You are on page 1of 7

Beyond the Blackboard: Policy Recommendations for California State University/Mo nterey This document was contributed by the

named institution to the CAUSE Information Resources Library. It is the intellectual property of the author(s). Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, that the title and institution that submitted the paper appear, and that notice is given that this document was obtained from the CAUSE Information Resources Library. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, requires written permission from the institution. For further information: CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303-449-4430; e-mail BEYOND THE BLACKBOARD: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY/MONTEREY Highlights of a report developed by a work group charged with setting direction and policy for information technology at the new California State University campus at Monterey (CSUMB). The group was chaired by Larry Press, professor at CSU, Dominguez Hills. ============================================================ We have a unique opportunity with respect to information processing (IP) at CSUMB. We are in a period of rapidly accelerating change in communication and computer technology, which will continue well into the next century. Furthermore, we have a mission-level charge to invent and deploy IP technology which will free us from traditional constraints on university curriculum, pedagogy, practice, and culture. Finally, we are starting with a clean slate, without installed technology, systems, or attitudes. These factors, taken in the context of a general desire to innovate in all aspects of the university, will allow us to make nationallysignificant contributions to educational technology and its application, facilitating communication and collaboration among faculty and students and communication with the local, state, and global communities. The original report consisted of three sections: I. An article, drafted at the beginning of the workgroup process, to set the scope of our work. The article has two major sections, on infrastructure, and curriculum. It has subsequently been published: Press, L., "Tomorrow's Campus," Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 37. No. 7, July, 1994, pp 13-17. II. A list of policy recommendations based on early thinking, discussion at workgroup meetings, and suggestions resulting from member's review of early drafts. III. Answers to relatively specific questions formulated near

the beginning of the process. These answers constitute the bulk of our report, and the sections are written by workgroup members who volunteered to address the questions. Their basic charge was to consider both the opening date of September, 1995, and a transition path to the end of the century. Their working drafts were shared among all workgroup members, who made comments, leading to revision. This document contains section II and a list of the questions answered in section III of the original report. Work Group Members: George Rebane, Intergraphics Associates Ted Lewis, Naval Postgraduate School Robert Van Spyk, CSU Hayward and Pacific Bell Marion Reid, CSU San Marcos Curtis Hardyck, UC Berekely Penny Semrau, CSU Los Angeles Brenda Robinson, CSU Chancelor's Office Rob Kling, UC Irvine Jim May, CSU Chico Larry Press, CSU Dominguez Hills, Chairman ============================================================ II. IP POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

It is our desire to invent university IP for the beginning of the next century. This will involve the deployment of novel technology, inventing more effective ways of teaching/learning, and fostering a campus culture with a commitment to innovation in the use of IP technology. We will differentiate between ubiquitous technology, which is available to all members of the campus community at all times, and more specialized, advanced technology which is used by specific departments and people. The ubiquitous technology will evolve over time, and its provision and evolution are the responsibility of the university. Like today's blackboards and telephones, it should be unobtrusive and taken for granted. Ubiquitous low-technology is more radical than pockets of very high technology. It will alter the culture, pedagogy, and curriculum of the university. Our recommendations follow: Equipment and Software All members of the campus community (students, faculty, administrators, staff, etc.) should have portable computers. This will be fair to all students, and provide a baseline for the curriculum and other systems. Those who require more powerful computers with better ergonomics, will also have desktop machines, docking stations, etc. By September 1995, we expect these to be the rough equivalent of today's highend Pentium or Power PC-based computers with hardware and software for manipulating text, numeric, image, audio, and video data and connecting to the campus network. We must plan for regular hardware and software upgrades to these machines.

A standard classroom technology complement should be defined, much as all classrooms today have blackboards. Wireless LAN, projection system, digital and analog connectivity, server (in 1995, roughly equivalent to today's Silicon Graphic workstations), audio and video recording, lighting and other technologies should be evaluated. We should also plan for ongoing upgrading of the standard classroom equipment. The campus infrastructure must include scalable, highcapacity, object-oriented servers which are shared by all users and departments. It also includes ubiquitous software for integrated messaging, conferencing, workflow, information storage and retrieval, and other mid-level functions. (See electronic publication, below). The equipment mentioned here will reduce the need for traditional campus computer labs; however, we will still need points of network connection (perhaps wireless), printers, scanners, etc. around the campus. Each building will require space for infrastructure equipment and for equipment which must be accessed by users. Connectivity All classrooms, offices, meeting rooms, etc. on the campus should be connected to a digital communication backbone. This includes all housing units at both ends of the campus. While in 1995, this may consist of something like fiber between buildings and switched Ethernet over twisted pair to rooms, we must anticipate upgrades and changes. All members of the campus community should have connectivity to the campus network from their homes. While cost considerations dictate slower speed for off-campus access initially, we should provide an adequate number of switched ports, and all of the facility of the on-campus Net, even if execution time is slower. We should make an effort to keep user interfaces the same on or off campus. This performance differential will fade with the eventual deployment of ATMbased communication in the local community. We should establish ourselves as a connectivity provider for local organizations. This will both serve the community and provide meaningful intern and apprenticeship opportunities for our students. To differentiate ourselves from a simple business, we should strive to find a way to combine some sort of service or value-added dimension with all of our customers. We should utilize IP technology in outreach to feeder schools and communities. This can be important in recruiting, screening, establishing early relationships with students, and in keeping diverse students in touch with their communities while they are at CSUMB. While we expect all communication to eventually use the campus data network, in September, 1995 it will be necessary to provide independent means of telephone and video communication. Our investments should anticipate a transition

away from these, but coax and telephone wiring should be deployed at the same time as data cable. Faculty Recruitment for all positions should stress either demonstrated capability in using IP in support of teaching and scholarship or an eagerness to develop the skills, and spend the time it takes to do so. RTP rules should encourage and reward innovation in the utilization of technology in teaching. Experience shows that such work is extremely time consuming, and requires creativity and risk taking. It is critical that we explicitly recognize this fact in establishing work loads, and value and reward systems. RTP rules should also encourage and reward electronic publication. All faculty should be encouraged to establish a presence on the Internet and to develop digital instructional and research material. They should be provided the training, tools, time, and support needed to do so. We expect faculty to experiment with new roles -- entrepreneur, staff member, resource discoverer, mentor, etc. We must allocate resources to support them, and expect results. Students Every student should take a general studies course or other training to give them skill with the current campus technology and information resources and their application in courses, and to acquire a world view suitable to the information age. Students in the information processing arts and sciences should be expected to work as interns and apprentices to the information processing staff and faculty as part of their education. Conversely, information processing faculty and staff will be expected to commit some of their time to this sort of teaching, blurring the faculty/staff distinction. Supervised off-campus intern and apprenticeships (perhaps online/remote) will also be sought and encouraged. Electronic Publication We should foster the attitude that all community members (including students) are providers as well as consumers of information. It follows that we must provide the tools and assistance to make electronic publication simple and visible. We will have a mix of print, analog, and digital material in our library. While we anticipate an ongoing shift in the mix toward digital material, we will have to support print, slides, videotape, etc. as well. Facilities for easy digitization of analog material should also be provided. Non-digital holdings should be acquired with an eye toward

our campus needs and the needs and resources of the surrounding community with which we will share such material. In addition to publicly available materials, we must provide a large, integrated store for community member's private information. This private space should be seamlessly integrated with public storage, the campus messaging system, off campus information, and non-digital information. The university should implement technical safeguards of file and message privacy and authentication, and, as far as legally and practically possible, guarantee privacy of electronically stored information. General All ubiquitous IP technology and service should be provided as part of the university overhead, with no usage-based charges. Since IP innovation is part of our mission, the IP organization should report directly to the president. All aspects of information processing -- external and internal connectivity, academic computing, administrative computing, library, bookstore, university press, instructional media, etc. should be part of this organization. We should be sensitive to difficulties of community members with disabilities in using the IP infrastructure. We should also look for opportunities for assisting them using specialized IP technology. Since the state can not be counted on for the resources necessary for as ambitious a plan as we propose, we must be entrepreneurial and establish industrial partnerships and consortia and seek other forms of outside funding.

============================================================ III. Responses to Specific Questions Early in the workgroup process, I posed the following specific questions, and asked the members to volunteer answers: 1. I would like to see each member of the campus community have a portable computer with lowest-common-denominator software, but there are many logistic and financial difficulties to overcome. What hardware and l. c. d. software should we have? How should it be financed? How should setup and maintenance be handled? How frequently will l. c. d. software and peripheral hardware (e. g. PCMCIA-based) be updated, and how should that be distributed and funded? How frequently will we require a hardware platform revision? What provisions are needed for security and encryption for privacy and to discourage theft?

2. We also need lowest common denominator messaging software for electronic mail and conferences, what should that be? 3. To what extent can we integrate the campus telephone system and data network? 4. How should we provide interactive video and still images? To what extent should we provide them over the campus network? This question involves more than storage and delivery technology -- we must consider the sources of digital information as well. For example, how do we get an instructor's favorite video tape or disc into a format we can distribute it? How does an instructor create a slide presentation or overhead slides? 5. What is the best way to connect to off-campus homes -ISDN, modems, cable TV, ATM, wireless or some other technology? 6. What should be the architecture of the on-campus backbone, which must connect building at both ends of the property? 7. What should the IP organization structure be? 8. How should we charge for IP services? 9. We must scope the library -- what physical space is needed both for storage of material and creating a sense of place for individual and group study, what will our electronic/print collections consist of? 10. What sort of electronic/print university press should we establish? (This is under the assumption that we will have to sell information in order to be able to afford the time to produce and buy information)? 11. I would like to see us move toward an high-capacity server to store objects of all types which the community members create -- a suitable repository for our "dynabases." What hardware and server software do we need? 12. How should we structure the industrial partners consortium? What should be the conditions, responsibilities, and rewards of membership? 13. What sort of support (people and equipment) do we need for community members who wish to produce instructional material? 14. I assume we will have connectivity in all classrooms and other meeting and instruction spaces. How shall we handle projection, sound, lighting, and other presentation-related issues? If we all have portable computers, do we also need some sort of fixed server in each room? What sorts of input devices do we need in these rooms -- sound recording, live boards, video recording, etc.? 15. What is the best way to provide wireless connectivity in classrooms and other spaces? Will diffused infrared LANs be sufficient?

16. What is the best way to get point-point wireless connectivity, for example to a network port, colleague's computer, or document scanner? (IRDC)? 17. What sorts of hardware and software tools and staff skills do we need to train and assist faculty in the development of interactive course material and presentation assets (of all types)? To what extent can faculty with story telling and creative skills be used in this effort? 18. What facilities and staff do we need to support the production, distribution, and reception of two-way video and other forms of distance education? 19. What do we need in support of foreign language instruction? (We will have a major program for teaching language). 20. What do we need to do for handicapped people? In addition to these questions, Ray Clark of the Chancellor's Office, is investigating options for administrative computing (data processing, groupware and workflow) during the first and subsequent years of operation at CSUMB. He is investigating the costs and benefits of outsourcing administrative computing to a sister campus or the Chancellor's Office versus those of doing it in house. Preliminary indications are that he will recommend in favor of outsourcing during the first year or two, followed by a transition in-house processing. Finally, we overlooked at least one important aspect of the evaluation of our IP-based experiments. While we did anticipate evaluation of pedagogical effectiveness by educational technology professionals, we did not anticipate the evaluation of the effect new technology on the university community and culture. That oversight could be rectified by hiring at least one action-researcher interested in electronic community among our human behavior faculty. The "answers" to these questions are available via anonmous FTP from the mbip directory at