The following report provides a brief overview of the current situation regarding student access to computers. This report also clarifies IT’s scope of responsibility with respect to other divisions, explains what IT has done to address student and faculty need for Fall quarter ‘97, identifies some items requiring immediate action, and others for longer-term consideration.

This report documents how IT uses customer surveys, comparative research, discussion with clients, and tracking of use trends as part of its efforts to identify and address a complex and ever-changing set of uses and needs.

Analysis of the data has revealed several trends: student usage is rapidly rising, computer use is more complex and more difficult to service than in the past, faculty use of computers in the classroom is growing, and demand for higher quality instructional environments is increasing.

While IT has initiated a number of pilot projects and has taken a series of concrete steps to address the diverse and changing needs of our campus clients, the issue of access must be owned by a group of stakeholders -- not only IT.

IT recommends two immediate actions and several longer-terms actions. For immediate action, allocate and increase space exclusively for student access. For longer term action, encourage greater faculty participation and bring together the various stakeholders to build a multi-year plan which includes an annual review to accommodate the changing requirements of faculty and students.

Background

Over the past several years a number of campus committees, including ISAG (Instructional Space Advisory Group) and JCCIT (Joint Campus Committee on Information Technology), have voiced a concern regarding students’ access to computer technology. Currently, there are a number of efforts to address various parts of the issue. Some of these efforts include: communication among departmental and divisional computer labs, upgrade of IT computer labs, increased access in residence halls, a pilot project for "network access ports," a "wireless access" pilot project, expansion of the modem pool, solutions to campuswide security/authentication problems, negotiations with commercial service providers to deliver better connectivity for students from a variety of locations. All of these approaches have their value; each one, by itself, is limited.

Clearly then the question of technology access is not only costly but complex. The issue of access involves various levels of responsibility within diverse units across campus -- Facilities, Administration, Information Technology, Planning & Budget, Undergraduate Instruction, Architects & Engineers, the Office of the Registrar, Vice Provost – Undergraduate Studies, the Library, ASUCD, Network 21, the Fire Marshall, as well as individual departments and divisions. In addition, information technology providers have come to learn that how clients use the technology is neither simple nor easy. As students and faculty become more sophisticated, they have needs which are more resource-intensive to service. Clients require higher-powered hardware, able to run multiple software products faster with better connectivity. Clients need to perform multiple tasks simultaneously while plugging into national-level databases of scholarly research.

Given the diversity of needs and uses, there is no single solution. Nor can there be a single entity responsible and accountable for such a diverse set of issues. The approach to complex problems requires a balanced "whole system" set of solutions which address a majority of the stakeholders’ needs. Information Technology can help to identify the concerns, to communicate the clients’ needs and uses, and to work with campus stakeholders to develop appropriate and cost-effective solutions.

The purpose of the following report is to describe the current situation, to clarify various scopes of responsibility, to report on what IT has done to address student and faculty need, and to identify items requiring immediate action as well as those that deserve longer-term consideration. Specifically, this report:

• clarifies IT’s role in the larger campus community,
• assesses student and faculty needs, identifies and analyzes key issues,
• reports on what has been done and what is left to do for Fall quarter ‘97 readiness,
• makes recommendations for immediate action, and
• proposes options for further consideration by the campus.
 

Scope of Influence
 

Information Technology (IT), through its Lab Management unit, is the principal provider of general access computers. As such, IT is responsible for the selection, purchase, and maintenance of computer hardware and software as designated for general instructional use of computers for students. However, the establishment of computer labs and classrooms involves more than hardware and software management. Space needs to be allocated. Codes and regulations need to be addressed. How space can be best designed for instructional use needs to be considered. Campus protocols involving planning and budget, facilities, A&E, accounting, and various committees need to be respected -- and much more.

In an effort to provide academic support, IT coordinates with staff responsible for departmental and divisional labs (Language labs, etc.). Similarly, IT works closely with the Office of the Registrar providing technical support in the design and set up of general instructional space. IT fully recognizes the Registrar’s role as principal provider of classrooms, computer equipped or otherwise. Furthermore, IT proceeds on the basis of recommendations made by various stakeholders and campus committees, including the Joint Campus Committee on Information Technologies and the Instructional Space Advisory Group. It is important to note that IT has funded the computer equipment and provided ongoing technical management of general assignment computer classrooms in the Registrar’s inventory in addition to funding all aspects of general access computer labs assigned to IT.

While we are eager to address academic needs, we also acknowledge that long-term solutions require the cooperation of numerous units and divisions across campus.
 

UCD Client profile

• instructional experience which will provide skills, knowledge, and critical thinking ability (competitive with other universities)
• tools and access to be able to complete specific assignments (including software, high-end hardware, network access, and printing capability)
• general access as a necessary adjunct to schoolwork

• access to quality, computer teaching environments
• ability to schedule whole or parts of courses easily and conveniently
• assurance that their students will have access (e.g. via labs, wireless modems, residence halls, etc.) to complete assignments

• General access environments are designed differently and are operated separately from space used specifically for instruction. Multimedia environments are also operated separately.
• Computer classroom environments are designed differently for different kinds of instruction (e.g. presentation, collaboration, teamwork, small-group and seminars).
• Cost recovery is used for a number of services related to computer access facilities (e.g. printing, high-end hardware).
• Software is site licensed for the entire campus, thus reducing students’ need to come to a computer lab exclusively for access to software.

* Numbers do not necessarily represent a true comparison with UCDavis since there is little consistency among public universities regarding how they track "seats"; some include all platforms (Unix and X terminals as well as microcomputers); some include multimedia workstations as well as low-end machines; some double count facilities which are designed both for purposes of instruction and general access; some double count facilities which are time-shared between general access and an individual dept. In an effort to create accurate comparisons, all divisional and departmental labs were factored out; only the equivalent of "general access" numbers were considered. At UCDavis only TB114 (30 seats) is designated for general access. Since the computer classrooms are open for general access roughly half the time, half the number of computer classrooms seats was added to UCDavis’ total.
 

III. Key Issues Analysis

IT has identified several issues associated with meeting student and faculty need. Some of these issues we can and are addressing. A number of them require participation and commitment by other campus stakeholders.

Student usage is rapidly rising

IT tracks student use of computer labs in a variety of ways. IT tracks number of hours, percent of seats filled, time of day in greatest demand, in-class instruction vs. general academic use, and more. At this time there is, however, no mechanism to separate time spent by students on specific assignments vs. general academic use, such as researching scholarly topics via the web.

The generally accepted rule of thumb tells us that one hour of class time requires three hours of lab time. From discussion lists such as that of American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) and other special interest groups concerned with this topic, we know that the use of technology can increase "time on task." In other words, students are more likely to spend more time on email discussion than they do in a traditional discussion section. Students tend to spend more time on autotutorials, going over the materials repeatedly, whereas in a traditional lab they may have only one opportunity. Here at UCDavis we have not tracked this information, but we are aware that some institutions of higher education have reported ratios as high as one hour of class time to five hours of access time.

IT does track the increase in pages printed. This seems to suggest increased student usage.

Although 75-80% of students own computers, the 1997 ASUCD survey (details at http://lm.ucdavis.edu/pubs/survey/asucd_w97/) showed that 90% use the computer labs. Why? In Spring ‘97 IT conducted a customer satisfaction survey of students who use the computer labs in order to discover the reason in the apparent discrepancy. IT found that the major reasons were a demand for: 1) access to the network,

2) access to printers, and

3) access to class software.

By comparison note that a recent survey conducted by University of Texas Austin revealed that although 80% of students provide their own private access to a computer, 68% of students still use a computer lab on campus; 28% use a campus computer daily and 48% use a computer weekly. Again, although 70% of students’ private systems include a modem and printer, the main uses of campus computers are printing, email, and other internet applications. (For a copy of "The University of Texas at Austin Student Computer Survey" please contact Gilda Garcia at ggarcia@ucdavis.edu.)

Access to the network, to printers, and to class software is difficult, costly, or impossible from student-owned computers for a variety of reasons. (For a more detailed explanation refer to Computer Access Report: http://lm.ucdavis.edu/pubs/access/.)

• the more faculty work with technology appropriate to instruction and research, the more they want to continue to work with it;
• the more faculty work with technology appropriate to instruction and research, the more likely they are to require computer-based assignments;
• the more students use computers to complete assignments, to participate in discussion lists, to do research, and to write papers, the more students use computers in innovative and exploratory ways; in other words, technology encourages discovery.

• advocate for more space so as to increase access though an increase in number of seats;
• dedicate more space specifically for general access;
• test pilot projects (such as network access ports and wireless) to divert certain types of traffic (email use) and,
• increase the reliability of the hardware/software systems so they can better support mult-tasking and scholarly software.

To promote student computer literacy, faculty are using more and more technology in their instruction. The scheduling of computer classrooms for faculty/instruction has increased from 13.6% of the time available M-F 8-6 in Fall 1992 to 58.2% in Spring 1997. This represents an increase from a total of 901 hours to 2619 hours per quarter.

 

 

 

In Spring ’97, as part of an ISAG workgroup, several recommendations were put forth. One of the recommendations concerned a need for higher quality space designed specifically for different types of instructional use, ranging from space which encourages collaboration and teamwork to hands-on demonstration.

IT attempts to track quality to the extent it is realistically possible. Currently, we define quality in several ways:

• reliability and diversity of appropriate software applications;
• reliability, age, speed, and power of hardware;
• reliability, type, and configuration of networking;
• appropriateness of room layout design for designated function; and,
• room tools, such as scanners, white boards, projection systems, etc.

IV. Fall ‘97 Readiness

Student Need

• Designated TB114 exclusively as a general access computer lab with 15 Macs and 15 PCs.

• advertised TB114 and are re-training students to go to TB114 for general access;

• Implemented several practices to ensure that the frontline site attendants are better prepared to direct/redirect students to accessible computer stations. We:
• posted signs to direct traffic better. The current "Do not enter" signs have been updated and color-coded with stop (red), yield (yellow -- at the instructor’s discretion), and go (green) signs. This is helping with the problem of students wanting to use "empty" seats during class.
• included as part of its customer service training for site attendants how to deal with angry and unruly students;
• implemented web information at http://lm.ucdavis.edu/rooms/available/ so that site attendants know where seats are available and can direct students accordingly (status of each computer room -- class in session, number of seats available, next class time, etc.).

• Determined to keep designated labs open extended hours during finals.

• Decided to open the labs to students before the beginning of Fall quarter.

• Installed network access ports in the basement of Olson lounge as part of a pilot project.

• Begun the planning and construction of access ports in the common area in Meyer Hall.

• Agreed to work with and support, in as many ways as realistically possible, computer access in the MU. IT staff are already meeting with ASUCD decision makers to understand their strategy and offer support, as appropriate, which leverages all resources to the best possible campus advantage.

• Made a commitment to work with and to test other "access" technologies such as "wireless access." IT staff are conducting a pilot project to test the viability of wireless access both for site-specific (the Library) use and for general campus and City of Davis use. A list of access initiatives can be found at http://dcas.ucdavis.edu/access/ (see Appendix B).

• Begun to work with Shields library to provide terminals in Extended Hours Reading Room.

• for 241 Olson

• for 1102 Hart

• for 1131 Meyer
  
  upgraded the projection system

• for 307 Surge IV
  
  
upgraded from powerbooks to desktops.

V. Recommendations for Immediate Action

• the spaces are large (100+ computers) requiring a minimal number of student attendants;
• the labs are geographically dispersed but still centrally located;
• they are multi-platform with peripherals such as scanners and zip/jazz drives;
• printing is not free of charge;
• networking is appropriate for the load (extent and degree of use);
• they have extended hours (some 24-hour; some 24-hour only during finals).

student need/use--

• in-class demonstration/presentation,
• collaborative/team-based work, and
• highly interactive experiences.