GO TO NEXT PAGE8. MAJOR ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE: TECHNOLOGY
Background
At its best, electronic technology facilitates learning. It provides access to massive new information sources which students, faculty and staff can tap into from their homes and offices. Through distributive learning, access to the university can be increased and its student base broadened. Students can learn at their own paces. Faculty can acquire sophisticated instructional tools. Streamlining repetitious clerical chores can increase the productivity of staff and faculty. Better and quicker service to students can be achieved through giving them and those who work with them direct access to appropriate databases.
Over the past seven years CSUSB has made significant strides in the acquisition and implementation of both academic and administrative information technologies. Between 1990 and 1996 the completion of an extensive building program resulting from the enrollment growth experienced in the 1980s added half a dozen new structures to the campus that enabled the university to build out its technological infrastructure. Major enhancements included: (1) dozens of student self-instructional and teaching labs; (2) hundreds of publicly-available workstations; (3) improved telecommunications links and wide-area networks; and (4) a substantial increase in training sessions for students, staff and faculty on the use of the new technologies and information sources now available via direct links and through the Internet.
Specifically, since 1990 CSUSB invested approximately $32 million in new and improved technology, infrastructure, information resources, distance learning and training as detailed in the "Baseline Access Training and Support Document" (Appendix 16). This investment enabled the university to support the following initiatives:
· Over 1,000 PCs or Macs for all full-time faculty as well as many staff with easy access to the Internet and relevant software applications;
· A new IBM 9672 enterprise server using OS390 operating software;
· Two SGI supercomputers;
·A variety of cutting-edge computers and systems in the Department of Computer Sciences and the Institute for Applied Supercomputing
· A new OPAC using the Horizon system supporting over 50 networked and/or web-based workstations as well as 10 CD-ROM networked workstations for electronic reference database access;
· Access to over 4,000 e-mail accounts to serve all faculty, staff and students requesting them;
· Implementation of automated administrative systems in Student Services to support admission, registration, articulation, student aid management, and outreach.
· A substantial increase in training for faculty, students and staff directed toward the use of computers, software application, the Internet, and during the past year with the establishment of the Teaching Resource Center, the application of technology to curricular matters.
· Development of compressed video and web-based course distance learning as a viable alternative for course delivery at remote sites.
During the Winter and Spring of 1997, the Baseline Access Training and Support (BATS) Committee chaired by Vice President William Aguilar worked to draft a proposal which would establish in broad terms a baseline technological infrastructure strategic plan for the university. This clearly needed to be done to provide long-term guidance as the university sought to get its technological priorities in order. Its completion, however, was driven by the necessity of presenting the CSU Chancellor’s Office with a comprehensive proposal that could generate the allocation of resources for its implementation. Suffice it to say here that the Chancellor’s Office had been thrashing around for several years seeking state and/or private resources to address technology issues across the system. The allocation of general fund resources in the 1997-1998 budget seemed likely, but to be eligible for them individual campuses had to have an approved plan.
The committee’s goal was to produce a long-range design or vision to ensure students, faculty and staff would have easy access to current hardware, software, network facilities, and information resources, as well as necessary training and support to employ these tools. The BATS report makes no pretence of addressing the issues related to the execution of the proposal. It presents a vision that admittedly remains a work in process. Portions of it, nevertheless, are worth repeating here along with the caveat that substantially more discussion will be required prior to tactical decisions being made, much less implemented.
The Vision
The Committee proposed the following goals, to be implemented through campus-wide evaluation and support:
1. Students, staff and faculty will have access to state-of-the-art computing and networking equipment, software and information resources from their offices, classrooms, computer laboratories, and off-campus locations.
2. Students, staff and faculty will have access to network file systems for secure permanent storage of software, personal work, research, e-mail messages, and other data, and will have the capability of publishing their materials on the World Wide Web.
3. Students will be able to conduct business (e.g., admission, financial aid, fee payment, transcripts, graduation checks, etc.) with the university from the convenience of on-campus kiosks, lab workstations, and off-campus workstations.
4. Access to campus computing facilities, information resources, and the campus network will be authenticated to ensure that only authorized students, staff and faculty receive admittance to proprietary databases and other electronic resources.
5. The telecommunications infrastructure will expand to support the transmission of large amounts of multimedia electronic data including video and audio for local and distance learning.
6. Technology, software, and information resources will be upgraded or replaced at intervals of no greater than four years to prevent obsolescence; servers and other major pieces of computer hardware will be upgraded as necessary to maintain currency.
7. An academic program designed to ensure information competency as defined by the California State University’s Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) will be developed.
8. Faculty will have access to new instructional technologies and sufficient training to integrate them into the curriculum; students, faculty and staff will receive training to enhance their skills in using existing and new technologies/information resources.
9. Students, faculty and staff will have access to a baseline level of support to assist them in resolving hardware, software, and telecommunications problems.
10. Information and policies regarding the availability of hardware, software, network, and information resources, and campus policies governing computer and network use will be developed and widely disseminated.
11. Instructional environments will be created with interactive technologies providing presentation capabilities for faculty as well as immediate, sophisticated access to Internet and intranet resources for faculty, staff and students, on- and off-campus.
12. By fiscal year 2000/01, every student will have access to a personal computer.
The report concludes with descriptions of tasks the committee believes must be accomplished to achieve the vision, along with cost estimates spanning a four year period and specific recommendations on priorities for hardware, access, distance learning, and training and support. In 1997/1998 the emphasis is on workstation replacement and the installation of a file server cluster. Two committees (Academic Computing and Media and Administrative Computing and Telecommunications), housed in the Information Resources and Technology Division but with broad campus representation, would be charged with responsibility to develop an implementation plan for the 1997/98 initiatives. During this academic year, the Academic Affairs Computer Utilization Committee will develop a long-range plan for the continued use, support and maintenance of all university computer laboratories. At the same time, the two IRT committees noted above are to modify and finalize the baseline plan for 1998/1999 and beyond.
This strategic plan envisioned the expenditure of nearly $4.8 million over a four-year period beginning in 1997/1998. These funds were to be drawn primarily from two sources: (1) the redirection of campus funds; and (2) resources allocated by the California State University system via the Chancellor’s Technology Initiative. Given the reluctance so prevalent throughout the university to further reduce already inadequate operating budgets, it seems unlikely that the first alternative will produce a great deal. Whether the second will produce needed funding remains questionable given other resource allocation priorities in California. Problems associated with the lack of resources to implement even the first year of the plan were compounded by the lack of consensual agreement on the part of key academic and administrative leaders regarding how best to proceed. Thus, although the BATS document was completed in time to meet the Chancellor’s Office deadline for submission, all involved recognized that further defining discussions were necessary before definitive action could be taken.
Concerns Regarding the BATS Plan
While all divisions were represented on the BATS Committee, time pressures associated with getting the final document to the Chancellor’s Office prevented extended consultation with all those impacted by its recommendations. The Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs and Information Resources and Technology agreed that specific issues would be addressed prior to the implementation of the tasks identified for 1997-1998.
In an effort to examine the issues and concerns without divisional bias and in a democratic manner, a new campus task force was established. The charge to the committee was multifaceted but includes expenditure recommendations to the University’s Budget Committee. The task force includes representatives from every division, except University Relations (at their request) and is chaired by Professor Jacques Benzakein, Chair of Foreign Languages.
In meetings with President Karnig, the Vice-President of IRT and the VP of Academic Affairs, the task force was instructed to think strategically and not to restrict its recommendations on the basis of today’s coffers. Rather, the task force is to think long-range with regards to decisions and programs which will impact the campus futuristically.
Exacerbating these already complex issues is the unknown role of CETI (discussed in Section 4B-3, Scholarly Activities and Support). It is clear, for example, that as a result of on-going discussions the CSU in general, and CSUSB specifically, must establish hardware and software standards. Relatedly, numerous sub-committees are exploring a plethora of important topics. These include revenue generation, intellectual property rights, a CSU help desk, training and support for IT professionals and end-users, baselines for telecommunications infrastructure, etc. The CETI undertaking is critically important and can have a profound and long-lasting impact on all of the CSU. Its ramifications and implications are substantial and substantive. What remains unknown is the degree, depth and breadth that these changes will have. Once these and many other issues are resolved, CSUSB will be in a much better position to chart its future. It is hoped and expected that the CSU commercial partners will bring many strengths to the CSU. But the magnitude of the final outcome can only be guessed, at present. The expectations are high, as are the intricacies involved in redirecting an institution as large and complex as the CSU.
Distance Learning
The university’s entry into distance learning began in the mid-1980s with the implementation of an ITFS connection between the home campus in San Bernardino and its branch campus in the Coachella Valley. The intention was to eventually deliver one-third of the classes offered at the Coachella Valley Campus (CVC) via ITFS. This objective was never realized for a variety of reasons including the fact that the university never made an institutional commitment to the installation and maintenance of needed equipment, the provision of support staff and budget, and the training of faculty. By the early 1990s only an occasional class was being offered using this methodology.
During the 1993/1994 academic year the university received a South Coast Air Quality Management District grant of $446,000 for the installation and testing of a compressed video distance learning system. The latter would link the home campus in San Bernardino with CVC in Palm Desert, Copper Mountain College (CMC) in Joshua Tree, and Palo Verde Community College (PVCC) in Blythe. During the grant period the new wing in Pfau Library came on line, including several distance learning studio classrooms in the Academic Computing and Media (ACM) portion of the basement. The grant funded the purchase and installation of compressed video equipment at each site, and the operational costs associated with a trial period. Enterprising faculty designed and taught classes delivered over the system, and the transmission of courses between San Bernardino and CVC was quite successful. Unfortunately, the PVCC site had to be abandoned shortly after the trial period because of connectivity costs, and the CMC site, while still in service, has never reached its full potential because of the lack of resources for instructional support.
As time passed, it became increasingly clear that the lack of a firm commitment by university leadership for distance learning as more than a convenient way to get classes to CVC continued to be a problem. In the late Spring and early Summer of 1996, an "Ad Hoc Committee on Coordination of Distance Learning" was appointed by Vice President Fernandez with the charge to "investigate the need for the appointment of a central person to direct the efforts of Academic Affairs division to develop a systematic method of implementing and sustaining a program of off-campus instruction and media-assisted learning." It concluded that the establishment within the Academic Affairs division of an office and the appointment of a Director of Distance Learning were critical, but also found that there were several matters that had to be resolved prior to these steps being taken including:
1. The full commitment of senior management.
2. A clear vision of where distance learning fits into the campus’ strategic plan and priorities.
3. A realistic budget for all operational aspects.
4. A better notion of the kind of distance learning program to be attempted.
The Ad Hoc Committee’s report became available in September 1996. In November 1996 a related report on costs associated with distance education was produced as part of the university’s strategic planning effort. While this report was quite comprehensive, it suffered from the failure of the university to adequately address points 2 and 4 above. The report tried to resolve critical cost questions without either a vision or a decision about a distance learning model to be pursued. Tactical/operational issues were being addressed without the strategic choices first being made.
On December 2, 1997, the Ad Hoc Committee presented a followup briefing to the Administrative Council, school deans, senate leadership, and other interested groups about the continued need for budgetary commitment and coordination of off-campus programs. After reviewing the history of what had been done in the past with off-campus and media-assisted learning at a distanceand the status of distance learning at present, the Committee recommended future directions the campus should take over the next few years. A comprehensive proposal for a Regional Cooperative Partnership with Community Colleges to deliver full degree programs at select sites throughout the two-county region was proposed.
The President has asked for a more detailed analysis of costs and budget projections and details of how to phase in this project. It seems clear that a coordinator for off-campus and distance learning will be appointed in Academic Affairs during the next few months.
Conclusion
Over the past seven years the university has made progress in the development of its technological base. This progress was made to a large extent because of two important factors: (1) an energetic building program which enabled the installation of a modern telecommunications infrastructure and the purchase of large amounts of equipment; and (2) the leadership of a few faculty and administrators who took advantage of the first factor to implement their visions of the possible. What is crystal clear is that the university has failed to address technological futures in a strategic fashion to provide direction and establish resource priorities. Perhaps most critically, there is no overall academic plan to be the guiding force for the development and implementation of instructionally related technology. As with other ventures undertaken in recent years, technology has been purchased and installed because it can be rather than as the result of strategic choices and careful overall university planning.
GO TO NEXT PAGE