Executive Summary

The Instructional Computing Advisory Committee developed a statement of recommended directions that was adopted by the University and published in March, 1996 as Instructional Computing: Philosophy, Priorities, and Implementation. The committee devoted its efforts during the academic year, 1996-97 to preparing a series of recommendations for the implementation of the directions. These recommendations are divided according to the parties to whom they are addressed.

Recommendations to the President and his Staff

1. Multimedia Classrooms
   The University should establish a sufficient number and range of multimedia classrooms to provide easy access for every department and college.

   In addition to the actual classroom facilities, a centrally-funded coordinating unit that can respond on short notice at any time a class is scheduled, if the equipment is not functioning properly or if faculty need assistance, should be provided.

   Faculty should be provided training in operating the equipment before they actually use the facilities for teaching.

   Faculty should be provided assistance in converting existing teaching materials to take advantage of these new technologies.

   It is especially important that faculty efforts to enhance learning and teaching using these new technologies should be recognized and rewarded.

   Establishing and maintaining these classrooms, and servicing the equipment in the classrooms, should be an institutional commitment, and not be relegated to only those sectors/colleges that can afford them.

2. The Use of Computer-Based Instructional Materials
   It should be the policy of the University to encourage the use of computers and other technology-based instruction within the teaching program of the University, at all levels of instruction.
3. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Acquisition
   The University should be responsible for providing software and access to software that is of general use to the University community.

   Individual departments or colleges should be responsible for the acquisition of specialized software and hardware that is specific to a discipline.

   A policy should be developed and implemented concerning planning for, acquiring, and implementing instructional software.

4. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Development
   It should be the policy of the University to encourage the development of technology-based materials within undergraduate and graduate teaching programs.

   Instructors at all levels should be encouraged to identify and apply for external grant funding that is currently being made available for the improvement of teaching.

   The University should consider making a pool of competitive funds available to the university community specifically for the development of innovative software aimed at technology-based instruction in the classroom.

   With respect to instructional software development, the FACTS centers should have the primary responsibility for the coordination of campus-wide activity.

   The University should take all steps necessary to ensure that copyright laws are not broken in the use and dissemination of technology-based documents.

5. Rewarding Faculty to Encourage Instructional Computing
   In the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure, special emphasis should be placed on technology-based teaching innovations that were developed and/or implemented by the candidate.

   Faculty members should be encouraged to use in-place sabbaticals or similar leaves as a means for blocking out a period of time for technology-based instructional materials development.

   Efforts should be directed toward aligning DOEs with technology-based instructional development work done by faculty.

   Faculty members should be encouraged to conduct research that focus on evaluating technology-based teaching software and other technology-based innovations used in the classroom.

   Administrators should be encouraged to use data from instructor-developed teaching evaluations in addition to that from teaching evaluation forms used campus-wide.

   For instructional software that has commercial potential, the University should adhere to policies already in place for patents, textbooks, and other forms of creative efforts that have commercial potential.

6. Access to Computing Resources The long term viability of the Student Computing Facilities can only be guaranteed by a dramatic increase in the "Technology Fee." The fee should be increased to between $80 and $110 per semester, with the funding earmarked for student use projects.

   The University, through its sectors and colleges, should be responsible for making in-office access to the Internet available for every faculty member and teaching assistant involved in the instructional program of the University.

Recommendations to the Vice President for Information Systems and his Staff

1. Access to Computing Resources
   A mission statement for the Microlabs should be drafted, which includes that their purpose is "to provide student access to computing equipment."

   The University should focus on creating large computer labs, at least the size of King, and move away from constructing a Microlab for each college.

   The University should promote the installation of "Data in the Dorms."

2. Support Centers and Technology Coordinators
   Funding for the FACTS, MC FACTS, and Teaching and Learning Centers, and other faculty development support centers should be maintained and increased to meet the increased demand on the services provided by these units.

   Every college should have at least one technology coordinator.

3. Cooperation Among Support Units The University should be pro-active and continue to foster and encourage cooperation among the various instructional support units.

Recommendations to Specific Information Systems Units

1. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Development
   The services of the FACTS Center and the MC FACTS Center should be enhanced, by employing student interns, to be available for production or the coordination of production of instructional materials.
2. Access to Student Computer Laboratories
   The Microlabs staff should encourage faculty to familiarize themselves with the Microlabs (hardware, software, and staff), and should improve their dissemination of information regarding changes to the labs.

   The Microlabs need to encourage faculty to coordinate their computer-based assignments with the staff to help ensure the feasibility and practicality of the assignments.

   A clear policy should be developed and disseminated regarding the use of Microlabs as classrooms. The policy should address the following points:

   1. In order for an instructor to schedule a classroom, he or she should have attended an orientation session.
   2. Except during periods when classes are not in session, Microlabs may be reserved only to host classes listed in the "Schedule of Classes," which is published each semester.
   3. All classroom reservation requests for a particular department should be coordinated by a "department coordinator."
   4. The policy should establish quotas on the use of Microlabs as classrooms so that an equitable balance is maintained between meeting the needs of students who are completing assignments outside of class and those who are receiving instruction during a class.
3. Levels of Faculty Involvement and Expertise In the support of faculty in instructional technology, several levels of expertise and involvement should be recognized. Services should be tailored accordingly.

   A start up technology package for faculty should be created and provided on disk or CD-ROM.

Background and Introduction

The Instructional Computing Advisory Subcommittee (referred to as "the committee" from here on) consists of faculty representatives from several colleges, an undergraduate student, and a number of ex-officio staff members. The committee is advisory to the President, the Vice President for Information Systems, and the Director of Academic Computing Services.

The primary objective of the committee is to suggest ways in which the University can provide the best instructional computing services, resources, and experiences within its budgetary and other constraints. Because of these limitations and constraints, the committee often needs to balance competing options and interests, weighing these to determine what it perceives to be the most productive outcomes for the University as a whole. At all times, the committee has attempted to be responsible and realistic in its deliberations, but it recognizes that other recommendations could be made, if conditions change. Therefore, some of the recommendations contained in this report are presented in a manner such that they can be implemented at this time without the need for additional resources. Other recommendations are provided to guide instructional computing in the event that additional resources do become available.

• The committee recognizes that it has made certain basic assumptions regarding instructional computing. These assumptions include:
• The primary goal of instructional technology is to enhance student learning and promote information literacy skills.
• Faculty development will become increasingly important. Development is necessary in order to help faculty link pedagogical goals with available technologies as well as fully integrate technologies into other aspects of the teaching/learning process.
• The role of multimedia in teaching, publishing, and communication will continue to increase.
• The demand for and scope of the various types of distance learning will increase outside the campus as well as on campus.
• Training in software/hardware use will be increasingly important to enable students, faculty, and staff to use more efficient tools and understand new technologies and applications.
• The cost of hardware will continue to decrease, but the cost of personnel and software will continue to increase.
• As end-users become increasingly independent, the cost of support to end users will increase.

The committee developed a statement of recommended directions that was adopted by the University and published in March, 1996 as Instructional Computing: Philosophy, Priorities, and Implementation. The committee devoted its efforts during the academic year, 1996-97 to preparing a series of recommendations for the implementation of the directions. In the fall of 1996, the committee drafted a set of six basic questions and issues to be addressed. The questions concerned:

• Issues related to Access to student computing labs
• Issues related to Instructional software
• Issues related to Smart classrooms
• Issues related to Networking
• Issues related to Faculty support/ development
• Issues related to Computer-based instructional materials development

Widespread input was solicited during the fall and winter by posting the materials on the committee's Web site and by discussion with members of the University community. A limited number of individuals responded directly to the Web site; others spoke directly to committee members. In the spring of 1997, the committee used the input from the community as a basis for extensive internal discussions of the issues. The resulting recommendations constitute the bulk of this report.

The committee's recommendations include a wide range of detail. In some areas, the committee makes only very broad recommendations. In other areas, the broad recommendations are expanded to include more detailed and specific suggestions. In addition, the committee recognized that, because of the administrative structure of the University, its recommendations need to be addressed to different bodies and different offices. Therefore, in the body of this report, recommendations have been organized in terms of the appropriate recipient and the level of detail of the suggestion.

The initial intention of the committee was to prepare one unified set of recommendations. However, the pressures of time prevented the resolution of all disagreements regarding several of the recommendations. Therefore, a minority position statement has been included.

Recommendations to the President and his Staff

1. Multimedia Classrooms
   The University should establish a sufficient number and range of multimedia classrooms to provide easy access for every department and college. Specifically, there should be at least one multimedia classroom in every major classroom building. (Estimated additional number of rooms ó ten; Estimated cost $25,000 nonrecurring each, plus recurring costs.) Establishing sufficient multimedia classrooms will free the Microlabs for use by students. It will alleviate the waste of resources that occurs when instructors merely demonstrate how to use various software rather than having each student actually using a workstation. In addition, this initiative reaffirms that classroom space is to be paid for with general funds, not student fees. Details of the recommended characteristics of the classrooms are included as Appendix 1.

   In addition to the actual classroom facilities, a centrally-funded coordinating unit that can respond on short notice at any time a class is scheduled, if the equipment is not functioning properly or if faculty need assistance, should be provided.

   Faculty should be provided training in operating the equipment before they actually use the facilities for teaching. Additional faculty development opportunities should to be made available that help faculty integrate the technology available in the multimedia classrooms with their teaching/learning goals and with other course activities.

   Faculty should be provided assistance in converting existing teaching materials to take advantage of these new technologies. Without this support, faculty will avoid use. Some resources are in existence for faculty development and support, for example the FACTS and MC FACTS centers and the Teaching and Learning Center, as well as the college-based technology coordinators, but current resources need to be expanded.

   It is especially important that faculty efforts to enhance learning and teaching using these new technologies should be recognized and rewarded.

   Establishing and maintaining these classrooms, and servicing the equipment in the classrooms, should be an institutional commitment, and not be relegated to only those sectors/colleges that can afford them.

2. The Use of Computer-Based Instructional Materials
   It should be the policy of the University to encourage the use of computers and other technology-based instruction within the teaching program of the University, at all levels of instruction. New technologies open possibilities for instructional innovations and teaching techniques unheard of only a few years (perhaps even months) ago. Encouragement might occur in a number of ways, including but not limited to (1) special emphasis by committees involved in the promotion, tenure, and merit review processes which assures that faculty teaching assistants and staff are recognized for their work; (2) encouraging faculty to identify time blocks where a focused effort could be directed toward instructional materials development; and (3) assistance with teaching-related grant proposals and other forms of funding that could support the development of technology-based instructional materials.
3. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Acquisition
   The University should be responsible for providing software and access to software that is of general use to the University community. Examples of such software includes programs for doing statistical analyses, spreadsheets, and word processing packages. Consulting services in the use of these packages should be made available from general university funds. In general, comments from faculty and students noted that the computational side is in better shape than the computer graphics side. Perhaps this is because both the software and the hardware for graphics is often expensive and more specialized.

   Individual departments or colleges should be responsible for the acquisition of specialized software and hardware that is specific to a discipline. Examples might include CAD software and laboratory and equipment monitoring software. This policy will place the expense for specialized items on those programs that use the item and it will free funds from the student fee to be used for the benefit of more students. Cooperation among colleges in some of the specialized hardware and software is often difficult, given the organizational structure of the University. However, the administration should encourage cooperation across departments and colleges whenever possible as a means of reducing unit costs.

   A policy should be developed and implemented concerning planning for, acquiring, and implementing instructional software. Currently there is no University-wide coordination of the acquisition and implementation of instructional software, which results in unnecessary duplication of some items, the loss of volume discounts or licensing opportunities, and lack of funding for some possibly valuable materials. A multidimensional approach to this complex matter seems to be appropriate. The preliminary definition of the dimensions are included in Appendix 2.

4. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Development
   It should be the policy of the University to encourage the development of technology-based materials within undergraduate and graduate teaching programs. The committee sees as critical ready access to the Internet by all of those involved in the instructional programs at the University of Kentucky. Some critical factors include (1) computer lines and hardware; (2) classroom equipment for using Web information during lectures; (3) appropriately-equipped access points for students; and (4) instruction within undergraduate course programs designed to enable students to take advantage of Web-based materials.

   Instructors at all levels should be encouraged to identify and apply for external grant funding that is currently being made available for the improvement of teaching. The availability of competitive grant dollars in this area seems to be improving over time and University faculty need to take advantage of this improved situation.

   The University should consider making a pool of competitive funds available to the university community specifically for the development of innovative software aimed at technology-based instruction in the classroom. These funds can be part of the extant Teaching and Learning Center/FACTS Center Faculty Associates Grants program, which has a successful record of soliciting and rewarding faculty teaching innovations. There may be both private and corporate donors who would be willing to support such a fund, if it were specifically used for supporting innovations for the improvement of teaching.

   With respect to instructional software development, the FACTS centers should have the primary responsibility for the coordination of campus-wide activity. The FACTS Centers have the most experience and resources related to instructional software development. Without some central coordination, University resources are wasted due to replication and unnecessary relearning of skills that are already available.

   The University should take all steps necessary to ensure that copyright laws are not broken in the use and dissemination of technology-based documents. The laws and rules under which Web-based documents can be copied and distributed are still evolving. In addition, the ability to download and transfer Web-based documents into other work means that instructors need to be particularly and increasingly wary and watchful for instances of plagiarism by students. This matter has always been a concern of instructors when written assignments are an important part of a course; but now the variety of materials and ease with which the materials can be incorporated into a student paper makes the issue even more important to consider. Workshops and informative Web materials, such as those provided by the FACTS Centers and the Teaching and Learning Center, dealing with topics related to specific use are helpful to all potential users and should be encouraged and supported by the University.

5. Rewarding Faculty to Encourage Instructional Computing
   In the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure, special emphasis should be placed on technology-based teaching innovations that were developed and/or implemented by the candidate. Some progress is being made in this respect, with academic committees responsible for tenure and promotion decisions increasingly becoming comfortable with the evaluation of an expanding array of productivity indicators as a basis for making tenure and promotion decisions. The committee feels that increased emphasis devoted to technology-based teaching innovations should be encouraged.

   Faculty members should be encouraged to use in-place sabbaticals or similar leaves as a means for blocking out a period of time for technology-based instructional materials development. In many instances, a six month block of time should be sufficient for a complete reworking of a course, emphasizing the latest tools in technology-based instruction.

   Efforts should be directed toward aligning DOEs with technology-based instructional development work done by faculty. Aligning DOEs to acknowledge the time it takes to develop Web-based and other instructional computing materials is a difficult task. As it is, these endeavors are both teaching, research, and service, but may not "count" under any of these. One faculty member commented that junior faculty should not spend their time doing this (as in "terrific Web page, Jenny; let us know where to forward your mail") unless specific guidelines and rewards are implemented.

   Faculty members are encouraged to conduct research that focus on evaluating technology-based teaching software and other technology-based innovations used in the classroom. Frequently this research will need to be constructed specifically for the course content and the particular technology employed in instruction. The evaluation of technology in the classroom should be brought to the attention of the 1997-98 Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Student Evaluations for their consideration.

   Administrators should be encouraged to use data from instructor-developed teaching evaluations in addition to that from teaching evaluation forms used campus-wide. Instructors should be asked to submit a copy of the survey or form being used along with the interpretation of results in the file submitted for merit review.

   For instructional software that has commercial potential, the University should adhere to policies already in place for patents, textbooks, and other forms of creative efforts that have commercial potential. Laws and regulations concerning Web-based documents are still evolving. The potential for some "private benefit" to the author of a piece of teaching-related software or other technology application, not unlike royalties routinely paid to textbook authors, could be an important incentive in the development of the materials.

6. Access to Computing Resources The long term viability of the Student Computing Facilities can only be guaranteed by a dramatic increase in the "Technology Fee." The fee should be increased to between $80 and $110 per semester, with the funding earmarked for student use projects. This increase will allow the labs to accommodate the increase in minimum wage and deploy hardware which is beyond the minimum configuration requirements for varying software packages. We face a crisis in regard to the current funding level in the labs. This increase will ensure that students are given ample opportunities to access the Microlabs. Furthermore, the increase will help guarantee that all assignments given to students can be completed in the Microlabs.

   The University, through its sectors and colleges, should be responsible for making in-office access to the Internet available for every faculty member and teaching assistant involved in the instructional program of the University. The committee recognizes that progress is currently being made in this area. The committee sees ready and convenient access to the Internet as critical for instructors to gain familiarity with the technology and its possible applications to instruction. It is only through convenient access that instructors are going to develop the requisite skills necessary in order to become aware of and take full advantage of materials available on the Internet.

Recommendations to the Vice President for Information Systems and his Staff

1. Access to Computing Resources
   A mission statement for the Microlabs should be drafted, which includes that their purpose is "to provide student access to computing equipment." The policy also should state that for the most part only those classes requiring every student to have hands-on access to a computer during the class may use a Microlab classroom. This change will reaffirm the Microlabs' purpose as a student computing environment. It will re-emphasize the Microlabs' role as a resource designed to allow students access to computers for the purpose of completing various computer-related assignments. The change also will further distinguish the role of Microlab classrooms from other computer-equipped classrooms.

   The University should focus on creating large computer labs, at least the size of King, and move away from constructing a Microlab for each college. This approach increases students' access not only to computers, but also to a wider variety of software packages, including specialized software installed for specific departments and colleges. The need for the construction of such labs should be re-evaluated on a regular basis. Larger computer labs are less expensive to build, maintain, staff, and service. Such labs are more noticeable and convenient for students. Computer labs placed in colleges imply a sense of ownership and exclusivity to that College. This sense, in turn, leads to a sense of trespass when students from other disciplines attempt to use the lab. This sense of trespass should be discouraged.

   The University should promote the installation of "Data in the Dorms." Ethernet ports in the residence halls would alleviate some accessibility problems associated with current usage levels in the Microlabs. These ports might provide an incentive to live in the residence halls, which may help curb the current trend of students opting not to live on campus. The provision of this service may additional revenue.

2. Support Centers and Technology Coordinators
   Funding for the FACTS, MC FACTS, and Teaching and Learning Centers, and other faculty development support centers should be maintained and increased to meet the increased demand on the services provided by these units. These support centers play a vital role in training and supporting faculty in the introduction and continued use of instructional technology. The University should continue to fund their activities at increasing levels in order to provide the necessary support for faculty.

   Every college should have at least one technology coordinator. Large numbers of faculty and entire colleges are not yet served by a technology coordinator. This service has proven to be particularly helpful and should be expanded to all faculty members. This program should be phased in as rapidly as possible.

3. Cooperation Among Support Units The University should be pro-active and continue to foster and encourage cooperation among the various instructional support units. The close working relationship between the FACTS Center and the Teaching and Learning Center is an excellent model for the type of increased support that results when units cooperate and coordinate. It is crucial in times of limited resources that the University take advantage of its existing strong units and strengthen them through collaborative arrangements.

Recommendations to Specific Information Systems Units

1. Computer-Based Instructional Materials Development
   The services of the FACTS Center and the MC FACTS Center should be enhanced, by employing student interns, to be available for production or the coordination of production of instructional materials. Most authoring packages and the more sophisticated uses of the Web have a relatively steep learning curve and development times can be quite long. With the addition of more student assistance, the FACTS Centers could be more heavily involved in the actual development of products. Production might be accomplished at least in part by using student interns on a long-term basis (one or two semesters) to work on product development under the supervision of the FACTS Centers' personnel. The students would be gaining marketable computer skills and building a portfolio of actual products. Most multimedia, interactive instructional products use production teams that include a variety of skills (e.g., instructional design, graphics art and layout, interactive multimedia development, and programming). A small group of students could work with the faculty member (content specialist) and develop the team and development skills which reflect "real" world methods.
2. Access to Student Computer Laboratories
   The Microlabs staff should encourage faculty to familiarize themselves with the Microlabs (hardware, software ,and staff), and should improve their dissemination of information regarding changes to the labs. This process will make faculty more aware of any changes or limitations the Microlabs have put on various software packages. Furthermore, faculty will become acquainted with the staff members who are responsible for various Microlab operations.

   The Microlabs need to encourage faculty to coordinate their computer-based assignments with the staff to help ensure the feasibility and practicality of the assignments. Implementation of this recommendation should reduce the frequency of outdated handouts being given to students, resolve potential problems before students encounter them, and provide a means for faculty to obtain assistance when designing assignments to be completed in the labs.

   A clear policy should be developed and disseminated regarding the use of Microlabs as classrooms. The policy should address the following points:

   1. In order for an instructor to schedule a classroom, he or she should have attended an orientation session. At the orientation session, the Professors and TAs should be made aware of the rules governing the Microlabs, including available software and hardware, and how to reserve a classroom. The orientation will clarify when one should use a Microlab classroom and when a multimedia classroom is more suitable.
   2. Except during periods when classes are not in session, Microlabs may be reserved only to host classes listed in the "Schedule of Classes," which is published each semester. We encourage the development of faculty and staff training facilities to meet their ever growing needs. This recommendation is intended to limit Microlab classroom use to activities that are student oriented and to stop the practice of using student computing facilities for faculty/staff training and conferences. The result will be increased student accessibility to the Microlabs.
   3. All classroom reservation requests for a particular department should be coordinated by a "department coordinator." This coordinator will be responsible for resolving all request conflicts before they are forwarded to the Microlabs and eventually the Registrar. This process will streamline the classroom reservation procedure, prevent the Registrar's office from being placed in the middle of feuds over Microlab space, and reduce the number and likelihood of classes being canceled due to scheduling conflicts.
   4. The policy should establish quotas on the use of Microlabs as classrooms so that an equitable balance is maintained between meeting the needs of students who are completing assignments outside of class and those who are receiving instruction during a class. The committee recommends that at no time before 5 p.m. should more than 50% of the Microlabs be devoted to classroom use. The percentage of classroom use should decrease significantly after 5 p.m. This policy will guarantee student access to the Microlabs during specific time frames, eliminate undue burdens put on those students who work nights and weekends, thus limiting the times they can use the labs, encourage the University to provide and maintain more multimedia classrooms, and re-emphasize that the Microlabs are a student computing resource, not classroom space.
3. Levels of Faculty Involvement and Expertise In the support of faculty in instructional technology, several levels of expertise and involvement should be recognized. Services should be tailored accordingly. A functional categorization recognizes novices, mid-range users, and experts. Each of these categories of faculty require somewhat different services. Appendix 3 contains more detail on the characteristics of each of these categories and some of the possible services that might be appropriate.

   A start up technology package for faculty should be created and provided on disk or CD-ROM. The package should include everything a faculty member needs to get started using technology at UK, including a helpful list of names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of who does what and provides what support. This information should be given out at new faculty/TA orientation and be made available to all current faculty members.

Members of the Instructional Computing Advisory Subcommittee, 1996-97

David Debertin, Chair	John E. Christopher	Eric Grulke
James Holmes	Carol Riker	Robert Rubeck
Susan J. Scollay	Terry Turner	Janet Baynham1
Doyle Friskney1	Jon Hesseldenz1	Douglas E. Hurley1
Phyllis Nash1	Louis J. Swift1	Robert S. Tannenbaum1
Chris Payne2 (submitted minority report)
Kathy Hamperian3	Rene Hales4	Patricia A. Smith4

Note: ¹Ex Officio, ²Student, ³Guest, ⁴Staff to the committee

Appendix 1: Recommended Characteristics of Multimedia Classrooms

Classroom capabilities:

1. A (preferably ceiling mounted) projection unit of high brightness with SVGA and video inputs and with the greatest pixel resolution (minimum of 640x480) affordable.
2. A high quality, white matte screen that is specifically designed for use in these kinds of classrooms, and that is mounted at the optimum viewing angle.
3. Room lighting that allows note-taking by students and good visibility of the projected images.
4. Audio speakers and amplifier, ceiling- or wall-mounted for multimedia presentations.
5. A Windows PC switchable to MAC and, in some cases, UNIX with more than adequate RAM and disk memory and a CD ROM player.
6. Ethernet connection in each classroom.
7. A VCR player, and a laser disk player, where appropriate.
8. Breakout connections to drive the projection unit from faculty-provided laptops.
9. In some cases, devices that allow projection of hardcopy documents, such the ELMO document stand.
10. In some cases, wired or wireless connections to student desks allowing collection in a computer of student answers to questions and display of student answers in the aggregate. At the desks, the students could have either a simple keypad or connectable calculator (and possibly access to ac power). This capability allows and encourages group discussion and active learning in classrooms of any size including those holding hundreds of students.
11. Anti-theft provisions

The computer, audio and video producing equipment, etc. need to be easily used. Standard software such as Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint need to be loaded. Standard e-mail and web searching software should also be included.

Appendix 2: A Multidimensional Policy for Instructional Software Planning

1. Categories of instructional software: Planning for the acquisition and use of instructional software may be done differently for different categories of instructional software. Priorities need to be established for each of these categories and for multicategory requests.

   Several categories of instructional software have emerged during planning (some instructional software fits into multiple categories):

   • Mission critical - Without access to this software a course or major course segment would not be able to be taught.
   • Highly specialized - Used in one or a very few course(s) or department(s) on the entire campus.
   • Very Expensive - Software purchases or licenses costing thousands of dollars are increasingly needed for university instruction.
   • Widely Used - Common office applications needed to do many kinds of things fall into this category.

2. Levels of the University Planning for the acquisition and use of instructional software may be done differently for different levels of the University, depending on the category of software and its need. Priorities need to be established for each of these levels and for multilevel requests.

   A possible definition of the different University levels would be:

   • University purchased software, both centrally installed and locally installed
   • Sector purchased software, both centrally installed and locally installed
   • College purchased software, both centrally installed and locally installed
   • Departmentally (locally) purchased software, both centrally installed and locally installed

3. Types and Combinations of Funding Planning for the acquisition and use of instructional software may be done differently for different types and combinations of funding. Priorities need to be established for each of these sources and for multisource requests.

   A few of the possible sources of funds include:

   • Central administration general funds
   • Sector general funds
   • Information systems general funds
   • Individual college funds
   • Departmental funds
   • Grant funds
   • Student fee funds
   • Special internal software grant funds

4. Breaking Existing Funding Patterns Planning for the acquisition and use of instructional software does not necessarily need to follow existing lines of equity or inequity across sectors, colleges, and departments. Acquisition and use of instructional software may offer a new avenue for administrative diplomacy. Priorities need to be established for these sources and for multisource requests.

   Possible alternative funding strategies might include:

   • Showpiece installations ó Highly visible applications that might attract notice by the campus and outside communities for the purpose of expanding the use of instructional technology.
   • Administratively disadvantaged areas ó Areas of the university where the acquisition and use of technology might help significantly to overcome some dramatic or long standing disadvantage.
   • Strategic programs ó Educational programs that are the strategic keys to a successful future for the university.

5. Possible New Funding Mechanisms Planning for the acquisition and use of instructional software may be done through different mechanisms depending upon the type of request. These mechanisms need to be known to all and offer equal access to all. Priorities need to be established for these mechanisms and for multimechanism requests.

   Some suggested mechanisms include:

   • Competitive "superfund" requests ó Where faculty write large-scale proposals for software from a special source of funds.
   • Competitive mini-grants ó Where faculty write minimal (perhaps $1,000 or less) proposals for software from a given special source of funds.
   • Strategic requests ó Where faculty from strategically valued areas submit requests.
   • Routine operations ó Where faculty have a routine channel within their department or college to which to take software requests and there is a standard procedure for handling them.

Appendix 3: Levels of Faculty Expertise

Novice

• Need to inform themselves about technology
• Will benefit from introductory seminars, enhanced learning seminars, and workshops involving existing resources

Mid-Range

• Need to learn software, such as Presentation packages and HTML editors
• Will benefit from hands-on workshop and consultants

Experts

• Those creating interactive multimedia technologies
• Will benefit from advanced seminars, user groups, and special assistance from staff and student interns

Minority Report

Student member of ICAC

Inherent Flaws in the Report's Conclusions

Considering the time and effort expended to formulate this report by the various committee members, I must point out the problems with the final report. This committee was charged to research, discuss and debate the following issues:

• Issues related to Access to student computing labs
• Issues related to Instructional software
• Issues related to Smart classrooms
• Issues related to Networking
• Issues related to Faculty support/ development
• Issues related to Computer-based instructional materials development

However, debate and discussion was limited to only two of the six topics, "Access to student computing labs" and "Smart classrooms." And the committee never completed discussing all of the issues raised over "Access to student computing labs." The rest of the report is based on the initial reports submitted by the various sub-committees assigned to research those issues.

This report does not represent the true opinions of the committee, rather it represents their opinions of the information with which they were presented. By foregoing full and open debate, the committee was denied the opportunity to learn the basis of, and explore the alternatives to, the recommendations presented. As was evident in the full debate on "Smart classrooms" and the limited debate on " Access to student computing labs", important alterations were made to the recommendations that strengthened the overall impact of the proposed policy changes. These sorts of changes would have also occurred if we were allowed to fully explore the other issues, instead we are left with a report based on half completed research.

The segment of the report which has the greatest impact on students, "Access to student computing labs", was not fully debated and full student input was not allowed. While I concede that not all points of concern to students would have garnered widespread committee support, the fact that students were denied the opportunity to fully participate in policy discussion and formulation by the ICAC chairman is disgraceful. The students hold a position on the committee so that policies regarding instructional computing are exposed to the student's viewpoint. This report represents nothing more than the personal interpretation of two non-voting members of the committee, with the voting members allowed only to comment on the report once the general tone and direction was set.

Omitted Points of Concern

This report fails to draw adequate attention to the true concerns of the student body. The authors of this report removed all references to the problems surrounding general student access to the Microlabs. Their general response during committee discussion was that "it does not matter whether a student is using the lab to complete an assignment on his own time or if he is in a Microlab as part of an organized class, both types of usage are student use." This point of view could not be further from the truth, there is a very important difference in usage types. The first type, students working on their own, allows any student to use the labs for whatever reason they wish. The other example restricts usage to only those students who are enrolled in classes that require their instruction in a Microlab. The issue is access, one allows any student to use the labs, the other only allows a select group of students to use lab - and this type of access also provides more benefit to the instructor than to the student.

The other standard response from select committee members was "I purchased an electric typewriter when I was a student, so why don't we just get rid of general use labs and force all UK students to purchase a computer when they enroll at UK?" The committee member in question went so far as to research the purchase costs of bare bones computers capable of performing not more than basic word processing. This attitude that students must fend for themselves, with some having access to adequate computing resources and others struggling to obtain equipment which can handle even the most basic functions is completely unacceptable. The Student Technology Fee was designed to provide students with access to the computing resources necessary to complete their assigned class work and enhance their educational experience. The elitist point of view that all students can afford the substantial initial investment to obtain a computer and then cover the costs to maintain the computer is completely unrealistic. Many students at UK can barely afford to pay for tuition, books, and room and board; let alone an initial outlay of at $2,000.00 for a computer, monitor, printer, and software capable of completing the ever more complex projects assigned to them. These are exactly the reasons the Vice President for Information Systems advanced the Microlab model. The Microlabs spread the costs of purchasing, maintaining, and supporting computers across the entire UK student body. Students, through the pooling of their collective resources, are able to access hardware and software they could never afford to purchase or maintain themselves. And the most important benefit of the Technology Fee is that it is factored into tuition costs, upon which financial aid is based. Thereby protecting the access of all segments of Kentucky's population to higher education, which is the mission of the University of Kentucky after all.

The authors of this report also failed to strike an equitable balance between the needs of students and the desire of faculty to use the labs for instruction, seminars, and conferences. Microlab usage must be restricted to classes that require all students in the class to have hands on access to computers. The distinction between "hands on" and other types of instruction needs to be clearly defined. Instructors must no longer be allowed to use the Microlabs because they are convenient or offer equipment not found in Smart classrooms. The monopolization of student services simply because it is more convenient for the instructor is a disservice to students and should be stopped. Furthermore, instructional usage must be limited to no more than 40% of the time between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., with no reservations allowed after 5 p.m. This policy will set aside guaranteed "student use only" times and reinforce the fact that the Microlabs are a student service, not University classroom space. Since more and more students are taking part-time jobs to help cover the expenses of higher education, we must proactively set aside evening hours for students only and ensure that students who work evenings and weekends can access the labs during the day. What good does it to promote the integration of computer based class work if students can not obtain a computer to complete the assignment. If the University is dedicated to increasing and promoting the use of technology in the classroom, then the University must provide instructors with the facilities needed to carry out such mission.