|
A Plan for the
Application of Technology in UW-Madison Instructional Facilities
This plan, which was completed in February 1997, was developed by an ad hoc committee
assembled to assess instructional technology/distance education needs on the UW-Madison
campus. The group represented the offices of Space Management,
Learning Technology and Distance
Education, Timetable
and Classroom Scheduling, and Budget
Planning & Analysis. Individual representatives included Doug Rose
(SMO), Kathy Christoph (LTDE), Sharon Pero (TACS), Greg Frawley (BP&A), and Phillip
Braithwaite (BP&A).
The University is committed to providing the best possible learning experience for its
students. An increasingly important aspect of this experience is the application and use
of instructional technology in the learning environment. With limited resources, how can
we best promote the understanding and effective application of instructional technology in
UW-Madison instructional facilities?
Through the following recommendations, we lay out a plan, which incorporates our
current facilities, such as technology classrooms and lecture halls, InfoLabs, New Media
Centers, and videoconferencing rooms, and helps us plan for future facilities to serve
faculty, instructional staff and students better.
The goal of the plan is twofold: 1) identify and provide instructional technology in
strategic locations, and 2) include the appropriate support and maintenance which will
increasingly encourage and enable departments, instructors, and students to use the
resource and to maximize its value.
Assumptions/Constraints:
- Demand for modernized facilities will continue to increase as students, faculty and
instructional staff become more familiar with the benefits of instructional technology
- Available current and new funding sources will meet only a portion of the total need to
provide adequate technology in instructional facilities
- Establishing successful facilities and levels of training and support will encourage
application and use of instructional technology
Administration of the General Computer/Network Access
(GCNA) InfoLabs, for example, has proven to be a successful model of implementing a new
instructional technology program. A number of InfoLabs were once departmental-only use
labs. With the advent of the GCNA program, departments were willing to accept less
departmental control and more access in exchange for assured update, network connectivity,
and maintenance of the computers. With the GCNA program, students increasingly can expect
convenient access to computers and standardization of technical staff support and system
compatibility and comparability from one InfoLab to the next. This is accomplished while
maintaining some departmental control and customization to meet specialized needs such as
access to discipline-specific software. Consequently, the University would fund other new
instructional technology priorities with this program model in mind.
Planning Principles:
- Campus-wide planning ensures the maximum application of instructional technologies amid
competing interests and limited resources. This is particularly important when considering
the potential operational and curricular impacts of new buildings and other new capital
projects.
- Any comprehensive approach must meet broad needs, by 1) providing equitable and open
access, 2) involving a mixture of room capacities, technologies, and locations, and 3)
ensuring appropriate consideration of various discipline-specific priorities.
- Every opportunity to apply instructional technology properly in the learning environment
needs to consider three aspects: 1) facilities and support, 2) faculty/staff development,
and 3) access.
- Funding considerations include the following:
- Implementation of the UW-Madison priorities requires significant additional resources as
well as both continuation of base reallocations already made and reallocation and
redirection of existing funds.
- The various existing and planned funding sources are the 1997-99 Biennial
Budget request for Instructional Technology, the Laboratory and Classroom Modernization
programs, the General Computer/Network Access program, the Instructional Technology
Improvements program, and the Student Information Technology Initiative (which includes
base reallocations in excess of $1 million), and reallocations of both base budget funds
and human resource—existing and planned.
Recommendations and Priorities:
Facilities and Support
- Concentrate new instructional technologies, which are funded centrally in facilities
within designated technology-intensive buildings.
- Assure a consistent and predictable level of support:
- Provide on-site support to technology-intensive
buildings/sites. Provide preventative maintenance and a minimal level of off-site support
for locations outside the technology-intensive buildings/sites.
- Post handbooks in rooms on proper equipment use and problem solving.
- Install phones and activate data and video jacks in multimedia classrooms.
- Provide training sessions for department support personnel in non-technology
intensive buildings to help with emergencies and to maintain functioning of classroom
equipment.
- Fund additional staff time dedicated to handling after hours calls regarding use of
multimedia classrooms.
Primary funding: 1997-99 Budget Request (Curricular Redesign), Classroom Modernization
funds, existing budget commitments, and reallocations as matching resources.
- Establish Resource and Technology Centers as is affordable. See Attachment A for
description.
Primary funding: 1997-99 Budget Request (Curricular
Redesign) and reallocation as matching resources.
- Establish a consistent funding source for equipment service and maintenance.
Primary funding: Classroom Modernization and seek
alternative funding sources.
- Consider the need for update of facilities, which have received central instructional
technology funding when establishing annual priorities.
Primary funding: Classroom Modernization and Instructional Technology Improvement
programs.
Faculty Development
- Prior to using a technology equipped room, require faculty to attend training on its
use. Consider a certification program.
- Provide an awareness, training, and consulting program for faculty and instructional
staff in development and delivery of multimedia instructional materials.
Primary funding: 1997-99 Budget Request (Curricular
Redesign).
Access
- In establishing technology-intensive buildings/sites throughout the campus, focus their
locations within defined geographic subsections of the campus to promote support and other
efficiencies.
- Revise/update the Classroom Scheduling System to:
- Match needs for equipment with available and suitable
classrooms.
- Give priority to courses requiring specialized equipment, i.e., equipment not
available in most classrooms which is needed for a substantial
portion of a course’s delivery.
- Implement a tracking mechanism for equipment use.
- Upgrade campus computer networks.
Primary funding: 1997-99 Budget Request, Student
Instructional Technology Initiative, and continuation of current reallocations
- Encourage laptop computer use with associated software over installation of permanent
computers in classrooms.
Attachments:
A. Resource and Technology Centers—Concept Paper
B. UW System 1997-99 Biennial Budget Request for Instructional Technology
C. Instructional Technology Improvements Program (ITIP)
D. Learning Technologies Programs
1. Classroom Modernization program
2. Laboratory Modernization program
3. General Computer/Network Access (GCNA) program
E. Student Information Technology Initiative (SITI)
Attachment A
Resource and Technology
Centers Concept Paper
Why think about Resource and Technology
Centers?
Resource and technology centers are being created or proposed around campus, from the
New Media Center (NMC) in College Library to the new Biology NMC in the Biotech building
to the College of Engineering and the Health Sciences. Colleges, departments and units are
requesting various levels of support, including planning, equipment, networking,
maintenance, and staffing. We see, in this, an opportunity for coordinated planning and
operation of these centers.
Because these centers are targeted at serving faculty and students in their needs for
technology in instruction, the 1997/99 biennial budget request for Instructional
Technology and Distance Education is a logical source of funding.
What might a Resource and Technology Center look like?
A Resource and Technology Center may have the following components with appropriate
staffing:
- A media design lab, where faculty and students would
prepare and digitize materials for integration into a multimedia classroom presentation or
instructional project
- A hands-on classroom equipped with computer stations and audio/visual
capabilities including data and video projection
- A distance education classroom with two-way video and audio/visual equipment
- Lecture halls and classrooms equipped with data and video projection for
multimedia presentations
- A video production studio, including satellite uplink and downlink capabilities
- A computer InfoLab
- An audio/video equipment loaner pool
- A media resources library
- Any combination of the above
What are the advantages of Resource and Technology Centers?
On a campus as large and decentralized as UW-Madison, the tendency to duplicate
expensive services and equipment is great—a luxury that is becoming less affordable
day by day. This is an opportunity to demonstrate fiscal responsibility on a campus-wide
scale.
It is neither possible nor practical
for every department or college to have staff experienced in the planning of
such centers, from room layouts to determining specific equipment
requirements. A coordinated planning effort involving DoIT, the host units
and other campus planners would ensure consistent learning and working
environments across these centers. In addition, a level of standardization
can be imposed upon the equipment to be used, ensuring greater ease of
support and maintenance.
- Discipline specific, yet serving broader needs
A coordinated program will allow each center to focus on their main constituency’s
particular needs, and to rely on other centers for support and access to peripheral or
less frequently needed technologies. This would allow for the creation of each resource
center with a discipline-specific focus, yielding a maximum "bang for the buck"
in terms of selected hardware and software. In addition, each center would be accessible
to any member of the campus community, thus helping to redistribute the usage load off of
any particular center.
- Distributed expertise and program planning
Such coordination would also allow for a model of distributed expertise among the
centers, rather than each center having to duplicate the in-depth skills necessary to
provide effective and efficient consultation and support for their users. Also, all
centers could benefit from each other's experiences and cooperation in planning workshops,
demonstrations, forums, and other events, which may involve faculty, staff, students, and
outside vendors.
- Consolidated technical support
Supporting any of the components can be technically challenging and costly. Many
require on-site personnel. Others need personnel close by and on call. Some are routinely
open extended hours; others should be. Since the technical skills needed to support the
different components overlap, it makes sense to consolidate geographically and
organizationally to minimize staff and maximize coverage.
Faculty would have ready access to instructional technology consultants and librarians
to assist in finding and creating instructional materials and to provide training in using
the technology resources and classrooms.
- Advantage of "a plan" in place
Various departments and units are already regularly approaching DoIT on campus for
support for "their" resource and technology centers. The names may be different,
but that is what they are in essence—a place for faculty and students to go to create
and teach with multimedia materials. By having a plan in place, we can quickly evaluate
such proposals using pre-defined criteria, and respond quickly and objectively to requests
for support.
How might IT/DE funds support these Centers?
There are at least six possible levels of support that the IT/DE funds may
address:
- Project planning and management
- Software and hardware purchases and upgrades
- Basic networking and maintenance
- Marketing and publications
- Training
- Staffing
Where would the Resource and Technology Centers be located?
The Resource and Technology Centers would be aligned with academic
disciplines, dispersed geographically and built upon already existing centers. Examples
for consideration include (listed with academic focus and existing basis):
- Biological Sciences —Biology New Media Center in the
Biotech Building
- Business—Technology Services in Grainger Hall
- Education—Instructional Media Development Center/Instructional Materials Center in
Ed Sciences
- Engineering—Engineering A/V Services and Computer Aided Engineering
- Foreign Languages—Learning Support Services (LSS) in Van Hise
- Health Sciences—Nursing Instructional Resources and Technology Services in the
Clinical Science Center
- Humanities—New Media Center in College Library or Humanities Building
- Physical Sciences—new Chemistry Building or Computer Science and Statistics
Building
- Social Studies—Social Science Computing in Social Science, new location in
Ingraham or with LSS
The above are for illustration only. More planning is needed to locate, configure and
phase in the actual centers.
Potential sites might be ranked based upon the following:
- Location of proposed center with respect to existing
centers and facilities
- Shared funding for center with "host" department or college
- Facilities being offered by host unit—i.e., space, staff, resources
- Demonstrated demand
- Impact on students and faculty—number that would benefit, and how
- Campus priorities
In addition, potential host units must be willing to meet a minimal set of
requirements, for example:
- Provide access to any member of campus community
- Open a minimum number of hours per week to campus
- Staffing at a level consistent with the minimum number of hours open (on a case
by case basis)
- Ongoing commitment/ evidence of support for a minimum of 3 years
Other possible resources:
- The IT/DE funding would be coordinated with the
Instructional Technology Improvements Program, the Classroom Modernization program and the
General Computer Access program. Consideration could be given to a fund-raising campaign
through UW Foundation.
Attachment B
UW-System 1997-99 Biennial
Budget Request
UW-System's 1997-99 biennial budget request includes
funding for several instructional technology/distance education initiatives. One area,
which will significantly impact the application of technology in instruction at
UW-Madison, is curricular redesign and technological support. Specifically, legislative
funding would support development of instructional technology development centers and
instructional technology enhancement grants to individual faculty and academic staff.
Instructional technology development centers (ITDC's) would support faculty in
incorporating technology into teaching. Funding would provide for hardware and software,
technical and instructional design staff, and training workshops. Technical support staff
are required to optimize the functional capabilities of technology equipped classrooms and
should be available to assist faculty and instructional academic staff in their offices.
Instructional design staff are needed to work with faculty and instructional academic
staff in integrating technology into their courses, to help select appropriate
technologies for the instruction and to assist in developing instructional materials. The
materials would be delivered in multimedia-equipped classrooms, via the World Wide Web,
compressed video, videotape, or other methods.
Instructional technology enhancement grants would fund faculty/academic staff projects
using technology in instruction, including supplies, software, and other expenses to
support efforts in the curricular redesign of courses.
Attachment C
Instructional Technology
Improvements Program (ITIP)
The Instructional Technology Improvements Program
(ITIP), funded through the Capital Budget, allows institutions increased flexibility to
complete distance learning projects and to remodel and upgrade entire classrooms and
lecture halls that, given their extensive scope, might not otherwise have been adequately
modernized with current information technology. The program funds major project
remodeling/construction needs beyond $30,000 and distance learning technology. In
addition, it allows funding for needs usually covered through the operating budget with
Classroom Modernization program funds (support for technology, including audio-visual
equipment such as overhead projectors, screens, VCRs, computers and sound systems, and
associated supplies). The goal of the ITIP program encourages creating a complete and
appropriate environment to utilize contemporary learning and teaching methodologies.
Through the 1995-97 System Capital Budget, UW-Madison received $1.3 million for
classroom and lecture hall renovations and distance learning proposals. Each institution
is allowed to determine how to achieve the maximum benefit in using their respective
allocation. No partial projects are accepted, nor are funds allocated for
classrooms/lecture halls located in a building enumerated for a major renovation or
capital renewal in the current biennium. Institutions may choose to purchase all equipment
or all remodeling, but must recognize that the rooms must be completely done, including
HVAC revisions, when the project is done.
The program also allows the funding of equipment from the Operating Budget and the
completion of remodeling from the Capital Budget. In 1995-97, UW-Madison used this
approach to update two large lecture halls—B130 Van Vleck and 6210 Social Science.
The ITIP program allocation funded the rooms major remodeling/construction needs and
associated design and supervision costs, and was supplemented by the Classroom
Modernization program, which funded a significant portion of the equipment costs.
Although the future funding of the ITIP program is uncertain, it is hoped that a
biennial allocation of $1.5-$2.0 million to UW-Madison will continue, and will help meet
the instructional technology needs of some combination of classrooms and lecture halls.
Attachment D
Learning Technologies
Programs
A. Classroom Modernization
At UW-Madison, the Classroom Modernization program provides funding of
multimedia technology upgrades to the campus general assignment classrooms. Projects may
range from equipment purchases in major lecture hall capital projects to use of shared
portable technology carts. Classroom Modernization supports service, maintenance and
replacement of the technology in all classrooms previously modernized through the program
and any associated remodeling costs of up to $30,000 per room. However, the program does
not fund the purchase of tables, chalkboards, and other classroom needs not associated
with audio-visual equipment.
UW-Madison receives an annual allocation of $694,000 for Classroom Modernization. Any
portion of this funding may be used to supplement Laboratory Modernization program needs.
Approximate Annual Budget: 1997-98: $500,000 1998-99: $500,000
B. Instructional Laboratory Modernization
The Instructional Laboratory Modernization program provides funding for
equipment and related remodeling upgrades of instructional laboratories. The program
supports only instructional equipment and supplies and does not fund research-only
equipment or laboratories used for faculty development. Each lab may be remodeled within a
$30,000 limit. Projects usually range from upgrading traditional wet labs to modernizing
computer classrooms.
UW-Madison receives an annual allocation of $1,615,000 for Laboratory Modernization
plus adds $230,500 of campus fund 101 money to the program. Academic divisions receive
annual planning allocations based on their respective proportion of total campus unmet
modernization needs.
Approximate Annual Budget: 1997-98: $2,000,000 1998-99: $2,000,000
C. General Computer/Network Access
The General Computer/Network Access (GCNA) program provides funding for
computer laboratories, which are open to all students on campus. The Division of
Information Technology coordinates 16 computer labs at UW-Madison, also known as InfoLabs,
and must maintain a campus average of 80 hours of open access per week per lab. The
program funds purchases of computer systems and related network access costs, remodeling
per lab of up to $30,000, and student help. Program funds also may be used in
discipline-specific computer laboratories if such labs maintain some level of open access.
In prior years, money from the Student Information Technology Initiative has provided
supplemental funding for major capital improvements, supplies, and staffing.
Annual Budget: 1997-98: $549,614 1998-99: $549,614
Attachment E
Student Information
Technology Initiative (SITI)
The Student Information Technology Initiative is a
program funded primarily by a specified increase in tuition dedicated to enhancing
information technology (IT) services for students. For several years, IT services have
been offered to students to improve computer literacy; to facilitate communications with
faculty, instructors, and classmates; to make research and learning more efficient; and to
prepare them for future career opportunities.
Through an additional tuition fee, the UW-Madison allocated $1,871,700 in 1995-96 for
the Student Information Technology Initiative. Funds from reinvestment and other sources
provided another $1,245,947 for student IT services in 1995-96. It is expected that
similar future annual allocations for such services will fund a combination of continuing
and one-time efforts to enhance instructional technology experiences for students.
Requirements:
- Must benefit students only, or pay for only the student share of efforts also benefiting
non-students
- Division of Information Technology (DoIT) must sustain ongoing operational costs with
student fees
- DoIT must sustain the service technically (must use established vendors, parts, have
available warrantees)
Selection criteria:
- Maximizes the student academic experience and the ability to interact globally (any
time, any place)
- Improves the ease of use of IT
- Maximizes compatibility and competitiveness with peer Universities (helps UW achieve
enrollment goals)
- Minimizes risk of fallout from poor service or abuse
- Serves the greatest number of students equitably
Strategies encouraged:
- Partnering and leveraging (with other campus units, K-12, other Universities)
- Integration techniques, such as adapting an existing technology for use in instruction
or research projects
- Creative methods to upgrade the IT skill set of student (making them more employable,
productive, etc.)
- Piloting a service, then growing and evolving the successful ones
- Focusing on improved customer service
|
