributed, he can cut his printing costs and protect a few trees.

The instructor also wonders if his student "know" more than he is measuring. He wonders how well they can work with their new knowledge. With the aid of a teaching assistant, he used to conduct tutorials, but these are becoming more expensive and he is skeptical that students do not open up to the TA. He suspects there are some very good students in his class and would like to draw them out.

He decides to try "First Class", a electronic mail / groupware product. Students can access it from anywhere there is a telephone line, using their computers and modems. They may also access it from any university networked computer. Versions are available for Windows, UNIX and Macintosh computers. He requests support for setting up a "server" and completes this cost analysis form:

The analysis form provides a structure for thinking about the costs / benefits of his idea. It also provides a framework for evaluation which he has promised in return for financial support from the university for his idea.

Costs: hardware

1. List any hardware items and total capital cost

Pentium PC (server) and printer $3,500

2. Can any of this hardware be used for other educational projects / activities?

If the answer to (2.) is "yes", how should the availability of the hardware be apportioned?

He teaches another course and would like to try the same approach. 50:50 split between courses.

3. List the installation requirements and costs

Hire CIS to install the equipment and software (2 hours) $110

4. List the ongoing maintenance and operation costs including costs of disposables or items requiring periodic replacement.

printer cartridge replacement every 2 months $240

5. Estimate the annual depreciation on the hardware.

estimated at 50% for first year

Hardware costs in first year = $2,100

Hardware costs in subsequent years = $1,990

Costs: software

1. Estimate the costs of initial software purchase and /or licensing.

student "client" software free

instructors "server" software $1,500

2. Estimate the ongoing costs of software licensing for the life of the resource.

one time cost (first year only)

3. Estimate the direct cost to individual students, if any, to make use of the resource.

client software to be issued on a disk to each student ($1 per disk)

need access to personal computer / modem

Total Costs for Software $1,700

Costs: training

1. What new skills must the resource developer acquire?

distribution of information using FirstClass

Estimate the time and other costs for this?

3 hours of faculty time $300

2. What new skills must the users of the resource acquire?

reading and replying to messages

Estimate the time and other costs for this?

about 1 hour per student

Total Training Costs ? $300

Costs: infrastructure

1. What infrastructure will be required to support the use of this technology? Include items such as setting up for each use, time to set up for each use, transport between locations of use etc.

ready access to university network from campus or home (supplied as part of McMaster learning infrastructure

At the faculty level.

Is the existing infrastructure adequate?

What new infrastructure will be necessary to make maximum use of the hardware?

Estimate the costs associated with upgrading the infrastructure, if needed?

At the university level.

Is the existing infrastructure adequate?

What new infrastructure will be necessary to make maximum use of the hardware?

Estimate the costs associated with upgrading the infrastructure, if needed?

Total Infrastructure Costs _______________

Costs: development / opportunity costs

1. Estimate the faculty time required to develop the resource.

resource materials already developed, may need reformatting for distribution on FirstClass (see above)

2. Estimate the time and hourly rate of others who will be developing the resource.

3. What other activities will receive reduced priority as the resource is being developed and implemented?

Total Development Costs - already covered in upgraded infrastructure

Total Costs of this Instructional Technology $4100 in first year

Benefits: direct fiscal

1. Estimate any reductions in direct costs to the student for purchase of textbooks or other resource materials.

students will not need to purchase courseware or be supplied with paper handouts

2. Estimate any reductions in anticipated need for faculty resources (physical or human, e.g. teaching assistants)

will be conducting free flowing discussions electronically with face to face interaction in lectures - tutorials will be discontinued, troubleshooting sessions should not be necessary and will be canceled

3. Estimate any reductions in anticipated need for university resources (e.g. classroom time)

fewer room bookings for tutorials and troubleshooting sessions

4. Is this technology likely to increase access to a course(s) or university programs? If so, estimate the revenue generated by these "new" students.

has potential to do so if successfully implemented in this course, could be used for distance education courses

5. Is this technology likely to allow faculty to teach a larger number of students?

instructor desires better access / communication with existing students rather than increasing the number

6. How might this technology make the ongoing development of educational resources more efficient or simpler?

resources retained / developed and distributed electronically

less paper

no printing costs

7. Will this technology displace technologies currently in use?

If so, estimate the costs saved by no longer using the existing technologies.

expected to displace the teaching assistant

Benefits: educational

1. How will this technology / resource enhance student involvement / self directedness in learning?

students will have improved access to their instructor and to each other - to help in discussions, troubleshooting, sharing ideas

students will be able to integrate their new knowledge with that acquired in other courses, to blend / contrast ways of looking at the world, or perspectives on a given subject

2. How will this technology / resource enhance / increase time devoted to the subject?

the ease of blending information, "playing" with it should prompt the better students to reflect more on what they are learning, to store and retrieve their information more readily so, possibly making more use of their notes.

3. How will this technology / resource enhance communication between teacher and student?

students and instructor communicate asynchronously - at each parties’ convenience

4. How might this technology / resource enable the student to develop a broader understanding of the subject?

see #2

5. How might this technology / resource enable the student to develop skills for life-long learning?

hopefully student will appreciate the value of collaboration, of review of information, of contrasting information from different sources or perspectives

6. How might this technology / resource enable the teacher to better understand / evaluate their students’ learning?

more frequent, informal contact with the instructor might draw out shy students, ability of the student to respond to issues after some reflection, rather than competing for air time in lecture or tutorial might result in better thought out statements, more a reflection of the students abilities

© McMaster University http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/srnet/nlttfrpc.htm