Creating a Collaborative Information Technology Policy and Enhance Capabilities for Education

through a New Strategy on Instructional Technology at Rutgers University

 RIT: Rutgers Information Technology

Sang Nguyen

Welcome Thank you all for attending today's presentation.

A special thanks to :

Dr. Donald Smith, Vice President and Chief Information Officer of Information Technology for being in attendance.

Presentation Overview

Instructional Technology

The Problem – General

The Problem – Rutgers

Successful Programs

RIT

Budget

Summary

Discussion

References

Instructional Technology?

The use of technology for education

Online Classes

Learning Management Systems (sakai, eCollege, etc.)

Class Podiums

iClickers

PowerPoint

Instructional technologies can help enhance teaching and learning abilities.

What technology do most of your Professors use often?

Source: Technology Survey Qualtrics

The Problem in General

Lack of training

Little support for technology

Online Class software

Multiple versions of Learning Management Systems

Source: Barriers to Adopting Technology

Rutgers Problem

Policy- no clear instructions on what websites to use, what computers to buy, or how to best share information

Collaboration and Innovation to one Department

Educators not using the technology to its potential

Lack of training causing lost time in class

Did you know Rutgers offered technology training?

Funding for the same technology development in different departments

No clear understanding for online classes such as there being one portal to take online classes

Information to faculty and students is lacking

Equipment and User errors

Are there problems during class with technology? (Ex: equipment failure and/or user error)

68% experience a tech problem

84% Did not know

Survey Results

How many classes do you take that use Technology?

Majority of Professors are using Technology between 4- 5 per semester per student, overall 53% reported

How often did a technology problem occur?

At least 1 problem occurred when a student went to class

Survey Results Cont.

Do you want live Video and Web Conferencing ?

63.46% want to see this happen

Should the Professor take training classes?

63% of students said yes

How long before problem was fixed?

57.14% took 10min or more

Models of Success

Harvard University

Pennsylvania State University

Washington State University- Pullman

University Of Washington

University of Massachusetts- Amherst

University of Arkansas

Harvard University

HUIT

CIO Council

Uniform policy for the whole University

First year of HUIT: 2012-2013

63% to 67% Satisfaction

37% to 40% more helpful

Harvard Cont.

Service Delivery Goals

Deliver IT services that meet the needs of faculty, students, and staff

1.  Ensure that HUIT services meet customer needs2.  Enhance customer-facing services3.  Experiment with new technologies and new service delivery models4.  Develop IT service management processes5.  Improve development practices

Strategy, Planning and Compliance

Develop University IT strategies and plans, and ensure compliance

6.  Refine and begin implementation of University IT strategic plan7.  Manage information technology related risks8.  Develop technical architecture standards9.  Advance strategic initiatives

Student Information System

Identity and AccesLearning Management Ecosystem

HarvardX

Information Security

10.  Coordinate IT plans for FAS, CA, and Library

Capital Investments and Program Management

Enable strategic investment and implementation of IT11.  Manage CA decision-making and oversight for capital IT investments12.  Develop a Project Management Office to support and oversee projects across HUIT

HUIT Workplace Development

Provide essential tools and support for HUIT staff13.  Foster HUIT values14.  Attract, develop, and retain top talent15.  Manage multi-year budgeting, forecasting, and financial planning processes16.  Improve internal and external IT communications

Washington Sate University Video and Web Conferencing capabilities

Distance learning facilities

Video Streaming and Recording

Training on technology

University of Massachusetts- Amherst

Office of Information Technology

Single entity

UMass Online

UMassOnline expands programs to provide educational access.

UMass Online reaches diverse and geographically dispersed learners. In AY 2010-11 course enrollments for UMass Online were 50,782, an 11% increase over AY 2009-10.

No difference of degree whether online or traditional

16% increase in revenue for FY11

12% increase in enrollment for FY11

Pennsylvania State University

World Campus

Enrolled over 200,000 online

96% increase since 2008

About $80 million from online enrollment in 2012

Students online paid $6,327 compared to traditional $13,932

The Replacement Model

Reduce class-meeting time

Replace face to face with online meeting

Reduce from three to one lecture per week

Utilizing computer and studio labs

University of Arkansas

ITS: Information Technology Services

Centralized system for the whole University

Collaboration between departments

Control all technology aspects

LifeSize Video Conferencing

Able to connect to other parts of University from across the state

More accessible to more students

Lower cost to University and Students

Overflow classrooms

Use another classroom to accommodate students

University of Washington

Faculty Development

Online modules for technology training

Teaching with simulations

Learning about online distance learning

IT connect

One stop shop

Overall 100,000 online enrollment for 2011-2012

Revenue 27% increase

2012- $54.2 million

2011- $42.6 million

Gross Revenue 17% increase

2012- $131.1 million

2011- $108.4 million

What we will take

RIT

Harvard

HUITUniform policiesTraining

Penn State

The Replacement

Model

UW

UW OnlineTraining

WSU

Video and Web Services

UMASS

UMass Online

UARK

LifesizeITS

The PlanPhase 1

• Develop an IT committee• Reorganize into RIT• Policy

Phase 2

• Staff• Training

Phase 3

• Hardware• Collaboration• Survey

Phase 4

• Budget• Incentives• Feedback

Phase 5

• Online Classes/Sakai• Digital Classroom Podium• Pilot Video Conferencing

Phase 6

• Survey• Budget

“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

Phase 1

IT committee of one person per school IT department, Student representative per school, a Faculty member from each school, and the Chief Information Officer.

Rutgers Information Technology (RIT) is created

Development of Policy on the use of Instructional Technology, standards, and procedures

Develop a preliminary budget

Phase 2

Determine where and how much staff is needed

Training plan will be put in place,

Have at least training for faculty in the fall and spring semester

For any special equipment or classrooms equipment for video conferencing, there will be a mandatory 1 hour training before using

Train faculty on new equipment and the possibilities of technology for classes

Offer student and staff training

Advertise training via email, facebook, twitter, Targum, and any other source possible

Feedback on policy, training, and satisfaction on RIT

Survey students, faculty, and staff on what instructional technology to use

Phase 3

Inspect computers, network, servers, and any equipment used for education

Replace equipment base on the standards set forth for the whole of the University that is 4-5 years or older

Have IT departments collaborate and innovate

Feedback from staff about RIT

Reevaluate that instructional technology is be use effectively

Phase 4

Reevaluate Budget with keeping in mind that technology needs to be replace between every 4-5 years, more than just a capital investment

Develop a incentive program for faculty to use instructional technology

Feedback from faculty, staff, and students on RIT

Phase 5

Online Distance Learning

Digital Classroom Services

Pilot Video Conferencing

Sakai

Phase 6

Survey

Collect data on instructional technology usage

Collect data on the training program

Collect data on video conferencing pilot program

Collect data on online learning

Improve where we can and should from this point on

BudgetExpense Revenue

Small Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums

$0 x 4 = $0

Large Classrooms -Digital Classroom Podiums

$0 x 4 = $0

Adobe Connect (currently) $0

LifeSize Video Conferencing w/3 year service

$15,000 x 6 = $90,000Initial cost

Faculty Incentive $2,000

NJ Edge (currently) $0

Student Staff (part-time) $52,800 annually

Additional Tech Fee $5 x 65,000 = $325,000

Computer Fee (Currently) $153.50 x 65,000 = $9,977,500

Total $144,800 $10,302,500

*LifeSize Grant Assistance Program- $90 billion in technology grants*Operating cost unknown do to no separate information on Technology budget*partnerships with Technology Companies*Student Service Operating cost $65,829,000

Complications

Faculty not on board

Capabilities of the hardware and network

Not continuing with the plan because of difficulties

Departments not sharing information

Lack of student interest

Not enough bandwidth

Integration of systems may not work

Is this Technology RIT?

Demonstration by David Wyrtzen of Digital Classroom Services

Summary

RIT: Rutgers Information Technology Time for collaboration and innovation

Policy We need an easy and uniform experience

Training Quality of education must be held

Online Distance Learning More possibilities for Students and Faculty

Sakai Better use of software

Budget for IT as an investment that changes

Is Rutgers Technology RIT for the 21st Century?

Thank You!

Questions?

• Dr. Donald Smith

• David Wyrtzen

• Fellow Rutgers students

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.

References Keengwe, Jared, Terry Kidd, and Lydia Kyei-Blankson. "Faculty and Technology: Implications for Faculty

Training and Technology Leadership." Journal of Science Education & 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. "Office of Instructional & Research Technology." Office of Instructional & Research Technology. Dec 4 2013.Web. <https://oirt.rutgers.edu/>.

Rutgers. “Budget Facts and Figures.” Budget Facts and Figures. Dec 20 2013. Web. <http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu>.

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.

References Smith, Donald. Personal Interview. 3 Apr. 2014

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. 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.