LEAD Project Update for AC4
Vicki Suter
IT-DCAS
September 17, 1999
LEAD Update Topics
• New way to look at the LEAD project (what
is an architecture/infrastructure definition?)
• Progress on the final report
• LEAD Event Planning
• Faculty Needs Assessment - status and
results so far
Needed from the AC4 as sponsor
• Assignment of technical subcommittee to
review distributed architecture definition
draft
• Approve November Think Tank Plan
• Review analysis to date of needs
assessment, and provide direction for future
data collection and analysis
LEAD Project Purpose
• Learning Environment Architecture
Development Project
• Consult with faculty, students and staff to
identify needs
• Research and summarize current use of
technology for teaching and learning
• Assess new technologies
• Define architecture; make recommendations
Assignment of subcommittee
• Approve assignment of research
subcommittee, headed by Richard Plant, to
work with LEAD project team to review
and refine the overall distributed
architecture definition
Progress on Final Report
• Handout: DRAFT Final Report Outline as
of 9/99
• Early, preliminary drafts have been
circulated and reviewed
– Situation Inventory (II-A-1, Preliminary
Results of Faculty Needs Assessment)
– Technology and Service/Support Issues (III)
• Full draft of final report to AC4 11/8/99
• Final draft, 12/99
Progress on Final Report, cont.
• Active technical teams with draft reports
out or due 9/99
–
–
–
–
–
–
Web server/Database Architectures
Authentication/Authorization
Distributed File Systems
Course Management Systems
Web Authoring Tools
Digital Libraries Issues white paper
Progress on Final Report, cont.
• Technical teams with draft papers due out
10/99
– New drafts from all of the previously listed
teams
– Interactive Communication (message
requirements, collaboration servers, voice/video
conferencing)
– Testing and Testbank Systems
– Back Office (SIS) integration
Coordination with ITF Projects
• Distributed File Systems (AFS, I-Drive)
• Gateway
• Faculty courseweb tools
LEAD Event Planning
• LEAD “First Fridays”
–
–
–
–
All are at the Arbor, from 10 - noon
10/8/99 (Readiness Criteria)
11/5/99 (Review 1st Full Draft of Final Report)
12/3/99 (Review 2nd Draft of Final Report)
• LEAD Think Tank
– 11/17, 11/18, 11/19
– Purpose: Provide consultation/education event
for public review of LEAD draft final report
Format of Think Tank for AC4 approval
• All sessions 2 hours
– First 45 minutes, seminar presentation open to
public, with Q&A/comment time at the end, 15
minute break
– Seminar presenter either local resource, or, in
case of technical topic, off-campus resource
– Followed by one hour facilitated discussion
group, attendance by invitation
Potential Seminar Topics/Times
• 11/17/99 - Needs Assessment and Situation
Inventory
– 9 to 11 AM: Faculty/Student Needs
– 1 to 3 PM: Technical Staff Support
Needs
– 3 to 5 PM: Situation Inventory
(particularly, activities at other
comparable universities)
Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 2
• 11/18/99 - Architecture & Technical
Infrastructure
– 9 to 11 AM: Distributed Computing
Architecture
– 1 to 3 PM: Presentation and Distribution of
Course Materials (Image Database
Repositories, Lecture Support, Course
Management Systems)
– 3 - 5 PM: Interactive Communication
Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 3
• Friday, 11/19/99: LEAD Key Points and
Recommendations
– 9 - 11 AM : Review key points of discovery
from previous 2 days, summarize
recommendations and findings
Results from Faculty Needs Assessment
• Faculty use of computers
for instructional purposes
– Nearly Ubiquitous
(93%)
– Mobile (50% laptops,
30% laptops in
classroom, 90% do
some off-campus
work)
– Multiplatform
Use of course web pages
• Majority (65%) either
already uses, or has
specific plans to start
using course web page
• Course web page
features rated most
important - general,
static information
(syllabus, examples)
Use of other on-line resources
• Electronic Mail
– Over half (51.5%)
suggest use
– 36% require use
• More than half (52%)
use Melvyl as an
instructional tool
• Electronic file
distribution required
by 22%
Sources for Faculty Support
• Faculty find their primary source of
assistance in their departmental or college
technical support staff
–
–
–
–
–
Hardware (84%)
Software (73%)
Web Page (38%)
Courseware (19%)
Network (60%)
Further Assessment Planned
• Faculty Interviews
– Sample from same population as surveys
(excluding those who were sent surveys)
– 50 planned, 20 completed
– “Drill down” into
• Web page features which might be valuable
• Presentation and distribution of classroom materials
• Faculty Support
Further Assessment Planned, cont.
• Demo/Focus Groups (to address “testdrive” problem)
– Involve scheduled demo (by current faculty
user) of technology, followed by facilitated
discussion
– Topics
• Use of library resources in the classroom
• Course Management Systems/Web Delivery
• On-line testing and testbanks
Demo/Focus Groups, cont.
• Interactive Communication
– Audio/videoconferencing
– white boards
– Chat and other collaboration services
• Presentation/Distribution of Course
Materials
– Image Resource Collections
– Lecture Support
– Course Materials Distribution