SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang

•
•
S
Sang Nguyen
1 of 49
Download to read offline
Sang Nguyen Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 1410 Aspen Court Piscataway, NJ 08854 (732)-­‐501-­‐6203   Sang.nguyen@rutgers.edu   February 25, 2014 Donald Smith, PhD Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Office of Information Technology 56 Bevier Road Piscataway, NJ 08854 Re: Creating a Collaborative Information Technology Policy and Enhance Capabilities for Education through a New Strategy on Instructional Technology at Rutgers University Dear Dr. Smith: I would like to thank you taking the time out of your schedule to talk to me about Instructional Technology with the advice and encouragement you gave me for this proposal. As Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, you are aware of the need on a policy to bring together a community of support, collaboration, and standards for the use of technology throughout Rutgers. With many departments such as Digital Classroom Services (DCS), Office of Instructional and Research Technology (OIRT), The Center for Online & Hybrid Learning and Instructional Technologies (COHLIT), and other departments using technology, we see an inconsistent experience for the students and the faculty. One of the biggest reasons for this is a lack of guidance for the University because of no policy in place for training, online learning for all of Rutgers, collaboration between IT departments, and many other areas. I propose unifying and standardizing the use of Instructional Technology through a policy promoting Instructional Technologies, and expanding Distance Learning which many universities successfully achieved. This can greatly improve the experiences for the students and faculty, as well as increasing profits by increasing enrollments and technological funds. With your expertise, it would be my most sincere desire for you to grant permission to integrate my proposal within the university to enhance the students and faculty learning options. If you have any questions or comments please call me at (732)-501-6203 or email me at sang.nguyen@rutgers.edu at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you in the near future. Sincerely, Sang Nguyen
            Rutgers Information Technology Creating a Collaborative Information Technology Policy and Enhance Capabilities for Education through a New Strategy on Instructional Technology at Rutgers University Submitted to: Donald Smith, PhD Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Office of Information Technology 56 Bevier Road Submitted by: Sang Nguyen Writing for Business and Professions Spring 2014 Submitted on: May 1, 2014 If found, please return to: Dr. Sarbani Vengadasslam Room 036C – Murray Hall 510 George Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
i  |  P a g e     Abstract The lack of a policy to determine the best way for the University to standardize the experience of learning for the students and the teaching ability of the faculty through Instructional Technology has hampered the ability to provide a 21st century education. Without the proper guidelines to proceed with training on technology, how to effectively provide online learning, and a uniform experience for students throughout Rutgers New Brunswick, the University will be at a disadvantage when it comes to students choosing to enroll at a University. This proposal identifies models of success through several universities around the country. The plan outlines a way to use certain elements from the models of success to determine a policy to create a collaborative, innovative, and new learning experience for students and faculty at Rutgers New Brunswick. These are successful models that detail the plans on funding and planning the policy. The aim of this proposal is to take successful elements from different universities and help faculty understand the importance of technology in education today and the benefits students will receive. This will ensure a better education, be on the leading edge of technology, and increase interests in Rutgers New Brunswick. The proposal will help Rutgers stay a competitive university at the forefront of Instructional Technology for the future.
        ii  |  P a g e       Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................... ..................... i Table of Contents............................................................................................................... ii Table of Figures ................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................iv-v Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 The Problem with Our use of Instructional Technology ...................................... 1-3 Rutgers Student Survey......................................................................................... 3-4 Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 5 Washington State University ................................................................................ 5-6 Harvard University................................................................................................ 6-7 Pennsylvania State University .............................................................................. 7-8 University of Massachusetts ................................................................................. 8-9 University of Washington........................................................................................ 9 University of Arkansas ........................................................................................ 9-11 What We Can Do............................................................................................................. 11 Phase 1: Initiation ............................................................................................. 11-12 Phase 2: Reorganization .................................................................................... 12-13 Phase 3: Evaluation................................................................................................. 13 Phase 4: Budget................................................................................................. 13-14 Phase 5: Test ..................................................................................................... 14-15 Phase 6: Collect & Improve................................................................................... 15 Budget .............................................................................................................................. 15 Cost of Proposal................................................................................................ 15-17 Funding Source...................................................................................................... 17 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 18 Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 18 Complication.......................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 19 References................................................................................................................... 20-23 Appendix A: Email Correspondence ............................................................................... 24 Appendix B: Email Correspondence ............................................................................... 25 Appendix C: Survey.................................................................................................... 26-36 Appendix D: Sample Survey for RIT Through Qualtrics........................................... 37-42
        iii  |  P a g e     Table of Figures Figure 1-  Problems Reported by Faculty Members............................................................  1 Figure 2- 2014 Student Survey .......................................................................................... 2 Figure 3- Laptop Usage DCS............................................................................................. 2 Figure 4- Factors Affecting Adoption of Technology ....................................................... 3 Figure 5- Different Technology Usage.............................................................................. 4 Figure 6- Number Knew of Technology Training............................................................. 4 Figure 7- 24 sites Washington State University ................................................................ 5 Figure 8- What We Will Take From Each Model ........................................................... 10 Figure 9- Six Phase Plan.................................................................................................. 12 Figure 10- Budget Table .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11- Initial Expense Total ...................................................................................... 17
        iv  |  P a g e       Executive Summary Faculty and students require many tools to help them engage in education and instructional technologies are the way to help them with that experience. However, many universities including Rutgers University have been lagging behind on instructional technology. On the top of the list for problems is the lack of a policy to help faculty and students utilize instructional technology to its potential. Without a guideline to help choose what instructional technology is right for the students and a uniform experience for the Faculty and students, there will be a disservice to everyone. Many universities did not have a policy in place on how to train, when to train, or who would train faculty or students. This translated in lost class time to teach, which showed 68% of Rutgers students saw problems with technology in class. About 57% lost 10 minutes or more with technology problems in class before they were fixed. Now most of the problem can be attributed to equipment errors but about 63% of students believe the faculty member should take training even if they will not be using the technology. Overall lack of guidance, information, and imagination is keep Rutgers from advancing into the 21st . One critical change that must be done is a new Information Technology office to tie together all the other IT departments throughout Rutgers and to establish polices for instructional technology use. An example of this is Harvard University Information Technology, which was created in 2012 to bring the two main IT departments at the school. With the reorganization of the Office of Information Technology, they were able to collaborate better and faster than before. HUIT allowed for bigger projects to be streamlined and expedited, such as a single new email system for all of Harvard being pushed within 6 months instead of years. With HUIT they were able to develop policies to standardize the use of technology instead of each IT department developing their own. This allowed for better systems to be compatible and less funding was being wasted on redundant systems and projects. Various other models play on the single entity approach to Information Technology and were also able to push for greater ability to innovate. Models such as the 24 video conferencing sites from Washington State University, LifeSize video conferencing at University of Arkansas, and The Replacement Model of Pennsylvania State University. Each of these model shows the areas that Rutgers need to work on to give faculty and students an advantage to their education. The idea of Rutgers Information Technology is to have a new way of thinking Instructional Technologies and develop a new policy on how to improve each area of technology. RIT will successfully guide faculty on how to use instructional technology effectively and to innovate on what they should use for students. The 6 phases of will first initiate the process of creating the department of RIT and creating a committee of students, faculty, and IT leaders to push the use of different instructional technologies. Reorganization will then begin by accessing where to best have staff, how Rutgers feels about technology and what to use, and train. Next is Evaluation of hardware, how the IT department are sharing information, and if the technology being used to effective to faculty and students. After that there we be a budget put in place for RIT, where accounting of funds is key to the success of Rutgers. Must ensure technology is changed and budgeted for 4-5 years and continually maintained properly. The fifth phase requires test of Videoconferencing, a streamlines online learning system where there is one access point, and implementing Digital Classroom Podiums for all of Rutgers. Lastly
        v  |  P a g e       to ensure all is being done to make RIT successful, we must collect data, surveys, feedback, and improve any areas of RIT. Budgeting for this is not always easy but initial investment of $237,727.50 will be a start. In order to test the effectiveness of videoconferencing a LifeSize system for 3 classrooms and 3 Lecture Halls is needed. This system allows for many possibilities of learning for faculty and students as well as a way for meetings and other uses. To encourage the use of technology there will be an incentive to faculty based on the performance of students and class. The bulk of the funds will hire 15 more student staff to help maintain the Digital Classroom Podiums and help with anything technology related once will fully standardized the classrooms at Rutgers. While we have to upgrade and develop single access point sites, most can be done in house saving Rutgers vast amounts of money. This may seem a daunting task but we have successful models to take from and there are many funding sources to supplement the cost. Just adding an additional $10 to the computer fee can bring in $650,000 for a 65,000 student enrolment. As we develop the online system the increase enrollment will increase the computer revenue. Since the state has been cutting funding we must look to new sources of income while being able to provide the best education, which can be done with RIT. Furthermore we can receive grants in technology, which have been funded about $90 billion. The effectiveness of this plan is key to success and RIT must provide what the faculty and students need and want. RIT will solve the dilemma have technology to use, how to promote technology, and how to teach the benefits of the technology. There will be difficulties but we must see it as a way to improve as we do not have the luxury of giving up before we know it did not work. RIT will push Rutgers into the 21st century and I ask you is Rutgers Technology RIT for us?
1  |  P a g e     Introduction The Problem with Our Use of Instructional Technology Rutgers has a very diverse student-body coming in many varieties of learning as well as many varieties of teaching to the students, which require many different approaches of engaging the students. This new age in education require more options for students to be able to successfully complete their degrees. This is where Instructional Technologies comes into play as it is a way for educators to improve their teaching abilities for the students of today. However, we are encountering many problems at Rutgers and other higher education institutions in the effectiveness and use of these tools. We have a system of Instructional Technologies created independently of each other with no uniformed procedure, lack of consistency, and redundancies in developing in different departments of Rutgers. For one there are different online software such as Sakai, Blackboard, Webwork, and other departmental web applications that have different user interfaces and capabilities that make it difficult for a student to use or a faculty member to utilize. Each student has to learn how to work these systems with little or no support. Likewise, faculty members have too many choices on how to use the online tools. About 44% of reported issues in Universities were equipment or lack of time to understand the technology with Rutgers being no different. At Rutgers the reported issues were 68% of the 53 respondents surveyed. This of course takes away time for the students to learn and frustrates the educators, which can lead to not using the technology provided and possibly giving the students who need more support through technology a disadvantage. “When student learning improves through the use of technology, faculty will increase their satisfaction with, and perhaps expand their use of, technologies” (Xu and Meyer, 2007). Another part of the problem is the lack of a centralized leadership to oversee the use of Instructional Technology. Without unifying the departments under a single leadership there is lack of communication for innovation and inconsistencies in the experience of Instructional Technology. There is also the possibility of redundancy in software and hardware, which can cost the university funds, when the funds can be better used somewhere else. “The  lack  of   technology  use   in  the   curriculum  may   not  entirely  be   the  blame  of   instructors.”   Figure  1:  Problems  Reported  by  Faculty  Members   Source:  2002  Barriers  to  Adopting  Technology
        2  |  P a g e     Factors such as no policy in place for how to coordinate between IT departments, how to train faculty and students, what the basic technology that should be used in the classroom, and how online classes should be conducted for all the schools is hampering the ability for the University to grow and improve. With a survey of students on the several aspects of technology use at Rutgers was conducted. Sixty-seven students (ranging from freshman to senior students in a variety of majors) responded. The results of 1 of the 34 questions asked shown in Figure 2 reflect the opinions of whether they used technology in the classroom show that 98.28% of the students responded yes. Students have been using technology in classes with an increase since 2007 to 2012 shown in Figure 3. The greater usage of technology used by student’s shows that the coming generations of students are more technology savvy and will want more access to technology. Faculty and Rutgers need to understand that students require more options on how to learn, technology will be the best option to help them. However, the constraints of faculty not wanting or understand the technology can hamper Rutgers progress. That is why training and foster positive experience with technology is needed at Rutgers. With 248 out of 355 classrooms on the New Brunswick campus having Instructional Technology, we are heading into the right direction, but with only 27 classrooms having the newly in-house built Digital Classroom podium and potentially increasing to 87 out the currently 248, we will have no standard on what technology is used in the classrooms. This would affect the educator’s abilities to use them. Out of all of the 248 Instructional enhanced classrooms, some are currently equipped with live video and audio streaming capabilities through the request for the equipment, and there is little to no use of using a learning management system or chat room to either gauge the students learning while in class or concurrently from online. Also feedback from students is little to none on the use of technology, which means we do not know what is effective and technology may not be used. The Figure  2:  2014  Student  Survey   Source:  Survey  March  25,  2014   Figure  3:  Laptop  Usage  DCS   Source:  Digital  Classroom  Services  
        3  |  P a g e     separation of The Office of Instructional and Research Technology, Digital Classroom Services, and other Instructional Technology departments leads to fragmented use of technology in different schools with different set of guidelines. Without understanding who you are teaching and how to teach, there is no way to implement an effective learning plan and without a central leadership to prevent “ill-defined policies and procedures such as motivation, time, and adequate resources” (Keengwe, Kidd, and Kyei-Blankson, 2008) we may not be able to move on with Instructional Technologies in the 21st century. In addition, in Fall of 2009, 3,183 students enrolled fully online courses which were a 155% over the previous Fall. While in Fall of 2010, an increase to 4,306 representing a 35.3 % increase occurred. Increase in online class for Fall 2010 was up 42.5% to 248 classes, which represents a trend towards more Instructional Technologies to support online courses. Although this does not compare to over 200,000 online enrollment at Penn State or over 150,000 at the University of Washington, we need to move towards more online offerings because “Institutions that fail to offer students and other clients easy access to their institutions through technology risk losing market share” (Phipps and Wellman, 2001). Rutgers’ instructional technology issues prevent the abilities of students and faculty to be fully engaged. With K-12 students already using video conferencing to chat with students around the world and iPads being used to replace textbooks and paper homework, the issues with technology at Rutgers will continue on for years to come. Students have been wanting faculty to use technology more, especially since the use of the Sakai, faculty have not been consistent and have not use the software to its fullest potential. For one there is information that could save the faculty time from answering questions about syllabus or office hours just by posting that information on Sakai. There is also faculty who do not use the software at all causing headaches for students who want to use the technology. Evidence of this problems for students, faculty, and Rutgers was shown through a survey conducted below. (See Appendix C, P. 24) Rutgers Students Survey The Rutgers student survey conducted ask many question on the use of technology by the Faculty. Many of the students had faculty using technology, but most did not use any new Figure  4:  Factors  Affecting  Adoption  of  Technology       Source:  2002  Barriers  to  Adopting  Technology    
        4  |  P a g e     technology such as video conferencing. 90% responded that a faculty member used PowerPoint and only 7% used video conferencing. Indicating that there is an exposure to suggested newer technology use. The survey also measured that 61% of students would take online classes while only 42% currently did. Some reasons students gave as to why they may take the online course were “Convenience”, “I like the freedom it lends to life and you can go as far as you wish without having to wait for the next class to learn more”, and “it enhances learning ability”. (Rutgers Survey, 2014). Another question I asked was Are there problems during class with technology? And 68% responded yes with 57% of the time the problem took 10 minutes or more to fix. This would cut time away from teaching, learning, and embarrassment from the faculty member. One solution may be training, which 63% believe Professors should take even if they do not use the technology in class. When it came a single access point software, 78.85% wanted to see this happen. Also 67.31% would want live video conferencing and web conferencing for a class if they could not make it to class. 84% of students did not know that Rutgers offered training for students and faculty. One other point is that 52% believe there is uniformity in the use of technology at Rutgers, which shows that their experience can vary greatly from good to bad on technology. This survey with just a handful of the questions chosen serves to reemphasize and support this business case. Figure  5   Figure  6:  Number  Knew  of  Technology  Training   Source:  Survey  March  25,  2014     Figure  5:  Different  Technology  Usage   Source:  Survey  March  15,  2014  
        5  |  P a g e     Literature Review Instructional Technology can be any technology that will help aid faculty teach students the course, extend the abilities of the faculty, and improve the learning experience of students. As students learn more with the aid of technology, University have had to keep up with the demand to provide students and faculty the latest educational tools. To show that many University have gone about the same and sometimes different ways of approaching the problem of using the correct instructional technology for the students and faculty. We will look at several successful universities on why they need the technology, what they decided to use, and the results of using that technology. Majority of these universities have been developing their use of a particular technology for years while other have just recently begun such as Harvard. The universities I have chosen, though length of time may be an issue, demonstrated to the best successes of a particular technology and fostered a collaborative and innovate environment that Rutgers should seek. After reviewing each school I hope to take certain aspects of each program to develop one that is suited for Rutgers. Washington State University-Pullman Washington State University looked into a way to enhance the capabilities of the University to educate. The option chosen was a video conferencing system that was capable of reaching anyone in the state or beyond. Creation of the Academic Media Services with the policy to provide courses through videoconferencing and any other interactive technologies (AMS Academic Policy, 2010) The system provide courses with the same credit bearing as the courses taken traditionally. Funding for the video conferencing system is the responsibility of the site requesting the course where the video conferencing system is located such as on another college campus across the state. Support was provided to faculty on the best way to use the system for their course. Through this system the faculty member can have exams at multiple locations and see everyone taking it. With this system the University was able to extend their reach for education. The University has about 24 conferencing sites throughout Washington State, which include about 33 classrooms and lecture halls with the videoconferencing capabilities. This allows for live synchronous or asynchronous classes for students who cannot make the trip to class or are not in the area to attend the class in person such as across the country. With students all over the state being able to take classes wherever they are, enrollment was able to increase per class where size of room was not an issue. One example is the College of Nursing, have a dedicated system to allow Figure  7:  24  sites  Washington  State  University   Source:  Washington  State  University  
        6  |  P a g e     simulations. One room for the simulation, another for students to observe, and a third for faculty to control the simulation. With the main campus able to distribute to 6 other sites on a daily basis running a class for 14 hours. The system allowed for an endless possibility of options to teach without worrying about having a room to hold all the students and the ability for all students to see what was happening. The University also has begun using web-conferencing software called Elluminate. Elluminate can allow online events from your computer such as meetings, class sessions, research seminars, online office hours, and collaborative sessions (Washington State University, n.d.) while simultaneously having a videoconference class. Elluminate also allows faculty and students to use Angel, Washington State University’s version of Sakai, as a live communications hub. The success of video conferencing at WSU with the 24 conferencing sites is the aspect that I will take for the plan. The ability to connect two different schools from across the state to teach a lesson will benefit Rutgers in allowing a new way to learn and increase enrollment. With the College of Nursing and School of Nursing at Rutgers on two different campus, a system where simulations can be conducted at one location and teach at both will greatly improve learning for students, teaching for faculty, and save time and money for the University. The idea to expand the capabilities through web conference can be achieve in the same way with Sakai through Adobe connect. Adobe connect is the answer to Elluminate as it is as free software provided by Rutgers and is relatively easy to use. Harvard University Instead of having the many schools at Harvard do their own Information Technology department independent of each other, the University created CIO Council to lead and advance university-wide IT strategies, policies, and standards, and to support the missions of both the individual schools and the University (Harvard University, n.d.). To carry out the CIO Council plans, Harvard University Information Technology (HUIT) was formed to develop a set of key initiatives that schools collaborate on to achieve a shared vision for IT at Harvard (Harvard University, n.d.). With this department they promoted a plan or framework for all schools to follow to make a more uniformed system, user friendly, help faculty and students, and foster communication with the whole University. A strategic plan was created that has 4 goals; 1) Service Delivery, 2) Strategy, Planning, and Compliance, 3) Capital Investments and Program Management, and 4) HUIT Workplace Development. The university developed an organization structure of 3 areas; Strategic, Administrative, and Service Delivery as shown in Figure 5. With the four values of HUIT; User-focused, Collaborative, Innovative, and Open, it helps Harvard ensure that they are providing an experience that is beneficial to the students, faculty, and the University. When Harvard transitioned to unify their IT groups during 2012-2013, the single centralized Information Technology department enabled the implementation of large-scale projects as well as making a more efficient and streamlined system. Overall during 2012-2013, satisfaction with HUIT services increased, with areas such as keeping the systems up and running saw a 63% to 67% satisfaction and helping you use technology effectively saw an increase from 37% to 40%. HUIT was able to help better serve the Harvard community and to promote new projects better. One project that would have taken months to start was the switch
        7  |  P a g e     over of the email system to a single client that was streamlined and expedited by the new HUIT organization. The policy creates a better structure and experience for training faculty, promote new technologies, and share information throughout the University The concept of HUIT and the uniform policy for technology for the whole University is what I will take for the plan. Rutgers Information Technology will be the HUIT of Rutgers providing collaboration and innovation between IT departments of each school. With a policy in place, as Harvard has done, to uniform the use of technology at Rutgers and how to effective train faculty to use them will provide a better education to students. Having one department provide training will also make it easier for faculty, students, and staff to get updates, know that there is only one place to go for help, and controlling the funding will help Rutgers. Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University was looking for a solution to improve their already successful distance education, which was developed in 1892. With the first program, the University provided one of the nation’s first program to help farmers in Pennsylvania. With the World Campus starting in 1998, they develop multiple technologies to help provide distance learning wherever you are 24/7. The same professors who give the traditional classes with the same materials and requirements teach the degree programs. In order to be study the major that you want, after being accepted through World Campus you must also be accepted to the College of the major you plan to complete. Through the requirements of World Campus, the students are able to earn the same exact degree as any student at the University. Of course the issue of Academic integrity is a concern at Rutgers and Penn State is no different. In order to make sure students adhere to the academic policy, some classes gave exams at a proctored location at an approved educational institution. Other exams might require a student to be on webcam to make sure that this was the right student to take the test or the webcam would be used to record students conversations among their classmates through live video conferencing to earn oral exam credits. As World Campus progressed over the years With increase in Online Distance Learning the university needs to have a comprehensive program or be left behind and with The Replacement Model (Twigg, 2003) that Penn State uses, their program has successful enrolled over 200,000 students for Distance Learning. The university was able to increase enrollment by over 96% since 2008 with the World Campus program. In 2012, the enrollments online alone totaled about $80 million. With tuition online costing $6,327 compared to the traditional education, which is $13,932, savings of half allow them to study wherever and receive a degree that was no different from the traditional way. This cost savings was also a higher return for the University since students enrolled online didn’t need facilities to support them except for the servers and instructors. They have reduced class-meeting time, replace face-to-face time with online, reduce lectures from three to one per week, and utilizing computer –studio labs for individual and collaborative activities. About 30% of lab time is elaboration of concepts, 60% on computer-related work and discussions and 10% for quizzes. “Various  factors   inhibit  the  adoption  of   new  technology,  but   corrective  measures   can  redress  many  of   the  problems.”    
        8  |  P a g e     Students are tested about five to seven times with a Readiness Assessment Tests (RATS), which have been effective in detecting problems students may have in a certain area. The standards of World Campus where the degree is no different online or traditional and The Replacement Model is what I will take for the plan. Classes that can be fully replaced online will save money for the university and students, but not all classes can be put on this model. Determining was classes should be fully online can be looked at by what classes Penn state chose to provide one World Campus. Rutgers can also utilize the World Campus idea of not offering a different degree for online and traditional but rather offer the same standards to ensure whether online or traditional, you are earning a Rutgers degree. With the same academic integrity policy for online learning and replacing lectures to being online will help Rutgers achieve a high rate of enrollment as well as increase revenue since Rutgers state funding has been declining. This is one example that can help ensure Rutgers has funding and with the results Penn state has seen I seen great possibilities for Rutgers to achieve the same results. University of Massachusetts-Amherst University of Massachusetts Office of Information Technologies is a single entity that seeks more collaborative approach between departments for a technology strategy in academia and research and administrative computing. Office of Information Technology oversees learning management systems, classroom technologies, network, email, phone, help desk, and administrative services runs smoothly and effectively. With this single department whom oversees the university, they are better able to provide a consistent and reliable instructional technology service. Likewise University of Massachusetts online allows the expansion of instructional technology experiences and provide more educational opportunities. The University of Massachusetts system like many other online system is used as the main tool for online learning for all of University of Massachusetts instead of each school and college developing their own. The need to make it easier for students to login, have all courses from different schools, and making it easier by just having one access point for all online software allows UMass to be successful in the online experience. Through the use of The Supplement Model (Twigg, 2003), University of Massachusetts kept traditional class structure but instead added technology for out of classroom activities. It was a way to create an active learning environment within a large lecture hall setting supplement by technology (Twigg, 2003). Students would look at objectives and key concepts online before heading to class and did online quizzes. These reduced class time because the instructor could gauge the level each student was at and tailor the class time to the student’s needs. ClassTalk was used to allow interactive response to problem solving activities while in class. Through the redesign of classes, attendance in class average 90% instead of 67% under traditional classes. Exams were also redesigned in that more questions became reasoning or problem-solving skill questions and less factual material or definitions of terms. UMass Online course enrollments increased 11% in 2010-2011 from 2009-2009. With increase enrollment and no difference when it came a traditional degree and an online one, revenue in FY2011 increased 16%. I will be taking from University of Massachusetts their UMass online format of having certain lectures still being traditional with technology supplement. The idea of one access point
        9  |  P a g e     for the online system is important since currently Rutgers uses blackboard, eCollege, and Sakai but instead using Sakai as the access point to all other online software will make it easier and attract students. Since not all classes can be completely online and the success that University of Massachusetts has had with this model, I see no reason why we cannot utilize certain aspects of their program. Taking the ClassTalk idea can bring a new level of interaction between students and faculty especially by using it during a class as an instant messaging system can help students ask questions. I will also use the concept of the single entity of OIT. Like HUIT the idea of one department oversee all the schools IT departments will streamline and simplify processes, policies, and technology. University of Washington University of Washington Online has been around for over 20 years with the same access to education as Penn State. To help students with options to earn a degree, improve on knowledge, and to take courses wherever they are, UW Online was developed. Each school or department oversees the programs and courses to ensure that the requirements are met even though the students are going through online learning. The University provides 125 certificate programs, 35 master’s degree programs, bachelor degree completion, course, workshops and other courses spanning over 75 fields. (UW Online, 2014) The school also offers free mini- courses to expand your knowledge. They also offer Faculty Development, an online training site for faculty to learn about technology and how to use them. There are simulations to go with the material they are studying and modules for technology training. With IT connect the training becomes a one stop shop to help faculty utilize instructional technology to the fullest. The faculty can also find software, tools for teaching, technology for places to teach, help from staff, and share knowledge on teaching through IT connect. UW online has been very successful since it started in 1990; the online distance learning program attracted over 100,000 enrollments for 2011-2012 semester. With such a large enrollment from online courses this allowed the University to receive revenue with little cost to operate. During 2012 the revenue collected was about $54.2 million compared to 2011 of about $42.6 million, which was a 27% increase. Gross revenue for the University in 2012 was $131.1million, which is a 17% increase from 2011’s $108.4 million. The amount of revenue from UW online allowed the University to pay $19.8 million of the faculty salaries. (UW Year in Review, 2012) UW will offer us the training policy needed in the plan where there is an online one-stop shop for all resources on technology to staff, faculty, and students. I will also take the idea of free mini-courses as it may attract students to consider taking a full online course. Offering as many degree options, certificates, and workshops as University of Washington will help us be more diverse, which can attract students. There model for online learning will be used to help increase enrollment while providing options to learning and technology to use. University of Arkansas Arkansas dilemma was that the academic programs were growing and a need was required to have the video conferencing system be standardized to ensure a consistent
        10  |  P a g e     experience. Video conferencing was also an answer for a way to provide expanded educational opportunities with no regard to distance. There was a system in place but only offered two-way communication and no ability to have multiple people on the conference call from other locations. Classes had offered video recording but did allow for live streaming. With the nursing school needing to connect to the Medical Sciences, over 200 miles away, a more robust system was needed. The answer was the LifeSize video conferencing system, which was easy to maintain, lower cost for the student and University, and allowed for overflow classrooms where two classrooms could be connected. Standardizing the system help the University to provide the robust video conferencing system that was asked for and having Information Technology Services help ensure the University was collaborating between departments. The result was an increase of programs provided since having the video conferencing system, which allowed online only degrees via video. LifeSize gave the capability to integrate with blackboard and give more options for students to learn. Mock trials were conducted between University of Arkansas School of Law and University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s William H. Bowen School of Law. Overflow classrooms were created where if a faculty needed more space because of a large amount of students but there was no classroom big enough available, they just added another classroom and used the video conferencing system. Everyone also benefited in that you didn’t have to be tied to the computer but to any mobile device through the LifeSize ClearSea app where 10 different departments at the University utilized. The solution of using LifeSize gave the school the quality need to provide video service because of the detail needed for such thing as a simulation on the operating table. LifeSize is also very modular in that they have a lot of choices and ways to put a system together. Though the design of the LIfeSize system, you can customize to your needs for different rooms and requirements from faculty and students. This conferencing system gave the University the flexibility and ease to provide education anywhere in any situation. With the University of Arkansas, the LifeSize Video Conferencing System will give the RIT Harvard HUIT Uniform policies Training Penn State The Replaceme nt Model UW UW Online Training WSU Video and Web Services UMASS UMass Online UARK Lifesize ITS Figure  8:  What  We  Will  Take  From  Each  Model  
        11  |  P a g e     best flexibility, price, and opportunity to provide classes. The LifeSize Clearsea app is a benefit for the mobile students of today. The idea of using another classroom to increase the space size while on having one faculty conducting the class will allow for a better use of space. This can save the university cost of building new buildings or hiring new faculty. The constraints of space and not enough faculty can be resolved by taking University of Arkansas’ approach. What We Can Do My proposal is a new Instructional Technology policy to increase online capabilities both for online courses and in the classroom with better communication between the different technology services, leadership, faculty, and students. The plan would have 6 phases of first, Initiation phase will develop policy and RIT. Reorganization phase will evaluate the staff and training plan. The Evaluation phase is the process of looking at the capabilities of hardware, network, and whether departments collaborate. Budget phase will see how much upgrading with cost and how to maintain the operating cost. Test is the beginning of the Video Conference pilot program, and lastly Collect and Improve is needed to measure the success and failures of RIT and improve where we can. With each aspect of the models we should be able to achieve the right formula to help make Instructional Technologies effective for students, faculty, and Rutgers. For each phase there will be measurements taken to ensure we are meeting requirements such as whether the policy in place is consistent and agreed upon by each school. Feedback and survey on how the technology is being used, what technology we should use, how is RIT doing for the students and faculty, and many other areas concerned with keeping Rutgers competitive and cutting edge will be in place for each phase. Phase 1- Initiation 1. Creation of an Information Technology Committee to discuss a policy for technology at Rutgers- New Brunswick, how to best provide technology to students, what technology Rutgers will use to effectively educate students, and how to train on the use of technology The Committee will include a. Chief Information Officer b. One Faculty representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges c. One IT representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges d. One Student representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges 2. Develop policies a. Uniform technology for all of Rutgers University b. Training of faculty, staff, and students c. Use online learning with single access point d. Learning Management System e. Standards for using technology f. Sharing of information between IT departments
        12  |  P a g e     3. The creation of Rutgers Information Technology, to be overseen by the Chief Information Officer, will be the main department to tie together and ensure that all other IT departments continue to provide services that are tailored to their particular school. RIT will promote collaboration and innovation between each school, allowing the sharing of information and to eliminate redundancies. RIT will uphold to the Polices put in place throughout Rutgers University. 4. Feedback or comments about RIT, technology, online learning, or any concerns and Survey the student and faculty population on how RIT is doing, how to change, and survey that the IT departments are collaborating on projects will be conducted Phase 2 - Reorganization 1. Calls for an independent body to administer a university-wide assessment to determine the state and culture of the organization and how Instructional Technology tools best fit and serve the needs of its users 2. Determine best placement of staff to better utilize their skills 3. We will survey the student body on what technology they use and what technology they want to see used to enhance their learning. 4. Surveying the faculty on what technology they use, what technology they want to use, and introduce different technologies with ways to use them. 5. Help the faculty understand that their teaching techniques can also be supported with technology and to help promote more Instructional Technology where possible a. Have at training at least once in the fall and spring semester for faculty b. For any special equipment or classroom equipment for video conferencing, there will be a mandatory 1 hour training before using 6. Student and Staff training programs a. One website for all technology training b. Have training classrooms c. Be specific when training on using a technology d. Show all features and capabilities Ini3a3on   • Develop  an  IT  commi=ee   • Reorganize  into  RIT   • Policy   Reorganiza3on   • Staff   • Training   Evalua3on   • Hardware   • Collabora3on   • Survey   Budget   • Budget   • Incen3ves   • Feedback   Test   • Online  Classes/Sakai   • Digital  Classroom  Podium   • Pilot  Video  Conferencing   Collect  &   Improve   • Survey   • Budget   Figure  9:  Six  Phase  Plan
        13  |  P a g e     “MOORE’S  LAW:  EVERY  18   MONTHS  COMPUTERS  ARE   TWICE  AS  FAST,  BUT  ALSO   EVERY  18  MONTHS   COMPUTERS  ENERGY  USAGE   IS  CUT  IN  HALF”     –DR.  DONALD    SMITH   e. Allow for hands-on training 7. Advertise training via email, facebook, twitter, Targum, dining hall table stands, and any other sources possible 8. Identify technology leaders who have an understanding of technology tools and methods and how they fit with teaching and learning practices. 9. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 3 - Evaluation 1. Inspect computers, network, serves, and any technology equipment used for education 2. Replace equipment base on the standards set forth for the whole University that is 4-5 years or older 3. Ensure IT departments are collaborating and innovating 4. Check that instructional technology is being used effectively 5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 4 - Budget 1. Reevaluate budget while keeping in mind that technology needs to be replaced between every 4-5 years 2. Separate budget from student services and create a separate budgeting area for information technology 3. Create plan for budgeting technology as an investment, capital funding, and operating to better understand where money is spent, and to reduce waste 4. Develop an incentive program for faculty to use instructional technology a. Must use an instructional technology such as Sakai or video conferencing to allow synchronous and/or asynchronous access to information such as syllabus, chatroom, resources, schedule, and gradebook b. Measure of student grades with greater than 68% of the class having a B or better to be considered for incentive
        14  |  P a g e     c. Measure of student rate of overall quality of the course of 70% or above with responses of good and excellent d. Measure who had the most usage of any technology other than just laptops, iClickers, PowerPoint, and Sakai. 5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 5 - Test 1. Video conferencing pilot program a. Purchase system i. 3 for classroom ii. 3 for Lecture Hall b. Install systems c. Test system i. Bandwidth speed ii. Video quality iii. Sound quality iv. Minimum system requirements v. Integration with Sakai vi. Integration with adobe connect vii. Buffer issues d. Find faculty interested in testing for a class e. Test for 2 years f. Collect data on usage, effectiveness with faculty and students, and on any issues technical or human errors 2. Online distance learning a. Integration of all the schools online courses into a single access point b. Hybrid class of half traditional students and half online students i. Test the possibility of larger class size without a larger classroom ii. Test video and web capabilities c. Integration of video streaming system 3. Sakai a. Develop into one-stop access point for Learning Management System b. Train faculty on possibilities with system c. Integration of live web chat during class 4. Digital Classroom Services a. Continue to install Digital Classroom Podiums b. 214 left planned completion within 3 ½ years c. Plan to implement DCP standards University-wide d. Hire 15 student staff to help with the increase in classrooms, to allow better coverage and response to trouble calls
        15  |  P a g e     5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 6 – Collect & Improve 1. A survey will be conducted to determine whether the goals during the Initiation phase were met or whether we need to meet them. We will survey a. Staff, students, and faculty on satisfaction of RIT a. How uniform each school’s technology experience is b. Where we need improvement c. Is the correct technology being used d. Ease of use of Sakai e. Thoughts on Video Conferencing f. How training is being conducted g. How is information being broadcasted h. How helpful RIT is 2. Collect data a. Measure usage of each technology b. Measure the amount of trouble calls before and after faculty training on technology c. Measure amount of retention in Video Conferencing pilot program d. Measure grades of students in Video Conferencing pilot program e. Measure amount of enrollment for online learning f. Measure the grades of online learning 3. Improve areas that do not meet requirements. Change will always happen and you may need a new approach to the problem but must uphold to the standards put in place by policies. Budget Cost of Proposal An initial investment of $237,727.50 will cover the cost of additional student staff, the video conferencing system pilot program, with new signage for RIT, and faculty incentive. The additional operating cost will be the additional student staff and the faculty incentive. Currently Digital Classroom Services is employing 40 part-time students at a rate of $10 per hour; additionally the plan will need 15 more students costing $144,000. For the LifeSize Video Conferencing System, a quote from Digital Classroom Services puts it at $15,000. For the Pilot program we will need to install 3 more classrooms and 3 more Lecture Halls with the video system costing $90,000. Lastly for the faculty incentive program $2,000 for top faculty will be rewarded. Many software’s such as Google Hangouts and Adobe Connect are free to the Rutgers community. Software such as Sakai and the RIT website are also free because of in house development through Rutgers at no extra cost since it has been budgeted already. The additional  
        16  |  P a g e     upgrades of classrooms with Digital Classroom Podiums have already been planned prior to this proposal through Digital Classroom Services and are not budgeted here. The operating cost for this plan will include the additional 15 student staff and the incentive since these are annual cost. For 15 student staff and the faculty incentive the cost will be $146,000. In order to understand the impact of Technology at Rutgers, the operating cost and any investment into technology must be Expense Revenue Small Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums $0 x 4 = $0 Large Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums $0 x 4 = $0 Adobe Connect (currently) $0 Google Hangout Free LifeSize Video Conferencing w/3 year service $15,000 x 6 = $90,000 Initial cost Faculty Incentive $2,000 Signage Single Insert Holder $74.25 x 10 = $742.50 Signage Insert $97.50 x10 = $975.00 Business Cards 250 count $10 NJ Edge (currently) $0 Additional Student Staff (part-time) 15 x $9,600 = $144,000 annually RIT website (in House) Free Sakai Free Online Enrollment $2,679 x 2,000 students = $5,359,000 Additional Tech Fee $10 x 65,000 students = $650,000 Computer Fee (Currently) $153.50 x 65,000 = $9,977,500 Total $237,727.50 $15,986,500 Total Operating $146,000 $15,986,500 Figure  10:  Budget  Table  
        17  |  P a g e     separated from any other expense. The requirement of 4-5 years equipment replacement is different from capital funding. Additional cost such as material for training, renewal of certain software, and new equipment will have to be considered during the budget phase. A complete evaluation of the state of the technology will be conducted to determine what hardware and software needs to be upgraded keeping in mind that anything technology more than 4 years old will be upgraded best on the needs of the university. Funding Source Revenue through tuition as a computer fee is currently $153.50 per student with about 65,000 students totaling $9,977,500. Increasing the computer fee by $10 an additional $650,000 can be added to the revenue for technology. The additional $10 alone can cover the initial investment of $237,727.50 with revenue to pay for upgrades and operating cost. To further supplement the cost, LifeSize has a Grant Assistance Program that will help the University locate a grant to help pay for technology. Total amount from grants is $90 Billion. With tuition from online enrollment can also offset the cost by charging half of the current in-state undergraduate tuition of $5,359.00, online would pay $2,679.50. At 2,000 online undergraduate students and $2,679.50 the total revenue would be $5,359,000. Many software are also free to the students and faculty reducing cost. Google Hangouts and Skype are free and Adobe Connect will be license through the university. If need be Rutgers can partner with companies such as Apple to possibly have a discounted rate on bulk orders of computers or even not have any cost incurred if we guarantee that we will upgrade with them every 4 years. With increase in enrollment from distance learning, partnerships with companies such as Microsoft or Sony, funding from the Department of Education and Cyberlearning and Future Learning Technologies (National Science Foundation, 2013) grant with funds of about $18,000,000 for example, we can offset some if not all the cost. 38%   1%   1%   60%   IniWal  Expense  Total   $237,717.50   LifeSize   Incen3ve   Signage   Student   Staff     Figure  11:  Initial  Expense  Total
        18  |  P a g e     Discussion This Rutgers Information Technology and policy have great aspirations. RIT is a new start for information technology at Rutgers. In order for Rutgers to provide and be competitive in the 21st Century, we must leave behind the old ways and embrace the new. The main reason for RIT is the fact that Rutgers has no policy in the use of Instructional Technologies, no guidance on how to train faculty, and no collaboration with in Rutgers to give students a better educational experience. Many universities have reorganized themselves and embraced new technologies that have brought success to the school, students, and faculty. There are many parts to the plan from RIT, Policy, Training, Online learning, Sakai, and Video Conferencing, which are the major areas Rutgers must change as we are doing a disservice to the Rutgers community if we do not. The 6 Phases ensures we will be successful though there may be challenges and a budget is required, but the results of this plan outweigh the risk. Without changing Rutgers will lose time for students to learn, increase enrollment, being the cutting edge of instructional technology, and being competitive in the 21st Century. Evaluation The most important process is the ability to measure what you are doing. In order to fully understand whether the plan is working we must collect data and improve if we can. Satisfaction from students on the use of technology is a good place to start. This measurement can help us determine whether the faculty knows how to use the technology and whether the technology is the right one for the students. Tracking the progress of grades from the beginning of the class till the end and comparing to past class that did not use technology will help us determine the students learning ability and the faculties teaching ability. Amount of enrollments and the retention of students for additional semesters. We can also measure the dropout rate for online classes and any classes utilizing technology more than just laptop and PowerPoint. Usage of technology such as Sakai can show what features students and faculty prefer to use more. Also surveys and feedback will help improve and determine the technologies that are successful. No matter what phase of plan we are in, there will be a way to measure the success of RIT. Complications With such a drastic and wide change, there are many complications that can arise. The cost to upgrade networks, cables, servers, and computers can be a daunting task let alone funding it. Faculty may not want to use the technology or not want to train. Student may decide not to take classes online or use the technology offered. There could be a barrier in cooperation between departments keeping them from sharing ideas and companies may not cooperation in technology partnerships. Technology sometimes do not want to work together, which can hamper our ability to bring a uniform system for Rutgers. The partnerships between Rutgers and companies may not be viable or the technology we are looking for is not on the market. The enrollment for online classes may not be where we want it. With any of these complications there is a solution that we can find. The biggest complication is giving up before we know if the plan works and so we must stick to the plan and measure the result to determine whether we went in the right direction or not.
        19  |  P a g e     Conclusion The 21st Century requires a University on the cutting edge of Instructional Technology but we must also use them in an effective learning and teaching way. Initiatives from the leadership, University-wide Committee- Near and Long-Term Impact of Instructional Technology (Barchi, 2014), are starting with the plan on using more Instructional Technology. After I was researching the different universities on the use of Instructional Technology and how successful they are, I believe translating and modifying what they did to Rutgers is possible but not without issues. Our current system for distance learning and digital classroom is a step in the right direction but I believe we can do more to increase student and faculty satisfaction, increase enrollment, have more exposure for Rutgers, and possibly increase funding for The State University of New Jersey. Is Rutgers Technology RIT for the 21st Century?
        20  |  P a g e     References Aziz, Christian V. Personal Interview. 17 Feb. 2014. Butler, Darrell L., and Martin Sellbom. "Barriers to Adopting Technology." Educause Quarterly 2 (2002): 22-8. Print. Chough, Alex. "Leveraging Technology in Campus Change Initiatives: A Practice Brief Based on BEAMS Project Outcomes." Institute for Higher Education Policy (2008) Print. Georgina, David A., and Charles C. Hosford. "Higher Education Faculty Perceptions on Technology Integration and Training." Teaching & Teacher Education 25.5 (2009): 690-6. Print. Georgina, David A., and Myrna R. Olson. "Integration of Technology in Higher Education: A Review of Faculty Self-Perceptions." Internet & Higher Education 11.1 (2008): 1-8. Print. Grasha, Anthony F., and Natalia Yangarber-Hicks. "Integrating Teaching Styles and Learning Styles with Instructional Technology." College Teaching 48.1 (2000): 2. Print. Harvard University. "Harvard University Information Technology." Harvard University Information Technology. 2014. Web. <http://huit.harvard.edu/home>. LifeSize. “LifeSize Video solutions for Education.” LifeSize. 2014. Web. http://www.lifesize.com/en/solutions/industry/education. Keengwe, Jared, Terry Kidd, and Lydia Kyei-Blankson. "Faculty and Technology: Implications for Faculty Training and Technology Leadership." Journal of Science Education &
        21  |  P a g e     Technology 18.1 (2009): 23-8. Print. Olsen, Florence. "Report Details Options on Paying for Technology." Chronicle of Higher Education 47.37 (2001): A40. Print. Pennsylvania State University. "Penn State World Campus." Penn State Online.Web. <http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/>. Phipps, Ronald A., and Jane V. Wellman. "Funding the" Infostructure." A Guide to Financing Technology Infrastructure in Higher Education, Lumina–Foundation for Education: New Agenda Series 3.2 (2001)Print. Robert Barchi. "Initiatives for the First 100 Days of the University Strategic Plan." Rutgers Office of the President. 2014.Web. Feb 17, 2014 <http://president.rutgers.edu/public-remarks/letters/initiatives-first-100-days-strategic- plan>. Rogers, Donna L. "A Paradigm Shift: Technology Integration for Higher Education in the New Millennium." AACE Journal 1.13 (2000): 19-33. Print. Rutgers. “Budget Facts and Figures.” Budget Facts and Figures. Dec 20 2013. Web. <http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu>. Rutgers. "Office of Instructional & Research Technology." Office of Instructional & Research Technology. Dec 4 2013.Web. <https://oirt.rutgers.edu/>. Smith, Donald. Personal Interview. 3 Apr. 2014
        22  |  P a g e     Smyth, Robyn. "Broadband Videoconferencing as a Tool for Learner-Centred Distance Learning in Higher Education." British Journal of Educational Technology 36.5 (2005): 805-20. Print. Spotts, Thomas H. "Discriminating Factors in Faculty use of Instructional Technology in Higher Education." Educational Technology & Society 2.4 (1999): 92-9. Print. Twigg, Carol A. "Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning." Educause Review 38.5 (2003): 28. Print. Undergraduate Academic Affairs. "Digital Classroom Services." Digital Classroom Services. 2013.Web. <https://dcs.rutgers.edu/>. University of Arkansas. “Information Technology Services.” Information Technology Services. 2014. Web. <http://its.uark.edu>. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "Online Learning." UMASS Amherst Countinuing & Profession Education. 2010.Web. <http://www.umassulearn.net/about>. University of Washington. "Metrics: Overview." University of Washington Information Technology. 2012.Web. <http://www.washington.edu/uwit/metrics/index.html>. University Senate Instruction, Curricula, and Advising Committee. "Online Education at Rutgers University." 2010.Web. <http://senate.rutgers.edu/ICACOnS1015OnOnlineCoursesApril2011AsAdopted.pdf>. Washington State University. "Academic Media Services." Academic Media Services.
        23  |  P a g e     2014.Web. <https://ams.wsu.edu/index.aspx>. Wyrtzen, David. Personal Interview. 17 Feb. 2014 Xu, Yonghong (Jade), and Katrina A. Meyer. "Factors Explaining Faculty Technology use and Productivity." Internet & Higher Education 10.1 (2007): 41-52. Print.
        24  |  P a g e     Appendix A: Email David Wyrtzen, Associate Director, DCS
        25  |  P a g e     Appendix B: Email Dr. Donald Smith, CIO OIT
        26  |  P a g e     Appendix C: Survey 1.    Do  you  use  technology  for  any  of  your  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         65   98%   2   No         1   2%     Total     66   100%     2.    How  many  Professors  in  one  semester  use  technology  in  your  Classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   0         0   0%   2   1         1   1%   3   2         11   16%   4   3         14   21%   5   4         20   30%   6   5         16   24%   7   6         5   7%     Total     67   100%     3.    What  technology  do  most  of  your  Professors  use  often?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Laptop         51   76%   2   iClicker         26   39%   3   Projector         51   76%   4   PowerPoint         60   90%   5   BluRay  Player         1   1%   6   Sakai         56   84%   7   Online  Software   Program         15   22%   8   Video  Conferencing         5   7%   9   Wed  Conferencing         3   4%   10   YouTube         24   36%     4.    Do  you  take  online  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         28   42%   2   No         39   58%     Total     67   100%   6.    Is  the  online  class  beneficial  to  you?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         25   49%   2   No         26   51%     Total     51   100%    
        27  |  P a g e     7.    Would  you  take  online  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         35   61%   2   No         22   39%     Total     57   100%   18.    How  often  did  a  technology  problem  happen  during  the  semester?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Never         0   0%   2   Less  than  Once  a   Month         11   31%   3   Once  a  Month         13   37%   4   2-­‐3  Times  a  Month         7   20%   5   Once  a  Week         1   3%   6   2-­‐3  Times  a  Week         1   3%   7   Daily         2   6%     Total     35   100%   16.    How  long  did  the  problem  take  before  it  was  fixed?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   less  than  10  mins         15   43%   2   10  mins         9   26%   3   more  than  10  mins         11   31%     Total     35   100%     17.    How  often  did  a  technology  problem  happen  during  class?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Never         1   3%   2   1         12   34%   3   2         11   31%   4   more  than  2         11   31%     Total     35   100%         Total     52   100%    
        28  |  P a g e     5.    Is  the  online  class  adequate,  easy  to  use,  and  engaging?   Text  Response   The  online  course  structure  at  Rutgers  is  utter  bullshit.  The  course  I  am  in,  Soul  Beliefs,  attempts  to  create  a  conversational  dynamic  by  forcing   students  to  respond  to  a  prompt  assigned  to  them  and  then  ask  a  classmate  a  question  related  to  the  prompt  given  to  them.  The  teacher  then   responds  in  line  with  the  prompt  with  very  poorly  considered  replies  because  she  is  competely  overwhelmed  by  the  number  of  responses  she   needs  to  make  and  does  not  provide  any  useful  feedback  for  me  to  incorporate  into  my  thought  process.  The  structure  should  be  forced  to   include  some  sort  of  web  conference  and  atleast  a  few  ta's  to  accomodate  the  workload  they  take  upon  themselves  with  this  challenging   format.   Depends  on  the  class  itself.  If  the  professor  knows  how  to  use  the  sight,  yes.  But  I  have  had  professors  in  the  past  who  do  not  understand  how   to  upload  things  making  it  hard  for  the  students  to  find  the  materials  and  end  up  waiting  to  the  last  minute  to  do  assignments  because  they   were  hard  to  find.   Yes.   Yes  it  is.    Most  of  the  work  is  incredibly  immersive  despite  the  lack  of  a  classroom.   Yes   Yes,  the  online  class  is  easy  to  use.   yes   Adequate  is  the  right  word.  Not  as  easy  to  use  for  me  -­‐  what  more  for  older  people.  Not  quite  as  engaging  as  classroom  sessions   Not  really.   Yes  it  is  outstanding!   Yes   somewhat  adequate.  it's  hard  to  stay  focused  for  me.  it's  easy,  but  not  for  a  lot  of  students.  engaging  is  typically  based  on  your  level  of  interest   in  the  subject  matter.  for  me,  it's  not.   Yes   The  hybrid  course  I  took  was  engaging.   yes.  very  interactive  and  user  friendly   Yes   Not  engaging  enough  sometimes,  there  are  often  technical  difficulties  with  some  students  (sound  problems,  video  problems,  etc.)   Yes.   Yes   Yes   Yes.   No,  it's  uninteresting  and  hard  to  keep  on  top  of  the  work  without  face-­‐to-­‐face    interaction   9.    Did  you  know  Rutgers  offered  technology  training?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         9   16%   2   No         48   84%     Total     57   100%     10.    How  did  you  find  out  that  Rutgers  offered  technology  training?   Text  Response   Career  services  office.   Orientation   I  work  for  the  department  that  offers  the  tech  training  to  professors.   STAR  DAY   sakai  home  page   Word  of  mouth,  advertisements.   Some  of  their  jobs  more  or  less  entail  it.  For  instance,  the  computer  consultant  jobs  for  the  computer  labs  require  training.   Posters  around  Rutgers  buildings    
        29  |  P a g e     8.    Why  would  or  wouldn't  you  take  online  classes?   Text  Response   Too  hard.  Not  enough  benefit.   I  would  rather  have  the  environment  of  an  actual  classroom  rather  than  try  to  turn  my  home  environment  into  a  classroom  as  well.   Sometimes  over  the  summer  online  classes  work  out  really  nicely   They  are  easier  and  the  credits  stack  up  the  same.   I  like  the  freedom  it  lends  to  life  and  you  can  go  as  far  as  you  wish  without  having  to  wait  for  the  next  class  to  learn  more   Online  classes  gives  you  the  opportunity  to  be  more  independent  and  work  at  your  own  pace   flexiblity   i  learn  better  being  able  to  sit  through  a  lecture  in  person   like  to  attend  an  actual  class   Convenience.   I  need  to  have  a  full  time  job.   I  prefer  face  to  face  interaction  of  traditional  classes.   I  like  the  feel  of  physical  instuction.  Virtual  teaching  is  not  for  me.   I  would  take  one  because  it  is  more  convienent  and  it  places  a  lot  of  responsibility  on  me  to  do  the  work.   In  my  experience  online  classes  are  more  difficult  because  it  lacks  a  student  teacher  interaction  like  a  normal  class.   1.    I  need  face-­‐time  to  learn  properly.    2.    I  don't  trust  my  own  level  of  motivation  to  stay  up-­‐to-­‐date  on  online  classes/assignments.   Convenience   It  provides  me  the  opportunity  to  fit  school  in  around  my  work  schedule.   Ease  of  scheduling  conflict   I  took  online  classes  at  RVCC   If  there  was  an  online  class  that  I  wanted  to  take  or  needed  to  take  I  would.   it's  usually  a  convience  matter.  if  it's  the  only  class  offered,  i  do  it.   Same  reason  as  the  previous  question.   There  is  no  connection  with  the  instructor.  I  like  creating  some  type  of  connection  with  my  teachers.   I  would  take  an  online  class  to  help  save  the  amount  of  time  it  takes  to  travel  between  campuses  and  have  a  more  concise  learning   experience.   Convenience,  parking,  toll,  and  gas  costs.   See  Q8.   Easy  to  access  class  through  computer.   As  a  non  traditional  student,  online  courses  provides  a  way  to  balance  work  and  school.   allows  me  to  study  and  learn  course  material  at  my  own  pace,  on  my  own  schedule   I  would  prefer  going  to  in-­‐person  meets.   Online  classes  would  make  it  convenient  to  complete  the  work  assigned  because  I  would  be  able  to  do  it  on  my  own  time.  Also,  online   classes  would  allow  me  to  learn  the  material  and  do  the  work  at  my  own  pace.  Sometimes  professors  teach  too  slow  and  sometimes  they   teach  too  fast.   I  do  enjoy  my  online  class,  but  since  I  tend  to  procrastinate,  most  online  classes  would  be  too  much  work  for  me  to  keep  up  with   Convenience   It  enhances  learning  ability.   If  I  had  no  other  choice  and  needed  the  class.   Allows  for  more  freedom  in  my  schedule  and  for  other  students  who  need  jobs  to  support  themselves  while  in  school.   I  would  take  it  because  it  would  mean  I  didn't  have  to  go  to  class.  But  I  wouldn't  take  it  because  its  very  impersonal  and  you  never  meet   who  your  prof  is  or  interact  with  them.   Commute,  and  work  schedule   Convenience   I  would  fall  behind,  and  I  prefer  talking  to  people  in  person.   I  would  take  qualitative  online  courses.   I  wouldn't  take  an  online  class  because  I  dont  like  how  reclusive  it  it.   Because  its  not  the  same  as  seeing  someone  in  person.   To  me,  traditional  classes  and  online  classes  don't  make  that  much  of  a  difference.  I  feel  like  I  would  be  more  likely  to  procrastinate  or  lose   track  of  assignments  if  everything  was  online.  Also,  I  do  not  want  to  pay  extra  online  course  fees  for  a  class.   19.    Do  you  ask  for  help  with  Sakai  or  click  on  Help  button  on  Sakai?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         3   6%   2   No         49   94%        
        30  |  P a g e     11.    Will  you  take  training  on  technology  from  Rutgers?  Why  or  Why  not?   Text  Response   No,  Don't  need  it.   depends,  only  excel  vba  or  regression  specific  software  like  sass  interests  me   No.  No  time.   No,  because  I  do  not  necessarily  need  it  at  this  time.   If  I  really  needed  training,  yes.  However,  the  types  of  software  I  use  for  class,  they  teach  me  how  to  use   No.  I  dont  ned  it.   I  would  like  to  take  training  in  technology  from  Rutgers  because  I  believe  no  matter  how  much  technology  you  learn  about  there  is  always  more   about  technology  to  learn.   Yes,  I  believe  learning  more  and  becoming  more  efficient  with  technology  will  benefit  me  in  the  long  run  considering  the  world  we  live  in  today.   no,  don't  need  to.   No,  no  need  to.   I  would  if  I  knew  where  and  how   No,  do  not  need  it.   N/a   No  because  I  am  able  to  learn  on  my  own.   I  don't  think  it's  something  I  need.   Yes,  if  it  is  applicable  to  what  skills  I  need.   No  because  I  don't  need  the  additional  training  for  any  of  my  work.  What  i  know  now  is  more  than  enough  to  go  day  by  day  activities.   No,  because  most  of  tech  training  can  be  found  online   Personally,  no,  because  I  already  know  the  systems.    However,  if  I  didn't,  I  probably  would  take  the  training.   Yes   No.  I  don't  need  it.   I  would  if  its  free  and  for  applications  that  I  do  not  know  how  to  use  and  are  applicable  to  my  classes/future  needs   yes.  To  improve  myself   Probably  not  because  I  feel  I'm  fairly  savvy  with  tech   No   no.  i'm  an  IT  professional   Maybe,  I  have  to  see  my  course  requirements.   I  wouldn't  mind  taking  it.  I  just  have  no  interest  in  actually  doing  it.  It's  not  something  I  really  need.   I  do  not  believe  I  need  to  for  my  particular  major,  but  classes  that  require  use  of  databases  and  computers  usually  instruct  us  on  how  to  use   them.   No,  lack  of  time.   It  depends  on  what  types  of  training  are  available.    This  question  is  a  little  too  broad  to  be  answered  properly.   If  I  need  to,  sure.   If  it  is  not  a  requirement  most  likely  not  because  I    proficient  enough  to  get  my  assignments  done.   yes  if  it  is  a  practical  course  for  my  studies   No,  because  there  is  no  real  need.   No  because  I  do  not  believe  that  I  would  need  technology  training.  If  I  need  help  doing  something  online,  I  can  ask  a  friend  or  google  my   question.   No,  not  interested   No,  not  enough  time  to  warrant  it   No.  I  don't  need  it.   If  I  felt  the  need  to.   No.  Ill  be  done  in  October.   No.  unnecessary  for  me   No  because  I  do  not  have  any  problems  using  my  technology  that  I  have  now.   No,  I'm  good  with  technology  on  my  own  it's  my  major   I  don't  think  so  because  currently  my  level  of  technology  knowledge  is  suffiecent  enough  for  my  everyday  technology  use.   No,  because  I  don't  need  it.   Probably  not.  I  don't  have  the  time  and  I'm  fair  enough  at  using  it   No.  I  don't  think  I  need  training.       Total     52   100%   20.    Is  Sakai  being  used  effectively  by  Rutgers?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         43   83%   2   No         9   17%    
        31  |  P a g e     12.    Does  the  Professor  seem  proficient  in  the  use  of  technology?  Why  or  Why  not?   Text  Response   Yes   yes  in  their  limited  use  of  it   Somewhat.  Always  trouble  connecting  to  projector.   Yes,  they  keep  to  basic  uses  of  technology  such  as  Powerpoint  and  SAKAI  for  the  most  part.   Depends  on  the  technology.  If  it  is  a  software  that  they  made  or  use  daily  usually.  But  i  have  had  professors  no  know  how  to  use  a  projector   Some  do.  Depending  on  age  and  skill  with  the  equipment.   Yes   Most  seem  very  proficient.    One  of  my  professors  is  a  computer  scientist  and  another  was  a  CIO,  hence  they  are  very  proficient  at  technologies   usage.   Some  of  my  professors  are  tech  savvy  while  others  seem  to  prefer  using  a  chalkboard  after  struggling  with  the  new  technology  provided  by  the   school.   yeah   Yes,  the  professors  that  I  have  that  use  technology  are  very  good  with  what  they  select  to  use.   Some  do,  some  do  not.  Those  who  do  not,  should  have  tech  advisers  in  class.   Yes,  has  no  issues  while  using  it  in  class.   Yes.   yes,  based  on  the  software  we  use.   All  professors  I  have  are  very  proficient   Not  always.  Some  professors  have  a  lot  of  trouble  with  getting  the  new  monitor  systems  working  for  their  powerpoints.  Others  have  no   problems.  But  it  is  common  for  a  professor  to  have  an  issue  at  least  once  a  semester.   Some.  Some  have  trouble  setting  up  a  projector.  Some  have  trouble  setting  up  the  iclicker  station.   Most  times,  getting  through  the  simple  aspects   Most  seem  proficient  enough,  though  many  seem  to  only  understand  how  to  attach  a  VGA  laptop  to  the  supplied  VGA  wire  in  the  podiums.     Anything  past  that  would  be  asking  too  much.   No,  they  cannot  figure  out  sakai  at  all!   Some  of  them  do  and  some  of  them  don't.   To  some  degree  some  professors  aren't  very  competent,  probably  because  they  aren't  trained  properly.  Most  professors  have  a  fairly  good   sense  on  how  to  use  their  technology   Yes.  All  of  my  professors  are  up  to  par.   A  little  less  proficient.  Trouble  getting  things  to  work  sometimes   Yes   absolutely.  most  of  my  courses  are  IT  courses.   They  are  proficient,  they  post  class  material  on  Sakai,  all  the  time.   Most  of  them  do.   Some  professors  are  more  proficient  when  the  use  of  computers  is  frequent,  others  are  not  so  familiar  since  they  do  not  need  to  be.   Yes.   It  varies  widely.    Some  are  and  others  basically  only  use  email.    I  believed  they've  earned  enough  educational  credit  and  experience  in  the  field   to  run  their  courses  as  they  wish.   Yes,  most  of  it  seems  easy  to  use.   Some  of  the  technology  seems  more  complicated  to  professors.  Some  have  knowledge  of  the  equipment  while  others  struggle.   yes,  the  technology  used  is  sufficient  to  get  the  job  done  without  being  excessive   Most  of  the  time.  Sometimes,  there  are  technical  difficulties.   They  use  the  technology  that  they  use  in  a  proficient  way.  They  may  not  use  the  most  up  to  date  technology  but  they  know  how  to  use  the   technology  that  they  use.   Some  are,  every  professor  I  have  had  at  Rutgers  is  at  least  able  to  use  sakai  and  powerpoint.   Usually  things  go  okay  with  ppts  and  projectors,  but  there  are  always  problems  when  there  are  iClickers  involved.   No,  often  lost  and  confused.   Yes,  the  classes  run  smoothly.   No.  Each  time  we  have  new  teachers  they  have  problems  with  the  technology  we  use  for  our  online  classes.   Yes.  All  slides,  videos,  and  demonstrations  are  prepared  and  used  without  delay  in  class   Yes  for  the  most  part.   Some  are  and  some  aren't.  They  tend  to  release  material  the  wrong  way  or  the  wrong  assignments.  They  also  don't  take  into  account  the  time   factor  of  when  forums  open  and  close  with  the  amount  people  may  post  in  a  day.   Yes  because  there  are  rarely  any  technological  difficulties  and  when  they  do  occur  they  are  able  to  fix  them  promplty.   Yes  most  of  my  professors  are  proficient  in  the  use  of  technology.   Sometimes,  older  teachers  seem  to  have  more  trouble  in  getting  iClicker  /  powerpoint  projectors  to  work.   Generally,  yes.  Online  homework  has  been  a  problem  and  professors  all  keep  me  updated  through  Sakai.      
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang
Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang

Recommended

Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-Paper
Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-PaperAppendix-2-Experiential-Learning-Paper
Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-PaperCathy Clarke
 
texonomics_final_spreads
texonomics_final_spreadstexonomics_final_spreads
texonomics_final_spreadsKristi Shuey
 
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”Shaksly Snail
 
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learning
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep LearningDiscovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learning
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learningijtsrd
 
05 20255 ijict
05 20255 ijict05 20255 ijict
05 20255 ijictIAESIJEECS
 
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine Learning
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine LearningIRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine Learning
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine LearningIRJET Journal
 
University Technical College - Forensic Science
University Technical College - Forensic Science University Technical College - Forensic Science
University Technical College - Forensic Science Gary Howard MCSFS
 
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010URAP Research Center
 

Recommended

Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-Paper
Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-PaperAppendix-2-Experiential-Learning-Paper
Appendix-2-Experiential-Learning-PaperCathy Clarke
 
texonomics_final_spreads
texonomics_final_spreadstexonomics_final_spreads
texonomics_final_spreadsKristi Shuey
 
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”
“Students Attitudes Towards E-learning”Shaksly Snail
 
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learning
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep LearningDiscovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learning
Discovering Student Dropout Prediction through Deep Learningijtsrd
 
05 20255 ijict
05 20255 ijict05 20255 ijict
05 20255 ijictIAESIJEECS
 
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine Learning
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine LearningIRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine Learning
IRJET - Recommendation of Branch of Engineering using Machine LearningIRJET Journal
 
University Technical College - Forensic Science
University Technical College - Forensic Science University Technical College - Forensic Science
University Technical College - Forensic Science Gary Howard MCSFS
 
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2010URAP Research Center
 
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)Studiosity.com
 
DRP CIS590
DRP CIS590DRP CIS590
DRP CIS590Jamaz Hall
 
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 NovCase Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 NovTerry Vahey
 
SJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational MethodsSJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational MethodsMainstay
 
Cisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSUCisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSUMainstay
 
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_printUWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_printBen Robinson
 
Texas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R ChartTexas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R Charteahiggins
 
E votingproposal
E votingproposalE votingproposal
E votingproposalMorine Gakii
 
Presentation.pptx
Presentation.pptxPresentation.pptx
Presentation.pptxZyreneCapulong
 
Career science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,mathCareer science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,mathMukhlis Adam
 
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0Duduetsang Kgosi Mogase
 
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATIONIMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATIONIRJET Journal
 
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...Copywriter Collective
 
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...SEDA
 
Powering HE
Powering HEPowering HE
Powering HEJames Clay
 
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013Pamela Comer
 
Horizon Report Preview 2019
Horizon Report Preview 2019Horizon Report Preview 2019
Horizon Report Preview 2019eraser Juan José Calderón
 
Powering UK higher education
Powering UK higher educationPowering UK higher education
Powering UK higher educationJames Clay
 
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...IJCI JOURNAL
 
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATIONADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATIONClaire Webber
 

More Related Content

Similar to Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang

Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)Studiosity.com
 
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 NovCase Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 NovTerry Vahey
 
SJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational MethodsSJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational MethodsMainstay
 
Cisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSUCisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSUMainstay
 
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_printUWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_printBen Robinson
 
Texas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R ChartTexas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R Charteahiggins
 
Career science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,mathCareer science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,mathMukhlis Adam
 
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0Duduetsang Kgosi Mogase
 
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATIONIMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATIONIRJET Journal
 
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...Copywriter Collective
 
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...SEDA
 
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013Pamela Comer
 
Powering UK higher education
Powering UK higher educationPowering UK higher education
Powering UK higher educationJames Clay
 
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...IJCI JOURNAL
 
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATIONADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATIONClaire Webber
 

Similar to Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang (20)

Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
Data driven innovation for student success (Studiosity Symposium 2017)
 
DRP CIS590
DRP CIS590DRP CIS590
DRP CIS590
 
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 NovCase Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
Case Study Innovative Collaboration Technologies 2013 Nov
 
SJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational MethodsSJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
SJSU Pioneers New Educational Methods
 
Cisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSUCisco and SJSU
Cisco and SJSU
 
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_printUWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
UWIT_Annual.Report_2013_print
 
Texas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R ChartTexas S Ta R Chart
Texas S Ta R Chart
 
E votingproposal
E votingproposalE votingproposal
E votingproposal
 
Presentation.pptx
Presentation.pptxPresentation.pptx
Presentation.pptx
 
Career science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,mathCareer science,tech,eng,math
Career science,tech,eng,math
 
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
MIT 840 ICT Skills Shortage_Supply and Demand Mini Dissertation v1.0
 
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATIONIMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE AREA OF EDUCATION
 
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
1. nanyang technical university. school of material science & engineering pro...
 
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
Widening Access and Participation Dashboards for Data Informed Decision Makin...
 
Powering HE
Powering HEPowering HE
Powering HE
 
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
Week 5 assignment bcisd plan for technology 2010 2013
 
Horizon Report Preview 2019
Horizon Report Preview 2019Horizon Report Preview 2019
Horizon Report Preview 2019
 
Powering UK higher education
Powering UK higher educationPowering UK higher education
Powering UK higher education
 
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
USABILITY OF WEB SITES ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY BASED CASER (CLASSROOM ASSESSMEN...
 
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATIONADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
 

Proposal_2014_Nguyen_Sang

  • 1. Sang Nguyen Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 1410 Aspen Court Piscataway, NJ 08854 (732)-­‐501-­‐6203   Sang.nguyen@rutgers.edu   February 25, 2014 Donald Smith, PhD Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Office of Information Technology 56 Bevier Road Piscataway, NJ 08854 Re: Creating a Collaborative Information Technology Policy and Enhance Capabilities for Education through a New Strategy on Instructional Technology at Rutgers University Dear Dr. Smith: I would like to thank you taking the time out of your schedule to talk to me about Instructional Technology with the advice and encouragement you gave me for this proposal. As Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, you are aware of the need on a policy to bring together a community of support, collaboration, and standards for the use of technology throughout Rutgers. With many departments such as Digital Classroom Services (DCS), Office of Instructional and Research Technology (OIRT), The Center for Online & Hybrid Learning and Instructional Technologies (COHLIT), and other departments using technology, we see an inconsistent experience for the students and the faculty. One of the biggest reasons for this is a lack of guidance for the University because of no policy in place for training, online learning for all of Rutgers, collaboration between IT departments, and many other areas. I propose unifying and standardizing the use of Instructional Technology through a policy promoting Instructional Technologies, and expanding Distance Learning which many universities successfully achieved. This can greatly improve the experiences for the students and faculty, as well as increasing profits by increasing enrollments and technological funds. With your expertise, it would be my most sincere desire for you to grant permission to integrate my proposal within the university to enhance the students and faculty learning options. If you have any questions or comments please call me at (732)-501-6203 or email me at sang.nguyen@rutgers.edu at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you in the near future. Sincerely, Sang Nguyen
  • 2.             Rutgers Information Technology Creating a Collaborative Information Technology Policy and Enhance Capabilities for Education through a New Strategy on Instructional Technology at Rutgers University Submitted to: Donald Smith, PhD Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Office of Information Technology 56 Bevier Road Submitted by: Sang Nguyen Writing for Business and Professions Spring 2014 Submitted on: May 1, 2014 If found, please return to: Dr. Sarbani Vengadasslam Room 036C – Murray Hall 510 George Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
  • 3. i  |  P a g e     Abstract The lack of a policy to determine the best way for the University to standardize the experience of learning for the students and the teaching ability of the faculty through Instructional Technology has hampered the ability to provide a 21st century education. Without the proper guidelines to proceed with training on technology, how to effectively provide online learning, and a uniform experience for students throughout Rutgers New Brunswick, the University will be at a disadvantage when it comes to students choosing to enroll at a University. This proposal identifies models of success through several universities around the country. The plan outlines a way to use certain elements from the models of success to determine a policy to create a collaborative, innovative, and new learning experience for students and faculty at Rutgers New Brunswick. These are successful models that detail the plans on funding and planning the policy. The aim of this proposal is to take successful elements from different universities and help faculty understand the importance of technology in education today and the benefits students will receive. This will ensure a better education, be on the leading edge of technology, and increase interests in Rutgers New Brunswick. The proposal will help Rutgers stay a competitive university at the forefront of Instructional Technology for the future.
  • 4.         ii  |  P a g e       Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................... ..................... i Table of Contents............................................................................................................... ii Table of Figures ................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................iv-v Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 The Problem with Our use of Instructional Technology ...................................... 1-3 Rutgers Student Survey......................................................................................... 3-4 Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 5 Washington State University ................................................................................ 5-6 Harvard University................................................................................................ 6-7 Pennsylvania State University .............................................................................. 7-8 University of Massachusetts ................................................................................. 8-9 University of Washington........................................................................................ 9 University of Arkansas ........................................................................................ 9-11 What We Can Do............................................................................................................. 11 Phase 1: Initiation ............................................................................................. 11-12 Phase 2: Reorganization .................................................................................... 12-13 Phase 3: Evaluation................................................................................................. 13 Phase 4: Budget................................................................................................. 13-14 Phase 5: Test ..................................................................................................... 14-15 Phase 6: Collect & Improve................................................................................... 15 Budget .............................................................................................................................. 15 Cost of Proposal................................................................................................ 15-17 Funding Source...................................................................................................... 17 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 18 Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 18 Complication.......................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 19 References................................................................................................................... 20-23 Appendix A: Email Correspondence ............................................................................... 24 Appendix B: Email Correspondence ............................................................................... 25 Appendix C: Survey.................................................................................................... 26-36 Appendix D: Sample Survey for RIT Through Qualtrics........................................... 37-42
  • 5.         iii  |  P a g e     Table of Figures Figure 1-  Problems Reported by Faculty Members............................................................  1 Figure 2- 2014 Student Survey .......................................................................................... 2 Figure 3- Laptop Usage DCS............................................................................................. 2 Figure 4- Factors Affecting Adoption of Technology ....................................................... 3 Figure 5- Different Technology Usage.............................................................................. 4 Figure 6- Number Knew of Technology Training............................................................. 4 Figure 7- 24 sites Washington State University ................................................................ 5 Figure 8- What We Will Take From Each Model ........................................................... 10 Figure 9- Six Phase Plan.................................................................................................. 12 Figure 10- Budget Table .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11- Initial Expense Total ...................................................................................... 17
  • 6.         iv  |  P a g e       Executive Summary Faculty and students require many tools to help them engage in education and instructional technologies are the way to help them with that experience. However, many universities including Rutgers University have been lagging behind on instructional technology. On the top of the list for problems is the lack of a policy to help faculty and students utilize instructional technology to its potential. Without a guideline to help choose what instructional technology is right for the students and a uniform experience for the Faculty and students, there will be a disservice to everyone. Many universities did not have a policy in place on how to train, when to train, or who would train faculty or students. This translated in lost class time to teach, which showed 68% of Rutgers students saw problems with technology in class. About 57% lost 10 minutes or more with technology problems in class before they were fixed. Now most of the problem can be attributed to equipment errors but about 63% of students believe the faculty member should take training even if they will not be using the technology. Overall lack of guidance, information, and imagination is keep Rutgers from advancing into the 21st . One critical change that must be done is a new Information Technology office to tie together all the other IT departments throughout Rutgers and to establish polices for instructional technology use. An example of this is Harvard University Information Technology, which was created in 2012 to bring the two main IT departments at the school. With the reorganization of the Office of Information Technology, they were able to collaborate better and faster than before. HUIT allowed for bigger projects to be streamlined and expedited, such as a single new email system for all of Harvard being pushed within 6 months instead of years. With HUIT they were able to develop policies to standardize the use of technology instead of each IT department developing their own. This allowed for better systems to be compatible and less funding was being wasted on redundant systems and projects. Various other models play on the single entity approach to Information Technology and were also able to push for greater ability to innovate. Models such as the 24 video conferencing sites from Washington State University, LifeSize video conferencing at University of Arkansas, and The Replacement Model of Pennsylvania State University. Each of these model shows the areas that Rutgers need to work on to give faculty and students an advantage to their education. The idea of Rutgers Information Technology is to have a new way of thinking Instructional Technologies and develop a new policy on how to improve each area of technology. RIT will successfully guide faculty on how to use instructional technology effectively and to innovate on what they should use for students. The 6 phases of will first initiate the process of creating the department of RIT and creating a committee of students, faculty, and IT leaders to push the use of different instructional technologies. Reorganization will then begin by accessing where to best have staff, how Rutgers feels about technology and what to use, and train. Next is Evaluation of hardware, how the IT department are sharing information, and if the technology being used to effective to faculty and students. After that there we be a budget put in place for RIT, where accounting of funds is key to the success of Rutgers. Must ensure technology is changed and budgeted for 4-5 years and continually maintained properly. The fifth phase requires test of Videoconferencing, a streamlines online learning system where there is one access point, and implementing Digital Classroom Podiums for all of Rutgers. Lastly
  • 7.         v  |  P a g e       to ensure all is being done to make RIT successful, we must collect data, surveys, feedback, and improve any areas of RIT. Budgeting for this is not always easy but initial investment of $237,727.50 will be a start. In order to test the effectiveness of videoconferencing a LifeSize system for 3 classrooms and 3 Lecture Halls is needed. This system allows for many possibilities of learning for faculty and students as well as a way for meetings and other uses. To encourage the use of technology there will be an incentive to faculty based on the performance of students and class. The bulk of the funds will hire 15 more student staff to help maintain the Digital Classroom Podiums and help with anything technology related once will fully standardized the classrooms at Rutgers. While we have to upgrade and develop single access point sites, most can be done in house saving Rutgers vast amounts of money. This may seem a daunting task but we have successful models to take from and there are many funding sources to supplement the cost. Just adding an additional $10 to the computer fee can bring in $650,000 for a 65,000 student enrolment. As we develop the online system the increase enrollment will increase the computer revenue. Since the state has been cutting funding we must look to new sources of income while being able to provide the best education, which can be done with RIT. Furthermore we can receive grants in technology, which have been funded about $90 billion. The effectiveness of this plan is key to success and RIT must provide what the faculty and students need and want. RIT will solve the dilemma have technology to use, how to promote technology, and how to teach the benefits of the technology. There will be difficulties but we must see it as a way to improve as we do not have the luxury of giving up before we know it did not work. RIT will push Rutgers into the 21st century and I ask you is Rutgers Technology RIT for us?
  • 8. 1  |  P a g e     Introduction The Problem with Our Use of Instructional Technology Rutgers has a very diverse student-body coming in many varieties of learning as well as many varieties of teaching to the students, which require many different approaches of engaging the students. This new age in education require more options for students to be able to successfully complete their degrees. This is where Instructional Technologies comes into play as it is a way for educators to improve their teaching abilities for the students of today. However, we are encountering many problems at Rutgers and other higher education institutions in the effectiveness and use of these tools. We have a system of Instructional Technologies created independently of each other with no uniformed procedure, lack of consistency, and redundancies in developing in different departments of Rutgers. For one there are different online software such as Sakai, Blackboard, Webwork, and other departmental web applications that have different user interfaces and capabilities that make it difficult for a student to use or a faculty member to utilize. Each student has to learn how to work these systems with little or no support. Likewise, faculty members have too many choices on how to use the online tools. About 44% of reported issues in Universities were equipment or lack of time to understand the technology with Rutgers being no different. At Rutgers the reported issues were 68% of the 53 respondents surveyed. This of course takes away time for the students to learn and frustrates the educators, which can lead to not using the technology provided and possibly giving the students who need more support through technology a disadvantage. “When student learning improves through the use of technology, faculty will increase their satisfaction with, and perhaps expand their use of, technologies” (Xu and Meyer, 2007). Another part of the problem is the lack of a centralized leadership to oversee the use of Instructional Technology. Without unifying the departments under a single leadership there is lack of communication for innovation and inconsistencies in the experience of Instructional Technology. There is also the possibility of redundancy in software and hardware, which can cost the university funds, when the funds can be better used somewhere else. “The  lack  of   technology  use   in  the   curriculum  may   not  entirely  be   the  blame  of   instructors.”   Figure  1:  Problems  Reported  by  Faculty  Members   Source:  2002  Barriers  to  Adopting  Technology
  • 9.         2  |  P a g e     Factors such as no policy in place for how to coordinate between IT departments, how to train faculty and students, what the basic technology that should be used in the classroom, and how online classes should be conducted for all the schools is hampering the ability for the University to grow and improve. With a survey of students on the several aspects of technology use at Rutgers was conducted. Sixty-seven students (ranging from freshman to senior students in a variety of majors) responded. The results of 1 of the 34 questions asked shown in Figure 2 reflect the opinions of whether they used technology in the classroom show that 98.28% of the students responded yes. Students have been using technology in classes with an increase since 2007 to 2012 shown in Figure 3. The greater usage of technology used by student’s shows that the coming generations of students are more technology savvy and will want more access to technology. Faculty and Rutgers need to understand that students require more options on how to learn, technology will be the best option to help them. However, the constraints of faculty not wanting or understand the technology can hamper Rutgers progress. That is why training and foster positive experience with technology is needed at Rutgers. With 248 out of 355 classrooms on the New Brunswick campus having Instructional Technology, we are heading into the right direction, but with only 27 classrooms having the newly in-house built Digital Classroom podium and potentially increasing to 87 out the currently 248, we will have no standard on what technology is used in the classrooms. This would affect the educator’s abilities to use them. Out of all of the 248 Instructional enhanced classrooms, some are currently equipped with live video and audio streaming capabilities through the request for the equipment, and there is little to no use of using a learning management system or chat room to either gauge the students learning while in class or concurrently from online. Also feedback from students is little to none on the use of technology, which means we do not know what is effective and technology may not be used. The Figure  2:  2014  Student  Survey   Source:  Survey  March  25,  2014   Figure  3:  Laptop  Usage  DCS   Source:  Digital  Classroom  Services  
  • 10.         3  |  P a g e     separation of The Office of Instructional and Research Technology, Digital Classroom Services, and other Instructional Technology departments leads to fragmented use of technology in different schools with different set of guidelines. Without understanding who you are teaching and how to teach, there is no way to implement an effective learning plan and without a central leadership to prevent “ill-defined policies and procedures such as motivation, time, and adequate resources” (Keengwe, Kidd, and Kyei-Blankson, 2008) we may not be able to move on with Instructional Technologies in the 21st century. In addition, in Fall of 2009, 3,183 students enrolled fully online courses which were a 155% over the previous Fall. While in Fall of 2010, an increase to 4,306 representing a 35.3 % increase occurred. Increase in online class for Fall 2010 was up 42.5% to 248 classes, which represents a trend towards more Instructional Technologies to support online courses. Although this does not compare to over 200,000 online enrollment at Penn State or over 150,000 at the University of Washington, we need to move towards more online offerings because “Institutions that fail to offer students and other clients easy access to their institutions through technology risk losing market share” (Phipps and Wellman, 2001). Rutgers’ instructional technology issues prevent the abilities of students and faculty to be fully engaged. With K-12 students already using video conferencing to chat with students around the world and iPads being used to replace textbooks and paper homework, the issues with technology at Rutgers will continue on for years to come. Students have been wanting faculty to use technology more, especially since the use of the Sakai, faculty have not been consistent and have not use the software to its fullest potential. For one there is information that could save the faculty time from answering questions about syllabus or office hours just by posting that information on Sakai. There is also faculty who do not use the software at all causing headaches for students who want to use the technology. Evidence of this problems for students, faculty, and Rutgers was shown through a survey conducted below. (See Appendix C, P. 24) Rutgers Students Survey The Rutgers student survey conducted ask many question on the use of technology by the Faculty. Many of the students had faculty using technology, but most did not use any new Figure  4:  Factors  Affecting  Adoption  of  Technology       Source:  2002  Barriers  to  Adopting  Technology    
  • 11.         4  |  P a g e     technology such as video conferencing. 90% responded that a faculty member used PowerPoint and only 7% used video conferencing. Indicating that there is an exposure to suggested newer technology use. The survey also measured that 61% of students would take online classes while only 42% currently did. Some reasons students gave as to why they may take the online course were “Convenience”, “I like the freedom it lends to life and you can go as far as you wish without having to wait for the next class to learn more”, and “it enhances learning ability”. (Rutgers Survey, 2014). Another question I asked was Are there problems during class with technology? And 68% responded yes with 57% of the time the problem took 10 minutes or more to fix. This would cut time away from teaching, learning, and embarrassment from the faculty member. One solution may be training, which 63% believe Professors should take even if they do not use the technology in class. When it came a single access point software, 78.85% wanted to see this happen. Also 67.31% would want live video conferencing and web conferencing for a class if they could not make it to class. 84% of students did not know that Rutgers offered training for students and faculty. One other point is that 52% believe there is uniformity in the use of technology at Rutgers, which shows that their experience can vary greatly from good to bad on technology. This survey with just a handful of the questions chosen serves to reemphasize and support this business case. Figure  5   Figure  6:  Number  Knew  of  Technology  Training   Source:  Survey  March  25,  2014     Figure  5:  Different  Technology  Usage   Source:  Survey  March  15,  2014  
  • 12.         5  |  P a g e     Literature Review Instructional Technology can be any technology that will help aid faculty teach students the course, extend the abilities of the faculty, and improve the learning experience of students. As students learn more with the aid of technology, University have had to keep up with the demand to provide students and faculty the latest educational tools. To show that many University have gone about the same and sometimes different ways of approaching the problem of using the correct instructional technology for the students and faculty. We will look at several successful universities on why they need the technology, what they decided to use, and the results of using that technology. Majority of these universities have been developing their use of a particular technology for years while other have just recently begun such as Harvard. The universities I have chosen, though length of time may be an issue, demonstrated to the best successes of a particular technology and fostered a collaborative and innovate environment that Rutgers should seek. After reviewing each school I hope to take certain aspects of each program to develop one that is suited for Rutgers. Washington State University-Pullman Washington State University looked into a way to enhance the capabilities of the University to educate. The option chosen was a video conferencing system that was capable of reaching anyone in the state or beyond. Creation of the Academic Media Services with the policy to provide courses through videoconferencing and any other interactive technologies (AMS Academic Policy, 2010) The system provide courses with the same credit bearing as the courses taken traditionally. Funding for the video conferencing system is the responsibility of the site requesting the course where the video conferencing system is located such as on another college campus across the state. Support was provided to faculty on the best way to use the system for their course. Through this system the faculty member can have exams at multiple locations and see everyone taking it. With this system the University was able to extend their reach for education. The University has about 24 conferencing sites throughout Washington State, which include about 33 classrooms and lecture halls with the videoconferencing capabilities. This allows for live synchronous or asynchronous classes for students who cannot make the trip to class or are not in the area to attend the class in person such as across the country. With students all over the state being able to take classes wherever they are, enrollment was able to increase per class where size of room was not an issue. One example is the College of Nursing, have a dedicated system to allow Figure  7:  24  sites  Washington  State  University   Source:  Washington  State  University  
  • 13.         6  |  P a g e     simulations. One room for the simulation, another for students to observe, and a third for faculty to control the simulation. With the main campus able to distribute to 6 other sites on a daily basis running a class for 14 hours. The system allowed for an endless possibility of options to teach without worrying about having a room to hold all the students and the ability for all students to see what was happening. The University also has begun using web-conferencing software called Elluminate. Elluminate can allow online events from your computer such as meetings, class sessions, research seminars, online office hours, and collaborative sessions (Washington State University, n.d.) while simultaneously having a videoconference class. Elluminate also allows faculty and students to use Angel, Washington State University’s version of Sakai, as a live communications hub. The success of video conferencing at WSU with the 24 conferencing sites is the aspect that I will take for the plan. The ability to connect two different schools from across the state to teach a lesson will benefit Rutgers in allowing a new way to learn and increase enrollment. With the College of Nursing and School of Nursing at Rutgers on two different campus, a system where simulations can be conducted at one location and teach at both will greatly improve learning for students, teaching for faculty, and save time and money for the University. The idea to expand the capabilities through web conference can be achieve in the same way with Sakai through Adobe connect. Adobe connect is the answer to Elluminate as it is as free software provided by Rutgers and is relatively easy to use. Harvard University Instead of having the many schools at Harvard do their own Information Technology department independent of each other, the University created CIO Council to lead and advance university-wide IT strategies, policies, and standards, and to support the missions of both the individual schools and the University (Harvard University, n.d.). To carry out the CIO Council plans, Harvard University Information Technology (HUIT) was formed to develop a set of key initiatives that schools collaborate on to achieve a shared vision for IT at Harvard (Harvard University, n.d.). With this department they promoted a plan or framework for all schools to follow to make a more uniformed system, user friendly, help faculty and students, and foster communication with the whole University. A strategic plan was created that has 4 goals; 1) Service Delivery, 2) Strategy, Planning, and Compliance, 3) Capital Investments and Program Management, and 4) HUIT Workplace Development. The university developed an organization structure of 3 areas; Strategic, Administrative, and Service Delivery as shown in Figure 5. With the four values of HUIT; User-focused, Collaborative, Innovative, and Open, it helps Harvard ensure that they are providing an experience that is beneficial to the students, faculty, and the University. When Harvard transitioned to unify their IT groups during 2012-2013, the single centralized Information Technology department enabled the implementation of large-scale projects as well as making a more efficient and streamlined system. Overall during 2012-2013, satisfaction with HUIT services increased, with areas such as keeping the systems up and running saw a 63% to 67% satisfaction and helping you use technology effectively saw an increase from 37% to 40%. HUIT was able to help better serve the Harvard community and to promote new projects better. One project that would have taken months to start was the switch
  • 14.         7  |  P a g e     over of the email system to a single client that was streamlined and expedited by the new HUIT organization. The policy creates a better structure and experience for training faculty, promote new technologies, and share information throughout the University The concept of HUIT and the uniform policy for technology for the whole University is what I will take for the plan. Rutgers Information Technology will be the HUIT of Rutgers providing collaboration and innovation between IT departments of each school. With a policy in place, as Harvard has done, to uniform the use of technology at Rutgers and how to effective train faculty to use them will provide a better education to students. Having one department provide training will also make it easier for faculty, students, and staff to get updates, know that there is only one place to go for help, and controlling the funding will help Rutgers. Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University was looking for a solution to improve their already successful distance education, which was developed in 1892. With the first program, the University provided one of the nation’s first program to help farmers in Pennsylvania. With the World Campus starting in 1998, they develop multiple technologies to help provide distance learning wherever you are 24/7. The same professors who give the traditional classes with the same materials and requirements teach the degree programs. In order to be study the major that you want, after being accepted through World Campus you must also be accepted to the College of the major you plan to complete. Through the requirements of World Campus, the students are able to earn the same exact degree as any student at the University. Of course the issue of Academic integrity is a concern at Rutgers and Penn State is no different. In order to make sure students adhere to the academic policy, some classes gave exams at a proctored location at an approved educational institution. Other exams might require a student to be on webcam to make sure that this was the right student to take the test or the webcam would be used to record students conversations among their classmates through live video conferencing to earn oral exam credits. As World Campus progressed over the years With increase in Online Distance Learning the university needs to have a comprehensive program or be left behind and with The Replacement Model (Twigg, 2003) that Penn State uses, their program has successful enrolled over 200,000 students for Distance Learning. The university was able to increase enrollment by over 96% since 2008 with the World Campus program. In 2012, the enrollments online alone totaled about $80 million. With tuition online costing $6,327 compared to the traditional education, which is $13,932, savings of half allow them to study wherever and receive a degree that was no different from the traditional way. This cost savings was also a higher return for the University since students enrolled online didn’t need facilities to support them except for the servers and instructors. They have reduced class-meeting time, replace face-to-face time with online, reduce lectures from three to one per week, and utilizing computer –studio labs for individual and collaborative activities. About 30% of lab time is elaboration of concepts, 60% on computer-related work and discussions and 10% for quizzes. “Various  factors   inhibit  the  adoption  of   new  technology,  but   corrective  measures   can  redress  many  of   the  problems.”    
  • 15.         8  |  P a g e     Students are tested about five to seven times with a Readiness Assessment Tests (RATS), which have been effective in detecting problems students may have in a certain area. The standards of World Campus where the degree is no different online or traditional and The Replacement Model is what I will take for the plan. Classes that can be fully replaced online will save money for the university and students, but not all classes can be put on this model. Determining was classes should be fully online can be looked at by what classes Penn state chose to provide one World Campus. Rutgers can also utilize the World Campus idea of not offering a different degree for online and traditional but rather offer the same standards to ensure whether online or traditional, you are earning a Rutgers degree. With the same academic integrity policy for online learning and replacing lectures to being online will help Rutgers achieve a high rate of enrollment as well as increase revenue since Rutgers state funding has been declining. This is one example that can help ensure Rutgers has funding and with the results Penn state has seen I seen great possibilities for Rutgers to achieve the same results. University of Massachusetts-Amherst University of Massachusetts Office of Information Technologies is a single entity that seeks more collaborative approach between departments for a technology strategy in academia and research and administrative computing. Office of Information Technology oversees learning management systems, classroom technologies, network, email, phone, help desk, and administrative services runs smoothly and effectively. With this single department whom oversees the university, they are better able to provide a consistent and reliable instructional technology service. Likewise University of Massachusetts online allows the expansion of instructional technology experiences and provide more educational opportunities. The University of Massachusetts system like many other online system is used as the main tool for online learning for all of University of Massachusetts instead of each school and college developing their own. The need to make it easier for students to login, have all courses from different schools, and making it easier by just having one access point for all online software allows UMass to be successful in the online experience. Through the use of The Supplement Model (Twigg, 2003), University of Massachusetts kept traditional class structure but instead added technology for out of classroom activities. It was a way to create an active learning environment within a large lecture hall setting supplement by technology (Twigg, 2003). Students would look at objectives and key concepts online before heading to class and did online quizzes. These reduced class time because the instructor could gauge the level each student was at and tailor the class time to the student’s needs. ClassTalk was used to allow interactive response to problem solving activities while in class. Through the redesign of classes, attendance in class average 90% instead of 67% under traditional classes. Exams were also redesigned in that more questions became reasoning or problem-solving skill questions and less factual material or definitions of terms. UMass Online course enrollments increased 11% in 2010-2011 from 2009-2009. With increase enrollment and no difference when it came a traditional degree and an online one, revenue in FY2011 increased 16%. I will be taking from University of Massachusetts their UMass online format of having certain lectures still being traditional with technology supplement. The idea of one access point
  • 16.         9  |  P a g e     for the online system is important since currently Rutgers uses blackboard, eCollege, and Sakai but instead using Sakai as the access point to all other online software will make it easier and attract students. Since not all classes can be completely online and the success that University of Massachusetts has had with this model, I see no reason why we cannot utilize certain aspects of their program. Taking the ClassTalk idea can bring a new level of interaction between students and faculty especially by using it during a class as an instant messaging system can help students ask questions. I will also use the concept of the single entity of OIT. Like HUIT the idea of one department oversee all the schools IT departments will streamline and simplify processes, policies, and technology. University of Washington University of Washington Online has been around for over 20 years with the same access to education as Penn State. To help students with options to earn a degree, improve on knowledge, and to take courses wherever they are, UW Online was developed. Each school or department oversees the programs and courses to ensure that the requirements are met even though the students are going through online learning. The University provides 125 certificate programs, 35 master’s degree programs, bachelor degree completion, course, workshops and other courses spanning over 75 fields. (UW Online, 2014) The school also offers free mini- courses to expand your knowledge. They also offer Faculty Development, an online training site for faculty to learn about technology and how to use them. There are simulations to go with the material they are studying and modules for technology training. With IT connect the training becomes a one stop shop to help faculty utilize instructional technology to the fullest. The faculty can also find software, tools for teaching, technology for places to teach, help from staff, and share knowledge on teaching through IT connect. UW online has been very successful since it started in 1990; the online distance learning program attracted over 100,000 enrollments for 2011-2012 semester. With such a large enrollment from online courses this allowed the University to receive revenue with little cost to operate. During 2012 the revenue collected was about $54.2 million compared to 2011 of about $42.6 million, which was a 27% increase. Gross revenue for the University in 2012 was $131.1million, which is a 17% increase from 2011’s $108.4 million. The amount of revenue from UW online allowed the University to pay $19.8 million of the faculty salaries. (UW Year in Review, 2012) UW will offer us the training policy needed in the plan where there is an online one-stop shop for all resources on technology to staff, faculty, and students. I will also take the idea of free mini-courses as it may attract students to consider taking a full online course. Offering as many degree options, certificates, and workshops as University of Washington will help us be more diverse, which can attract students. There model for online learning will be used to help increase enrollment while providing options to learning and technology to use. University of Arkansas Arkansas dilemma was that the academic programs were growing and a need was required to have the video conferencing system be standardized to ensure a consistent
  • 17.         10  |  P a g e     experience. Video conferencing was also an answer for a way to provide expanded educational opportunities with no regard to distance. There was a system in place but only offered two-way communication and no ability to have multiple people on the conference call from other locations. Classes had offered video recording but did allow for live streaming. With the nursing school needing to connect to the Medical Sciences, over 200 miles away, a more robust system was needed. The answer was the LifeSize video conferencing system, which was easy to maintain, lower cost for the student and University, and allowed for overflow classrooms where two classrooms could be connected. Standardizing the system help the University to provide the robust video conferencing system that was asked for and having Information Technology Services help ensure the University was collaborating between departments. The result was an increase of programs provided since having the video conferencing system, which allowed online only degrees via video. LifeSize gave the capability to integrate with blackboard and give more options for students to learn. Mock trials were conducted between University of Arkansas School of Law and University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s William H. Bowen School of Law. Overflow classrooms were created where if a faculty needed more space because of a large amount of students but there was no classroom big enough available, they just added another classroom and used the video conferencing system. Everyone also benefited in that you didn’t have to be tied to the computer but to any mobile device through the LifeSize ClearSea app where 10 different departments at the University utilized. The solution of using LifeSize gave the school the quality need to provide video service because of the detail needed for such thing as a simulation on the operating table. LifeSize is also very modular in that they have a lot of choices and ways to put a system together. Though the design of the LIfeSize system, you can customize to your needs for different rooms and requirements from faculty and students. This conferencing system gave the University the flexibility and ease to provide education anywhere in any situation. With the University of Arkansas, the LifeSize Video Conferencing System will give the RIT Harvard HUIT Uniform policies Training Penn State The Replaceme nt Model UW UW Online Training WSU Video and Web Services UMASS UMass Online UARK Lifesize ITS Figure  8:  What  We  Will  Take  From  Each  Model  
  • 18.         11  |  P a g e     best flexibility, price, and opportunity to provide classes. The LifeSize Clearsea app is a benefit for the mobile students of today. The idea of using another classroom to increase the space size while on having one faculty conducting the class will allow for a better use of space. This can save the university cost of building new buildings or hiring new faculty. The constraints of space and not enough faculty can be resolved by taking University of Arkansas’ approach. What We Can Do My proposal is a new Instructional Technology policy to increase online capabilities both for online courses and in the classroom with better communication between the different technology services, leadership, faculty, and students. The plan would have 6 phases of first, Initiation phase will develop policy and RIT. Reorganization phase will evaluate the staff and training plan. The Evaluation phase is the process of looking at the capabilities of hardware, network, and whether departments collaborate. Budget phase will see how much upgrading with cost and how to maintain the operating cost. Test is the beginning of the Video Conference pilot program, and lastly Collect and Improve is needed to measure the success and failures of RIT and improve where we can. With each aspect of the models we should be able to achieve the right formula to help make Instructional Technologies effective for students, faculty, and Rutgers. For each phase there will be measurements taken to ensure we are meeting requirements such as whether the policy in place is consistent and agreed upon by each school. Feedback and survey on how the technology is being used, what technology we should use, how is RIT doing for the students and faculty, and many other areas concerned with keeping Rutgers competitive and cutting edge will be in place for each phase. Phase 1- Initiation 1. Creation of an Information Technology Committee to discuss a policy for technology at Rutgers- New Brunswick, how to best provide technology to students, what technology Rutgers will use to effectively educate students, and how to train on the use of technology The Committee will include a. Chief Information Officer b. One Faculty representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges c. One IT representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges d. One Student representative from each of the 18 schools and colleges 2. Develop policies a. Uniform technology for all of Rutgers University b. Training of faculty, staff, and students c. Use online learning with single access point d. Learning Management System e. Standards for using technology f. Sharing of information between IT departments
  • 19.         12  |  P a g e     3. The creation of Rutgers Information Technology, to be overseen by the Chief Information Officer, will be the main department to tie together and ensure that all other IT departments continue to provide services that are tailored to their particular school. RIT will promote collaboration and innovation between each school, allowing the sharing of information and to eliminate redundancies. RIT will uphold to the Polices put in place throughout Rutgers University. 4. Feedback or comments about RIT, technology, online learning, or any concerns and Survey the student and faculty population on how RIT is doing, how to change, and survey that the IT departments are collaborating on projects will be conducted Phase 2 - Reorganization 1. Calls for an independent body to administer a university-wide assessment to determine the state and culture of the organization and how Instructional Technology tools best fit and serve the needs of its users 2. Determine best placement of staff to better utilize their skills 3. We will survey the student body on what technology they use and what technology they want to see used to enhance their learning. 4. Surveying the faculty on what technology they use, what technology they want to use, and introduce different technologies with ways to use them. 5. Help the faculty understand that their teaching techniques can also be supported with technology and to help promote more Instructional Technology where possible a. Have at training at least once in the fall and spring semester for faculty b. For any special equipment or classroom equipment for video conferencing, there will be a mandatory 1 hour training before using 6. Student and Staff training programs a. One website for all technology training b. Have training classrooms c. Be specific when training on using a technology d. Show all features and capabilities Ini3a3on   • Develop  an  IT  commi=ee   • Reorganize  into  RIT   • Policy   Reorganiza3on   • Staff   • Training   Evalua3on   • Hardware   • Collabora3on   • Survey   Budget   • Budget   • Incen3ves   • Feedback   Test   • Online  Classes/Sakai   • Digital  Classroom  Podium   • Pilot  Video  Conferencing   Collect  &   Improve   • Survey   • Budget   Figure  9:  Six  Phase  Plan
  • 20.         13  |  P a g e     “MOORE’S  LAW:  EVERY  18   MONTHS  COMPUTERS  ARE   TWICE  AS  FAST,  BUT  ALSO   EVERY  18  MONTHS   COMPUTERS  ENERGY  USAGE   IS  CUT  IN  HALF”     –DR.  DONALD    SMITH   e. Allow for hands-on training 7. Advertise training via email, facebook, twitter, Targum, dining hall table stands, and any other sources possible 8. Identify technology leaders who have an understanding of technology tools and methods and how they fit with teaching and learning practices. 9. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 3 - Evaluation 1. Inspect computers, network, serves, and any technology equipment used for education 2. Replace equipment base on the standards set forth for the whole University that is 4-5 years or older 3. Ensure IT departments are collaborating and innovating 4. Check that instructional technology is being used effectively 5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 4 - Budget 1. Reevaluate budget while keeping in mind that technology needs to be replaced between every 4-5 years 2. Separate budget from student services and create a separate budgeting area for information technology 3. Create plan for budgeting technology as an investment, capital funding, and operating to better understand where money is spent, and to reduce waste 4. Develop an incentive program for faculty to use instructional technology a. Must use an instructional technology such as Sakai or video conferencing to allow synchronous and/or asynchronous access to information such as syllabus, chatroom, resources, schedule, and gradebook b. Measure of student grades with greater than 68% of the class having a B or better to be considered for incentive
  • 21.         14  |  P a g e     c. Measure of student rate of overall quality of the course of 70% or above with responses of good and excellent d. Measure who had the most usage of any technology other than just laptops, iClickers, PowerPoint, and Sakai. 5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 5 - Test 1. Video conferencing pilot program a. Purchase system i. 3 for classroom ii. 3 for Lecture Hall b. Install systems c. Test system i. Bandwidth speed ii. Video quality iii. Sound quality iv. Minimum system requirements v. Integration with Sakai vi. Integration with adobe connect vii. Buffer issues d. Find faculty interested in testing for a class e. Test for 2 years f. Collect data on usage, effectiveness with faculty and students, and on any issues technical or human errors 2. Online distance learning a. Integration of all the schools online courses into a single access point b. Hybrid class of half traditional students and half online students i. Test the possibility of larger class size without a larger classroom ii. Test video and web capabilities c. Integration of video streaming system 3. Sakai a. Develop into one-stop access point for Learning Management System b. Train faculty on possibilities with system c. Integration of live web chat during class 4. Digital Classroom Services a. Continue to install Digital Classroom Podiums b. 214 left planned completion within 3 ½ years c. Plan to implement DCP standards University-wide d. Hire 15 student staff to help with the increase in classrooms, to allow better coverage and response to trouble calls
  • 22.         15  |  P a g e     5. Feedback and Survey conducted Phase 6 – Collect & Improve 1. A survey will be conducted to determine whether the goals during the Initiation phase were met or whether we need to meet them. We will survey a. Staff, students, and faculty on satisfaction of RIT a. How uniform each school’s technology experience is b. Where we need improvement c. Is the correct technology being used d. Ease of use of Sakai e. Thoughts on Video Conferencing f. How training is being conducted g. How is information being broadcasted h. How helpful RIT is 2. Collect data a. Measure usage of each technology b. Measure the amount of trouble calls before and after faculty training on technology c. Measure amount of retention in Video Conferencing pilot program d. Measure grades of students in Video Conferencing pilot program e. Measure amount of enrollment for online learning f. Measure the grades of online learning 3. Improve areas that do not meet requirements. Change will always happen and you may need a new approach to the problem but must uphold to the standards put in place by policies. Budget Cost of Proposal An initial investment of $237,727.50 will cover the cost of additional student staff, the video conferencing system pilot program, with new signage for RIT, and faculty incentive. The additional operating cost will be the additional student staff and the faculty incentive. Currently Digital Classroom Services is employing 40 part-time students at a rate of $10 per hour; additionally the plan will need 15 more students costing $144,000. For the LifeSize Video Conferencing System, a quote from Digital Classroom Services puts it at $15,000. For the Pilot program we will need to install 3 more classrooms and 3 more Lecture Halls with the video system costing $90,000. Lastly for the faculty incentive program $2,000 for top faculty will be rewarded. Many software’s such as Google Hangouts and Adobe Connect are free to the Rutgers community. Software such as Sakai and the RIT website are also free because of in house development through Rutgers at no extra cost since it has been budgeted already. The additional  
  • 23.         16  |  P a g e     upgrades of classrooms with Digital Classroom Podiums have already been planned prior to this proposal through Digital Classroom Services and are not budgeted here. The operating cost for this plan will include the additional 15 student staff and the incentive since these are annual cost. For 15 student staff and the faculty incentive the cost will be $146,000. In order to understand the impact of Technology at Rutgers, the operating cost and any investment into technology must be Expense Revenue Small Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums $0 x 4 = $0 Large Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums $0 x 4 = $0 Adobe Connect (currently) $0 Google Hangout Free LifeSize Video Conferencing w/3 year service $15,000 x 6 = $90,000 Initial cost Faculty Incentive $2,000 Signage Single Insert Holder $74.25 x 10 = $742.50 Signage Insert $97.50 x10 = $975.00 Business Cards 250 count $10 NJ Edge (currently) $0 Additional Student Staff (part-time) 15 x $9,600 = $144,000 annually RIT website (in House) Free Sakai Free Online Enrollment $2,679 x 2,000 students = $5,359,000 Additional Tech Fee $10 x 65,000 students = $650,000 Computer Fee (Currently) $153.50 x 65,000 = $9,977,500 Total $237,727.50 $15,986,500 Total Operating $146,000 $15,986,500 Figure  10:  Budget  Table  
  • 24.         17  |  P a g e     separated from any other expense. The requirement of 4-5 years equipment replacement is different from capital funding. Additional cost such as material for training, renewal of certain software, and new equipment will have to be considered during the budget phase. A complete evaluation of the state of the technology will be conducted to determine what hardware and software needs to be upgraded keeping in mind that anything technology more than 4 years old will be upgraded best on the needs of the university. Funding Source Revenue through tuition as a computer fee is currently $153.50 per student with about 65,000 students totaling $9,977,500. Increasing the computer fee by $10 an additional $650,000 can be added to the revenue for technology. The additional $10 alone can cover the initial investment of $237,727.50 with revenue to pay for upgrades and operating cost. To further supplement the cost, LifeSize has a Grant Assistance Program that will help the University locate a grant to help pay for technology. Total amount from grants is $90 Billion. With tuition from online enrollment can also offset the cost by charging half of the current in-state undergraduate tuition of $5,359.00, online would pay $2,679.50. At 2,000 online undergraduate students and $2,679.50 the total revenue would be $5,359,000. Many software are also free to the students and faculty reducing cost. Google Hangouts and Skype are free and Adobe Connect will be license through the university. If need be Rutgers can partner with companies such as Apple to possibly have a discounted rate on bulk orders of computers or even not have any cost incurred if we guarantee that we will upgrade with them every 4 years. With increase in enrollment from distance learning, partnerships with companies such as Microsoft or Sony, funding from the Department of Education and Cyberlearning and Future Learning Technologies (National Science Foundation, 2013) grant with funds of about $18,000,000 for example, we can offset some if not all the cost. 38%   1%   1%   60%   IniWal  Expense  Total   $237,717.50   LifeSize   Incen3ve   Signage   Student   Staff     Figure  11:  Initial  Expense  Total
  • 25.         18  |  P a g e     Discussion This Rutgers Information Technology and policy have great aspirations. RIT is a new start for information technology at Rutgers. In order for Rutgers to provide and be competitive in the 21st Century, we must leave behind the old ways and embrace the new. The main reason for RIT is the fact that Rutgers has no policy in the use of Instructional Technologies, no guidance on how to train faculty, and no collaboration with in Rutgers to give students a better educational experience. Many universities have reorganized themselves and embraced new technologies that have brought success to the school, students, and faculty. There are many parts to the plan from RIT, Policy, Training, Online learning, Sakai, and Video Conferencing, which are the major areas Rutgers must change as we are doing a disservice to the Rutgers community if we do not. The 6 Phases ensures we will be successful though there may be challenges and a budget is required, but the results of this plan outweigh the risk. Without changing Rutgers will lose time for students to learn, increase enrollment, being the cutting edge of instructional technology, and being competitive in the 21st Century. Evaluation The most important process is the ability to measure what you are doing. In order to fully understand whether the plan is working we must collect data and improve if we can. Satisfaction from students on the use of technology is a good place to start. This measurement can help us determine whether the faculty knows how to use the technology and whether the technology is the right one for the students. Tracking the progress of grades from the beginning of the class till the end and comparing to past class that did not use technology will help us determine the students learning ability and the faculties teaching ability. Amount of enrollments and the retention of students for additional semesters. We can also measure the dropout rate for online classes and any classes utilizing technology more than just laptop and PowerPoint. Usage of technology such as Sakai can show what features students and faculty prefer to use more. Also surveys and feedback will help improve and determine the technologies that are successful. No matter what phase of plan we are in, there will be a way to measure the success of RIT. Complications With such a drastic and wide change, there are many complications that can arise. The cost to upgrade networks, cables, servers, and computers can be a daunting task let alone funding it. Faculty may not want to use the technology or not want to train. Student may decide not to take classes online or use the technology offered. There could be a barrier in cooperation between departments keeping them from sharing ideas and companies may not cooperation in technology partnerships. Technology sometimes do not want to work together, which can hamper our ability to bring a uniform system for Rutgers. The partnerships between Rutgers and companies may not be viable or the technology we are looking for is not on the market. The enrollment for online classes may not be where we want it. With any of these complications there is a solution that we can find. The biggest complication is giving up before we know if the plan works and so we must stick to the plan and measure the result to determine whether we went in the right direction or not.
  • 26.         19  |  P a g e     Conclusion The 21st Century requires a University on the cutting edge of Instructional Technology but we must also use them in an effective learning and teaching way. Initiatives from the leadership, University-wide Committee- Near and Long-Term Impact of Instructional Technology (Barchi, 2014), are starting with the plan on using more Instructional Technology. After I was researching the different universities on the use of Instructional Technology and how successful they are, I believe translating and modifying what they did to Rutgers is possible but not without issues. Our current system for distance learning and digital classroom is a step in the right direction but I believe we can do more to increase student and faculty satisfaction, increase enrollment, have more exposure for Rutgers, and possibly increase funding for The State University of New Jersey. Is Rutgers Technology RIT for the 21st Century?
  • 27.         20  |  P a g e     References Aziz, Christian V. Personal Interview. 17 Feb. 2014. Butler, Darrell L., and Martin Sellbom. "Barriers to Adopting Technology." Educause Quarterly 2 (2002): 22-8. Print. Chough, Alex. "Leveraging Technology in Campus Change Initiatives: A Practice Brief Based on BEAMS Project Outcomes." Institute for Higher Education Policy (2008) Print. Georgina, David A., and Charles C. Hosford. "Higher Education Faculty Perceptions on Technology Integration and Training." Teaching & Teacher Education 25.5 (2009): 690-6. Print. Georgina, David A., and Myrna R. Olson. "Integration of Technology in Higher Education: A Review of Faculty Self-Perceptions." Internet & Higher Education 11.1 (2008): 1-8. Print. Grasha, Anthony F., and Natalia Yangarber-Hicks. "Integrating Teaching Styles and Learning Styles with Instructional Technology." College Teaching 48.1 (2000): 2. Print. Harvard University. "Harvard University Information Technology." Harvard University Information Technology. 2014. Web. <http://huit.harvard.edu/home>. LifeSize. “LifeSize Video solutions for Education.” LifeSize. 2014. Web. http://www.lifesize.com/en/solutions/industry/education. Keengwe, Jared, Terry Kidd, and Lydia Kyei-Blankson. "Faculty and Technology: Implications for Faculty Training and Technology Leadership." Journal of Science Education &
  • 28.         21  |  P a g e     Technology 18.1 (2009): 23-8. Print. Olsen, Florence. "Report Details Options on Paying for Technology." Chronicle of Higher Education 47.37 (2001): A40. Print. Pennsylvania State University. "Penn State World Campus." Penn State Online.Web. <http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/>. Phipps, Ronald A., and Jane V. Wellman. "Funding the" Infostructure." A Guide to Financing Technology Infrastructure in Higher Education, Lumina–Foundation for Education: New Agenda Series 3.2 (2001)Print. Robert Barchi. "Initiatives for the First 100 Days of the University Strategic Plan." Rutgers Office of the President. 2014.Web. Feb 17, 2014 <http://president.rutgers.edu/public-remarks/letters/initiatives-first-100-days-strategic- plan>. Rogers, Donna L. "A Paradigm Shift: Technology Integration for Higher Education in the New Millennium." AACE Journal 1.13 (2000): 19-33. Print. Rutgers. “Budget Facts and Figures.” Budget Facts and Figures. Dec 20 2013. Web. <http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu>. Rutgers. "Office of Instructional & Research Technology." Office of Instructional & Research Technology. Dec 4 2013.Web. <https://oirt.rutgers.edu/>. Smith, Donald. Personal Interview. 3 Apr. 2014
  • 29.         22  |  P a g e     Smyth, Robyn. "Broadband Videoconferencing as a Tool for Learner-Centred Distance Learning in Higher Education." British Journal of Educational Technology 36.5 (2005): 805-20. Print. Spotts, Thomas H. "Discriminating Factors in Faculty use of Instructional Technology in Higher Education." Educational Technology & Society 2.4 (1999): 92-9. Print. Twigg, Carol A. "Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning." Educause Review 38.5 (2003): 28. Print. Undergraduate Academic Affairs. "Digital Classroom Services." Digital Classroom Services. 2013.Web. <https://dcs.rutgers.edu/>. University of Arkansas. “Information Technology Services.” Information Technology Services. 2014. Web. <http://its.uark.edu>. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "Online Learning." UMASS Amherst Countinuing & Profession Education. 2010.Web. <http://www.umassulearn.net/about>. University of Washington. "Metrics: Overview." University of Washington Information Technology. 2012.Web. <http://www.washington.edu/uwit/metrics/index.html>. University Senate Instruction, Curricula, and Advising Committee. "Online Education at Rutgers University." 2010.Web. <http://senate.rutgers.edu/ICACOnS1015OnOnlineCoursesApril2011AsAdopted.pdf>. Washington State University. "Academic Media Services." Academic Media Services.
  • 30.         23  |  P a g e     2014.Web. <https://ams.wsu.edu/index.aspx>. Wyrtzen, David. Personal Interview. 17 Feb. 2014 Xu, Yonghong (Jade), and Katrina A. Meyer. "Factors Explaining Faculty Technology use and Productivity." Internet & Higher Education 10.1 (2007): 41-52. Print.
  • 31.         24  |  P a g e     Appendix A: Email David Wyrtzen, Associate Director, DCS
  • 32.         25  |  P a g e     Appendix B: Email Dr. Donald Smith, CIO OIT
  • 33.         26  |  P a g e     Appendix C: Survey 1.    Do  you  use  technology  for  any  of  your  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         65   98%   2   No         1   2%     Total     66   100%     2.    How  many  Professors  in  one  semester  use  technology  in  your  Classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   0         0   0%   2   1         1   1%   3   2         11   16%   4   3         14   21%   5   4         20   30%   6   5         16   24%   7   6         5   7%     Total     67   100%     3.    What  technology  do  most  of  your  Professors  use  often?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Laptop         51   76%   2   iClicker         26   39%   3   Projector         51   76%   4   PowerPoint         60   90%   5   BluRay  Player         1   1%   6   Sakai         56   84%   7   Online  Software   Program         15   22%   8   Video  Conferencing         5   7%   9   Wed  Conferencing         3   4%   10   YouTube         24   36%     4.    Do  you  take  online  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         28   42%   2   No         39   58%     Total     67   100%   6.    Is  the  online  class  beneficial  to  you?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         25   49%   2   No         26   51%     Total     51   100%    
  • 34.         27  |  P a g e     7.    Would  you  take  online  classes?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         35   61%   2   No         22   39%     Total     57   100%   18.    How  often  did  a  technology  problem  happen  during  the  semester?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Never         0   0%   2   Less  than  Once  a   Month         11   31%   3   Once  a  Month         13   37%   4   2-­‐3  Times  a  Month         7   20%   5   Once  a  Week         1   3%   6   2-­‐3  Times  a  Week         1   3%   7   Daily         2   6%     Total     35   100%   16.    How  long  did  the  problem  take  before  it  was  fixed?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   less  than  10  mins         15   43%   2   10  mins         9   26%   3   more  than  10  mins         11   31%     Total     35   100%     17.    How  often  did  a  technology  problem  happen  during  class?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Never         1   3%   2   1         12   34%   3   2         11   31%   4   more  than  2         11   31%     Total     35   100%         Total     52   100%    
  • 35.         28  |  P a g e     5.    Is  the  online  class  adequate,  easy  to  use,  and  engaging?   Text  Response   The  online  course  structure  at  Rutgers  is  utter  bullshit.  The  course  I  am  in,  Soul  Beliefs,  attempts  to  create  a  conversational  dynamic  by  forcing   students  to  respond  to  a  prompt  assigned  to  them  and  then  ask  a  classmate  a  question  related  to  the  prompt  given  to  them.  The  teacher  then   responds  in  line  with  the  prompt  with  very  poorly  considered  replies  because  she  is  competely  overwhelmed  by  the  number  of  responses  she   needs  to  make  and  does  not  provide  any  useful  feedback  for  me  to  incorporate  into  my  thought  process.  The  structure  should  be  forced  to   include  some  sort  of  web  conference  and  atleast  a  few  ta's  to  accomodate  the  workload  they  take  upon  themselves  with  this  challenging   format.   Depends  on  the  class  itself.  If  the  professor  knows  how  to  use  the  sight,  yes.  But  I  have  had  professors  in  the  past  who  do  not  understand  how   to  upload  things  making  it  hard  for  the  students  to  find  the  materials  and  end  up  waiting  to  the  last  minute  to  do  assignments  because  they   were  hard  to  find.   Yes.   Yes  it  is.    Most  of  the  work  is  incredibly  immersive  despite  the  lack  of  a  classroom.   Yes   Yes,  the  online  class  is  easy  to  use.   yes   Adequate  is  the  right  word.  Not  as  easy  to  use  for  me  -­‐  what  more  for  older  people.  Not  quite  as  engaging  as  classroom  sessions   Not  really.   Yes  it  is  outstanding!   Yes   somewhat  adequate.  it's  hard  to  stay  focused  for  me.  it's  easy,  but  not  for  a  lot  of  students.  engaging  is  typically  based  on  your  level  of  interest   in  the  subject  matter.  for  me,  it's  not.   Yes   The  hybrid  course  I  took  was  engaging.   yes.  very  interactive  and  user  friendly   Yes   Not  engaging  enough  sometimes,  there  are  often  technical  difficulties  with  some  students  (sound  problems,  video  problems,  etc.)   Yes.   Yes   Yes   Yes.   No,  it's  uninteresting  and  hard  to  keep  on  top  of  the  work  without  face-­‐to-­‐face    interaction   9.    Did  you  know  Rutgers  offered  technology  training?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         9   16%   2   No         48   84%     Total     57   100%     10.    How  did  you  find  out  that  Rutgers  offered  technology  training?   Text  Response   Career  services  office.   Orientation   I  work  for  the  department  that  offers  the  tech  training  to  professors.   STAR  DAY   sakai  home  page   Word  of  mouth,  advertisements.   Some  of  their  jobs  more  or  less  entail  it.  For  instance,  the  computer  consultant  jobs  for  the  computer  labs  require  training.   Posters  around  Rutgers  buildings    
  • 36.         29  |  P a g e     8.    Why  would  or  wouldn't  you  take  online  classes?   Text  Response   Too  hard.  Not  enough  benefit.   I  would  rather  have  the  environment  of  an  actual  classroom  rather  than  try  to  turn  my  home  environment  into  a  classroom  as  well.   Sometimes  over  the  summer  online  classes  work  out  really  nicely   They  are  easier  and  the  credits  stack  up  the  same.   I  like  the  freedom  it  lends  to  life  and  you  can  go  as  far  as  you  wish  without  having  to  wait  for  the  next  class  to  learn  more   Online  classes  gives  you  the  opportunity  to  be  more  independent  and  work  at  your  own  pace   flexiblity   i  learn  better  being  able  to  sit  through  a  lecture  in  person   like  to  attend  an  actual  class   Convenience.   I  need  to  have  a  full  time  job.   I  prefer  face  to  face  interaction  of  traditional  classes.   I  like  the  feel  of  physical  instuction.  Virtual  teaching  is  not  for  me.   I  would  take  one  because  it  is  more  convienent  and  it  places  a  lot  of  responsibility  on  me  to  do  the  work.   In  my  experience  online  classes  are  more  difficult  because  it  lacks  a  student  teacher  interaction  like  a  normal  class.   1.    I  need  face-­‐time  to  learn  properly.    2.    I  don't  trust  my  own  level  of  motivation  to  stay  up-­‐to-­‐date  on  online  classes/assignments.   Convenience   It  provides  me  the  opportunity  to  fit  school  in  around  my  work  schedule.   Ease  of  scheduling  conflict   I  took  online  classes  at  RVCC   If  there  was  an  online  class  that  I  wanted  to  take  or  needed  to  take  I  would.   it's  usually  a  convience  matter.  if  it's  the  only  class  offered,  i  do  it.   Same  reason  as  the  previous  question.   There  is  no  connection  with  the  instructor.  I  like  creating  some  type  of  connection  with  my  teachers.   I  would  take  an  online  class  to  help  save  the  amount  of  time  it  takes  to  travel  between  campuses  and  have  a  more  concise  learning   experience.   Convenience,  parking,  toll,  and  gas  costs.   See  Q8.   Easy  to  access  class  through  computer.   As  a  non  traditional  student,  online  courses  provides  a  way  to  balance  work  and  school.   allows  me  to  study  and  learn  course  material  at  my  own  pace,  on  my  own  schedule   I  would  prefer  going  to  in-­‐person  meets.   Online  classes  would  make  it  convenient  to  complete  the  work  assigned  because  I  would  be  able  to  do  it  on  my  own  time.  Also,  online   classes  would  allow  me  to  learn  the  material  and  do  the  work  at  my  own  pace.  Sometimes  professors  teach  too  slow  and  sometimes  they   teach  too  fast.   I  do  enjoy  my  online  class,  but  since  I  tend  to  procrastinate,  most  online  classes  would  be  too  much  work  for  me  to  keep  up  with   Convenience   It  enhances  learning  ability.   If  I  had  no  other  choice  and  needed  the  class.   Allows  for  more  freedom  in  my  schedule  and  for  other  students  who  need  jobs  to  support  themselves  while  in  school.   I  would  take  it  because  it  would  mean  I  didn't  have  to  go  to  class.  But  I  wouldn't  take  it  because  its  very  impersonal  and  you  never  meet   who  your  prof  is  or  interact  with  them.   Commute,  and  work  schedule   Convenience   I  would  fall  behind,  and  I  prefer  talking  to  people  in  person.   I  would  take  qualitative  online  courses.   I  wouldn't  take  an  online  class  because  I  dont  like  how  reclusive  it  it.   Because  its  not  the  same  as  seeing  someone  in  person.   To  me,  traditional  classes  and  online  classes  don't  make  that  much  of  a  difference.  I  feel  like  I  would  be  more  likely  to  procrastinate  or  lose   track  of  assignments  if  everything  was  online.  Also,  I  do  not  want  to  pay  extra  online  course  fees  for  a  class.   19.    Do  you  ask  for  help  with  Sakai  or  click  on  Help  button  on  Sakai?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         3   6%   2   No         49   94%        
  • 37.         30  |  P a g e     11.    Will  you  take  training  on  technology  from  Rutgers?  Why  or  Why  not?   Text  Response   No,  Don't  need  it.   depends,  only  excel  vba  or  regression  specific  software  like  sass  interests  me   No.  No  time.   No,  because  I  do  not  necessarily  need  it  at  this  time.   If  I  really  needed  training,  yes.  However,  the  types  of  software  I  use  for  class,  they  teach  me  how  to  use   No.  I  dont  ned  it.   I  would  like  to  take  training  in  technology  from  Rutgers  because  I  believe  no  matter  how  much  technology  you  learn  about  there  is  always  more   about  technology  to  learn.   Yes,  I  believe  learning  more  and  becoming  more  efficient  with  technology  will  benefit  me  in  the  long  run  considering  the  world  we  live  in  today.   no,  don't  need  to.   No,  no  need  to.   I  would  if  I  knew  where  and  how   No,  do  not  need  it.   N/a   No  because  I  am  able  to  learn  on  my  own.   I  don't  think  it's  something  I  need.   Yes,  if  it  is  applicable  to  what  skills  I  need.   No  because  I  don't  need  the  additional  training  for  any  of  my  work.  What  i  know  now  is  more  than  enough  to  go  day  by  day  activities.   No,  because  most  of  tech  training  can  be  found  online   Personally,  no,  because  I  already  know  the  systems.    However,  if  I  didn't,  I  probably  would  take  the  training.   Yes   No.  I  don't  need  it.   I  would  if  its  free  and  for  applications  that  I  do  not  know  how  to  use  and  are  applicable  to  my  classes/future  needs   yes.  To  improve  myself   Probably  not  because  I  feel  I'm  fairly  savvy  with  tech   No   no.  i'm  an  IT  professional   Maybe,  I  have  to  see  my  course  requirements.   I  wouldn't  mind  taking  it.  I  just  have  no  interest  in  actually  doing  it.  It's  not  something  I  really  need.   I  do  not  believe  I  need  to  for  my  particular  major,  but  classes  that  require  use  of  databases  and  computers  usually  instruct  us  on  how  to  use   them.   No,  lack  of  time.   It  depends  on  what  types  of  training  are  available.    This  question  is  a  little  too  broad  to  be  answered  properly.   If  I  need  to,  sure.   If  it  is  not  a  requirement  most  likely  not  because  I    proficient  enough  to  get  my  assignments  done.   yes  if  it  is  a  practical  course  for  my  studies   No,  because  there  is  no  real  need.   No  because  I  do  not  believe  that  I  would  need  technology  training.  If  I  need  help  doing  something  online,  I  can  ask  a  friend  or  google  my   question.   No,  not  interested   No,  not  enough  time  to  warrant  it   No.  I  don't  need  it.   If  I  felt  the  need  to.   No.  Ill  be  done  in  October.   No.  unnecessary  for  me   No  because  I  do  not  have  any  problems  using  my  technology  that  I  have  now.   No,  I'm  good  with  technology  on  my  own  it's  my  major   I  don't  think  so  because  currently  my  level  of  technology  knowledge  is  suffiecent  enough  for  my  everyday  technology  use.   No,  because  I  don't  need  it.   Probably  not.  I  don't  have  the  time  and  I'm  fair  enough  at  using  it   No.  I  don't  think  I  need  training.       Total     52   100%   20.    Is  Sakai  being  used  effectively  by  Rutgers?   #   Answer         Response   %   1   Yes         43   83%   2   No         9   17%    
  • 38.         31  |  P a g e     12.    Does  the  Professor  seem  proficient  in  the  use  of  technology?  Why  or  Why  not?   Text  Response   Yes   yes  in  their  limited  use  of  it   Somewhat.  Always  trouble  connecting  to  projector.   Yes,  they  keep  to  basic  uses  of  technology  such  as  Powerpoint  and  SAKAI  for  the  most  part.   Depends  on  the  technology.  If  it  is  a  software  that  they  made  or  use  daily  usually.  But  i  have  had  professors  no  know  how  to  use  a  projector   Some  do.  Depending  on  age  and  skill  with  the  equipment.   Yes   Most  seem  very  proficient.    One  of  my  professors  is  a  computer  scientist  and  another  was  a  CIO,  hence  they  are  very  proficient  at  technologies   usage.   Some  of  my  professors  are  tech  savvy  while  others  seem  to  prefer  using  a  chalkboard  after  struggling  with  the  new  technology  provided  by  the   school.   yeah   Yes,  the  professors  that  I  have  that  use  technology  are  very  good  with  what  they  select  to  use.   Some  do,  some  do  not.  Those  who  do  not,  should  have  tech  advisers  in  class.   Yes,  has  no  issues  while  using  it  in  class.   Yes.   yes,  based  on  the  software  we  use.   All  professors  I  have  are  very  proficient   Not  always.  Some  professors  have  a  lot  of  trouble  with  getting  the  new  monitor  systems  working  for  their  powerpoints.  Others  have  no   problems.  But  it  is  common  for  a  professor  to  have  an  issue  at  least  once  a  semester.   Some.  Some  have  trouble  setting  up  a  projector.  Some  have  trouble  setting  up  the  iclicker  station.   Most  times,  getting  through  the  simple  aspects   Most  seem  proficient  enough,  though  many  seem  to  only  understand  how  to  attach  a  VGA  laptop  to  the  supplied  VGA  wire  in  the  podiums.     Anything  past  that  would  be  asking  too  much.   No,  they  cannot  figure  out  sakai  at  all!   Some  of  them  do  and  some  of  them  don't.   To  some  degree  some  professors  aren't  very  competent,  probably  because  they  aren't  trained  properly.  Most  professors  have  a  fairly  good   sense  on  how  to  use  their  technology   Yes.  All  of  my  professors  are  up  to  par.   A  little  less  proficient.  Trouble  getting  things  to  work  sometimes   Yes   absolutely.  most  of  my  courses  are  IT  courses.   They  are  proficient,  they  post  class  material  on  Sakai,  all  the  time.   Most  of  them  do.   Some  professors  are  more  proficient  when  the  use  of  computers  is  frequent,  others  are  not  so  familiar  since  they  do  not  need  to  be.   Yes.   It  varies  widely.    Some  are  and  others  basically  only  use  email.    I  believed  they've  earned  enough  educational  credit  and  experience  in  the  field   to  run  their  courses  as  they  wish.   Yes,  most  of  it  seems  easy  to  use.   Some  of  the  technology  seems  more  complicated  to  professors.  Some  have  knowledge  of  the  equipment  while  others  struggle.   yes,  the  technology  used  is  sufficient  to  get  the  job  done  without  being  excessive   Most  of  the  time.  Sometimes,  there  are  technical  difficulties.   They  use  the  technology  that  they  use  in  a  proficient  way.  They  may  not  use  the  most  up  to  date  technology  but  they  know  how  to  use  the   technology  that  they  use.   Some  are,  every  professor  I  have  had  at  Rutgers  is  at  least  able  to  use  sakai  and  powerpoint.   Usually  things  go  okay  with  ppts  and  projectors,  but  there  are  always  problems  when  there  are  iClickers  involved.   No,  often  lost  and  confused.   Yes,  the  classes  run  smoothly.   No.  Each  time  we  have  new  teachers  they  have  problems  with  the  technology  we  use  for  our  online  classes.   Yes.  All  slides,  videos,  and  demonstrations  are  prepared  and  used  without  delay  in  class   Yes  for  the  most  part.   Some  are  and  some  aren't.  They  tend  to  release  material  the  wrong  way  or  the  wrong  assignments.  They  also  don't  take  into  account  the  time   factor  of  when  forums  open  and  close  with  the  amount  people  may  post  in  a  day.   Yes  because  there  are  rarely  any  technological  difficulties  and  when  they  do  occur  they  are  able  to  fix  them  promplty.   Yes  most  of  my  professors  are  proficient  in  the  use  of  technology.   Sometimes,  older  teachers  seem  to  have  more  trouble  in  getting  iClicker  /  powerpoint  projectors  to  work.   Generally,  yes.  Online  homework  has  been  a  problem  and  professors  all  keep  me  updated  through  Sakai.