University of California, Irvine
Chancellor's Educational Technology Task Force Preliminary Report
March 24, 1995
Task Force Members---
Preamble---
Recommendations---
Footnotes---
Acronyms
Task Force Members
- Henry J. Becker, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Education
hjbecker@uci.edu
- Rhona Berenstein, Asst. Professor, Film Studies
rjberen@uci.edu
- Alfred Bork, Professor Emeritus, Info. & Computer Science
bork@uci.edu
- Wendell Brase, Vice Chancellor Admin. & Business Services
wcbrase@uci.edu
- Michael D. Butler, Former Dean, Undergraduate Studies
(served WQ 1994)
- Michael D'Zmura, Associate Professor, Cognitive Sciences
mdzmura@uci.edu
- Jean-Claude Falmagne, Professor, Cognitive Sciences
jcf@uci.edu
- Steve Franklin, Director of Advanced Scientific
Computing, OAC
franklin@uci.edu
- Michael D. Fried, Professor, Mathematics
mfried@uci.edu
- Anne Friedberg, Associate Professor, Film Studies
afriedbe@uci.edu
- Bernard Grofman, Professor, Social Sciences
bgrofman@uci.edu
- Vijay Gurbaxani, Associate Professor, GSM
vgurbaxa@uci.edu
- Patrick L. Healey, Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies
plhealey@uci.edu
- Fawzi H. Hermes, Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Studies
fhhermes@uci.edu
- Alan Hoffer, Professor & Director, Dept. of Education
ahoffer@uci.edu
- Ulysses S. Jenkins, Assistant Professor, Studio Arts,
Fine Arts
usjenkin@uci.edu
- John L. King, Professor, Info. & Computer Science
jlking@uci.edu
- Rob Kling, Professor, Info. & Computer Science
kling@uci.edu
- Harry J. Mangalam, Assoc. Specialist, Microbio. &
Molecular Genetics, COM
mangalam@uci.edu
- David McCue, Director of Production Services, Media
Services
- Roger D. McWilliams, Professor of Physics, Acting Dean,
Undergraduate Studies
- William H. Parker, Professor of Physics, Associate EVC &
Director OAC
whparker@uci.edu
- Janice Pratte, Director of Science & Technology Programs,
University Extension
jlpratte@uci.edu
- Thomas A. Standish, Prof. & Chair, Info. & Computer
Science (Task Force Chair)
standish@uci.edu
- Tatsuya Suda, Professor, Info. & Computer Science
suda@uci.edu
- Lorelei Tanji, Fine Arts Librarian, UCI Libraries
ltanji@uci.edu
- J. Michael Thompson, Registrar & Director SAIS
thompson@uci.edu
- Luis Villarreal, Professor, Molecular Biology and
Biochemistry
lpvillar@uci.edu
- Jane Welgan, Acting Dean, University Extension
jmwelgan@uci.edu
Preamble
In the contemporary era, computers have become
nearly-universal analytic and expressive instruments.
Their research use is widespread throughout UCI, e.g.,
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in Humanities, the art
and architecture visual data base in Fine Arts, census
and survey research data sets used in the Social
Sciences, to name only a few examples. Once, computers
were huge machines costing millions that only major
institutions could afford. Now, laptop computers more
powerful than the early large mainframes can be
purchased for a few thousand dollars. Computers
abound--in the home as well as in the workplace.
Computers are used to mine information from global
networks and to help link it and fuse it into forms that
reveal new insights. They are used to wrest the
meaning from the data and to visualize the
consequences of assumptions. They are used as well for
communication and global collaboration, and they have
even become the engines of new modes of inquiry in the
sciences and new media for creative expression in the
arts.
As we move toward the 21st century, computer
literacy has become the equivalent of the 4th R. Those
who lack such literacy (at the equivalent of college level
skills) will be severely disadvantaged. Both Chancellor
Wilkening's "manifesto" and the APC report on the
task force process asserted that, "... A UCI graduate
should be prepared to survive and prosper in the electronic
information era."
UCI (and the UC system) have already taken
critical steps to recognize the role of the computer in
education, e.g., the UC Libraries developed MELVYL(R)
and added to it access to a multiplicity of bibliographic
and other data, specialized librarians consult with
faculty on how best to use the computer as a research
tool, IDS and Media Services provide computers (and
other media) for the classroom and consult with faculty
on how best to integrate educational technology, OAC
provides a backbone campus network and terminals to
access it, and courses in basic computer literacy such as
the new ICS Category V breadth courses and Social
Sciences 3A have recently been created. But there is
still a long way to go.
We advocate using the computer and other
educational technology to improve the quality of
education at UCI in terms of the following specific
goals:
- 1. Improve the clarity and impact of lectures.
- 2. Improve student analytical, expressive, and
critical thinking skills.
- 3. Improve student/faculty feedback.
- 4. Improve the usefulness of homework exercises
for student learning.
- 5. Permit more self-paced learning to cope with
increasing diversity in student skill levels.
- 6. Provide technological opportunities to link
UCI and the community--alumni,
University Extension students, current and
potential students, and their families.
Making cost-effective use of educational technology
requires four key elements
(Footnote 1):
- 1. Basic infrastructure that makes access to
educational technology easy for faculty,
students and staff. While some of this
infrastructure can and will be developed
within individual units, the role of OAC,
the UCI Libraries, IDS/Media Services and
Student Services, will be essential.
Infrastructure should be seen not merely as
hardware and software, but even more
importantly as staff who can do necessary
training of faculty and graduate TAs and
smooth the way for the integration of
educational technology in the classroom.
- 2. Training of students in fundamental skills of
how to use the computer as an aid to find
information, organize it, analyze it, and
communicate ideas persuasively (including
use of graphics) during their first year at
UCI. These skills cannot be tied too closely to
particular platforms or software, since
technological change is too rapid. The Task
Force also recognizes that such critical skills
(e.g., asking good questions and avoiding bad
data) must be developed in the context of the
very different substantive questions in the
various academic disciplines. Thus, the
responsibility for training must involve all
the units on campus, although some units
may be used as a campuswide resource, e.g.,
OAC, ICS, the UCI Libraries, UNEX, and
PASS (Program of Academic Support
Services) of Undergraduate Studies.
- 3. Incentives to faculty to make use of the
computer in the classroom, along with
incentives to academic units to redesign
their curriculum to draw on the computer-
aided research skills that students have been
taught, lest those skills degenerate through
lack of use.
- 4. Integrating the computer more fully into on-
going campus life by making virtually all
information of interest (e.g., campus
calendar, course schedules, syllabi, degree
requirements, faculty bio-sketches, etc.)
available on-line, and assuring that key
secretarial and administrative staff in all
the units have basic information skills
including the ability to retrieve and enter
information into the campus computer net.
We do not wish this report to be merely hortatory.
We have five specific recommendations, several of
which will require fundamental changes in the way
things get done. Some can be implemented almost
immediately, others will take more lead time, but we
believe that all of our proposals for change can be
accomplished within a four year time frame. The strong
support for these ideas from Task Force members from
OAC, Undergraduate Studies (including IDS and
Media Services), the UCI Libraries and Student
Services, and from the very diverse faculty on the Task
Force convinces us that what we propose not only is
feasible but would be enthusiastically received by many
on our campus.
Recognizing the incredible amount of coordination
and effective advocacy required, we recommend that the
Chancellor appoint a Czar (i.e., a strong leader) to
oversee the implementation of these recommendations.
In her "manifesto" document, "Growing into the 21st
Century: UCI's Opportunities," the Chancellor quoted the
APC report on the task force process as follows:
"If UCI is to have a distinctive undergraduate
program of high quality and is to attract
students of high quality, then some thought
should be given to the adoption by UCI of several
programmatic characteristics that distinguish
the UCI undergraduate experience from that of
other universities." (pp. 5-6)
Both the Chancellor's "manifesto" and the APC
report went on to identify four such distinctive
programmatic characteristics, the first three of which
dealt with: (i) cultural diversity as an educational
asset, (ii) research or scholarly experience, and (iii)
communication skills. The fourth distinctive
characteristic, identified as a prerequisite for future
success, was, (iv) 21st century electronic information
skills.
Achieving the goals of the present Report will
address the fourth of these distinctive features of a UCI
undergraduate education in a sound and constructive
fashion.
Even more emphatically, if we achieve what this
report recommends, then, by the year 2000, UCI's
distinctive status as a 21st century university can be
proudly proclaimed.
Recommendations
1. The Chancellor Should Recommend that the
Academic Senate Make 21st Century Information
Skills a Requirement for Graduation from UCI
- 1.1 The Chancellor should recommend to the
Academic Senate that it establish a new
Breadth Requirement, Category VIII: 21st
Century Information Skills, to be fulfilled
either by successfully completing a one-
quarter course during the freshman year or
by demonstrating competence in these skills
(Footnote 2). Each approved Category VIII
breadth course should cultivate critical
thinking and research skills serviceable
for a lifetime.
- 1.2 We recommend that each major offer one or
more upper-division courses which require
students to apply these critical thinking
skills in their specific disciplines.
- 1.3 We recommend providing special training
and resources to graduate students in 21st
Century information skills both for their own
benefit and in support of the role they play in
the University's undergraduate
instructional program.
2. Build and Maintain a Minimal, Pervasive
Infrastructure
(Footnote 3) to Support Learning and
Teaching Based on the Use of Educational Technology
- 2.1 The Minimal Pervasive Infrastructure
should provide universal access by UCI
students, faculty and staff to e-mail, the
Internet, MELVYL(R) and modest file storage
capacity by September 1995.
- 2.2 We urge the Chancellor to develop a special
incentive program for departments to
integrate computer use for research purposes
and computer-mediated homework and
grading into their curriculum. Funding
($100,000 minimum) should be awarded on a
competitive basis to a very limited number of
departments each year, only to those
departments whose members are committed
to a full integration of educational
technology. Funding would be multi-year and
would be renewed yearly only upon evidence
that the goals and timetables in the proposal
had been achieved. Funding would require
that all courses make use of at least a
minimal level of educational technology, e.g.,
e-mail; that more than just a handful of
faculty in the department make substantial
use of educational technology in the
classroom; and that a curricular plan be
developed to guarantee that computer labs be
utilized and that the computer-mediated
research skills taught during students' first
year at UCI be drawn upon and further
enriched
(Footnote 4).
- 2.3 Every four years, a budget of $2000 should be
made available to each UCI faculty member
for the acquisition of an adequate desktop
computing platform, or the upgrading of an
existing one. A minimal set of functions of
such platform would include access to the
Internet, sending and receiving of e-mail, and
file storage and retrieval. Whenever
necessary, the Office of Academic
Computing should act as a consultant for
such purchases.
- 2.4 The UCI Libraries and OAC should provide
computer terminals adequate to allow
students to access their computer accounts
and adequate modem access to the campus
backbone.
- 2.5 All undergraduate students should be given
access to computer facilities and a sufficient
number of workstations should be made
available to them in various locations and for
various purposes including use in the
framework of courses.
- 2.6 Each graduate student should have a
dedicated computer in his/her office.
- 2.7 UC's Intercampus Telecommunications
Network Video Teleconferencing system
should continue to be developed as a tool for
Distance Learning and other applications.
Through Media Services, the campus should
develop distance learning classroom facilities
and provide the necessary technical staff to
meet the demands of future academic
programs.
- 2.8 In order to allow the use of computer display
and network technologies in the classroom,
we recommend that the Chancellor charge:
- 2.8.1 The Office of Academic Computing
with providing computer
network connectivity to all general
assignment classrooms.
- 2.8.2 Media Services with providing
computers and video display
devices sufficient to meet faculty
demands without recharges.
- 2.9 We recommend that computer-network
connectivity should be a built-in feature of
all classrooms.
- 2.10 We recommend the expansion of the services
currently offered by Media Services into a
one-stop service in collaboration with OAC
to support faculty who want to develop new
instructional technology-based courses.
3. Help Faculty Identify and Pursue Research
Funding and Course Development Opportunities
in Instructional Technology
- 3.1 A number of private foundations,
government agencies, and corporations are
prepared to invest in the search for solutions
that help improve education. The Chancellor
should urge the office of the Vice Chancellor
for Research to give special emphasis to the
task of helping UCI faculty interested in
research in educational technology to find
and successfully obtain extramural research
support. In addition, faculty desirous of
developing proposals for outside grants
related to undergraduate education should be
urged to take advantage of the Faculty
Resource Center on Grants for
Undergraduate Education in the Office of
the Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
- 3.2 Faculty who desire to explore revolutionary
(and thus usually expensive) new
instructional technologies may be able to do
so via meaningful partnerships and consortia
with multiple industry/university
institutions. Participation in such consortia
may be possible only if high-level
administrators endorse and support UCI's
participation. Where appropriate, we urge
support by UCI's high-level administration.
(E.g., IBM might agree to support UCI to
develop prototype CD-ROM, interactive,
computer-mediated courseware at, say, $4
million per complete course, only if high-level
UCI administrators endorse UCI's
participation and meet IBM's partnership
constraints.)
- 3.3 Some explorations of educational technology
are of sufficiently established pedagogical
value for us to recommend application of the
results to the Academic Senate for beneficial
curricular change. E.g., Mature
instructional technologies that are
candidates for immediate application
include, but are not limited to:
- 3.3.1 Computer-mediated knowledge
assessment techniques developed
by Professors Fried and Falmagne).
- 3.3.2 Multi-media CD-ROM interactive
learning technologies (developed by
Prof. Bork).
- 3.3.3 Multi-campus distance-learning
technologies (successfully prototyped
by UCI Media Services).
- 3.3.4 Computer-based problem-solving to
enhance the quality and
vivacity of learning and the
productivity of the faculty
(developed by Profs. Ron Stevens and
Sid Golub for teaching UCLA second-year
medical students).
- 3.4 The Task Force recommends continuing
support for seed money opportunities to
develop innovative instructional
technologies, e.g., CID grants for pilot
introduction of new technologies. Because of
the costs of developing credible proposals,
funding of one month's summer salary and
some staff assistance would be highly
desirable. Thus, there should be the
possibility of funding at the $10,000 to
$15,000 level that now exists for special UCI
grants to junior faculty to foster their
research
(Footnote 5).
4. Ensure Extensive Administrative Use of
Computers in Support of Education and
Support the Use of Technological Resources
to Link to the Extended UCI Community
- 4.1 Administratively, in support of education,
UCI should make far more extensive use of
computers, especially by making information
available to students on-line, but also by
working toward the elimination of forms that
can only be filled in using a typewriter
(Footnote 6).
- 4.2 In particular, we propose that Student
Services coordinate making all of the
following available on-line (in cooperation
with the academic units)
(Footnote 7):
- 4.2.1 course schedules
- 4.2.2 syllabi and class notes
(Footnote 8)
- 4.2.3 grades
- 4.2.4 e-mail directory for all students,
staff and faculty
- 4.2.5 individual class rosters that list
e-mail addresses for students
in the class and the automatic
creation by the Registrar
of a single address that permits
a message to be sent
to all students in that class
- 4.2.6 faculty bio-sketches
- 4.2.7 degree requirements
- 4.2.8 descriptions of academic programs
- 4.2.9 course and teacher evaluations
- 4.2.10 campus map, with locations of
student access computer
terminals highlighted
- 4.2.11 pictures of faculty, staff and TAs
- 4.3 Key secretarial and administrative staff in
all the units should be trained in basic
information skills including the ability to
retrieve and enter information into the
campus computer net.
- 4.4 There should be support for lifelong education
using the instructional technology resources
of University Extension and the UCI
Libraries. UNEX is already playing a role in
this arena and can be looked upon to continue
it in cooperation with the University and the
community.
- 4.5 UCI should participate in using
technological innovations that enhance
education and should publicize information
about it to faculty, staff, students, and the
extended UCI community.
5. Move Toward One Computer Per Student by
the Year 2000
- 5.1 Given the vast increases in power of laptop
computers and the decline in their price, we
believe that all UCI students should be
required to own a computer. This would
permit us to phase out many of the existing
computer labs and replace them with plug-in
access. However, we do not recommend
immediate implementation of this proposal.
We must move in parallel to develop the
necessary introductory courses, integration of
computer-related research skills into the
curriculum, creation of network
infrastructure, faculty, TA, and staff
training, staff consulting resources, etc.,
before we require this. Thus, we propose this
requirement be implemented for the class
that enters in the year 2000 (although it
might be implemented even sooner for
graduate students only). In the meantime, in
consultation with the Academic Senate,
OAC should immediately develop and
continue to update standards for what
type(s) of computers students should be
advised to purchase, while the
Undergraduate Dean should consider how
funding might be handled, especially in
terms of scholarships and student loans.
Once advisory guidelines have been specified,
these recommendations should be
communicated to all students upon
admission to UCI and should also be
communicated to high school admissions
counselors.
Also, we would strongly urge that pilot
projects be conducted in various disciplines
involving academic units that make
substantial commitments to integrate
computer use thoroughly into their
curriculum to require students in those units
to own laptops. Some special funding should
be made available for this purpose. With a
change of this magnitude, it is critical to
have substantial experience with how this
idea works in practice before making it
mandatory for all students in all units.
Footnotes
- There
have been previous expensive commitments to
educational technology that have failed to live up to
their expansive promises. We believe one reason for
that failure has been a lack of appreciation that
hardware alone is not enough, nor are courses in
computer skills when the skills they teach are not
used later in the rest of the curriculum. There must
be incentives for students, faculty and staff to use the
technology and the technology must be easy to access,
user friendly, and not constantly changing.
- The
primary aim of this course is to cultivate
students' critical thinking skills--thus serving a
basic aim of a good liberal education. Developing an
agile ability to use modern computers as analytical,
expressive, and information gathering instruments
can be of significant, lasting value in cultivating
critical thinking skills--skills serviceable for a
lifetime. Of considerable importance is training in
the use of computer-based, discipline-specific research
tools, and their use in solving problems in the
respective disciplines. Basic familiarity with
elementary uses of the computer as a foundation on
which to build the discipline-specific skills is also
recommended. At a minimum, such basic skills
should cover elementary word processing with a focus
on skills that are most relevant to writing research
papers; training to access MELVYL(R) and the various
information sources within it; training to use e-mail,
gopher, World-Wide-Web, and other Internet
resources; and training in various useful information
search and display techniques.
- Infrastructure
includes not only equipment, but the
staff to support and update it, sufficient funding
therefor, and maintaining easy access for faculty,
students, and staff.
- While
individual innovators are important, long-run
change requires widespread change in standard
operating procedures. To motivate such changes,
groups such as departments will have to be convinced
that there are payoffs for them, collectively, to devote
effort to improving teaching in existing courses via
the computer and, perhaps, to add new courses that
draw even more heavily on computer use. Since
entrepreneurs are not evenly spread throughout the
campus, it is inevitable that curricular innovation
using computers will proceed through the system at
an uneven rate. By proceeding one department at a
time, and requiring real and continuing curricular
change to qualify for this new major funding, we can
make it likely that curricular innovations will be
continued.
- A
model for this is the $15,500 funding received by
Prof. Grofman to develop Social Sciences 3A.
- We
commend Student Services for pioneering first
steps in creating an on-line student admissions
application.
- Some
of these data are presently made accessible on-
line by some academic units.
- The
World Wide Web (WWW) materials prepared by
Prof. D'Zmura for the Cognitive Sciences Department
and the course description placed on WWW for Prof.
Garfias' course in Ethnomusicology (jointly prepared
by Prof. Garfias and Michael Thompson) are models
of what should be done.
Table of Acronyms Used
- APC
Academic Planning Council
- CD-ROM
Compact Disk Read-Only Memory
- CID
Committee on Instructional Development
- COM
College of Medicine
- EVC
Executive Vice Chancellor
- GSM
Graduate School of Management
- IBM
International Business Machines, Inc.
- ICS
Information and Computer Science
- IDS
Instructional Development Services
- MELVYL(R)
Automated UC Libraries Index
- OAC
Office of Academic Computing
- PASS
Program of Academic Support Services
- SAIS
Student Academic Information Services
- TA
Teaching Assistant
- TEC
Technology Enhanced Classroom
- UC
University of California
- UCI
University of California, Irvine
- UCLA
University of California, Los Angeles
- UNEX
University Extension
- VC
Vice Chancellor
- WWW
World Wide Web