Instructional Technologies
a Strategic Environment Scan of Academic Computing
Use and Instructional Appropriateness
August 2004 for
Creighton University
Office of the President and Office of Academic Affairs
prepared by
Amber Gravett, PhD, 6SBB
Division of IT, Department of Academic Computing and e-learning
Instructional Technologies
i
Abstract
This white paper examined the idea of instructional appropriateness as it applies to
academic and instructional computing technologies currently employed in U.S. tertiary
education. Exploration was performed within the dual context of appropriate research
and an operational and environmental scan suitable for use in an organizational strategic
planning process.
While no recommendations were pursued by design, numerous
existing and widely adopted technologies were explored in terms of efficacy, adoption by
competitor institutions, and general feasibility at Creighton University. Emergent trends,
operational risks, human and systemic impact of said technologies were also addressed.
Instructional Technologies
ii
Table of Contents
Academic Computing and Instructional Appropriateness
p. 01
State of Academic Computing
p. 02
Primary Extant Instructional Technologies
p. 05
Wireless Networks (WLANs)
p. 05
Portals, Web Delivered Services, eCommunities
p. 07
CMS, ePortfolios, Synchronous Tools
p. 11
Non-Technical Trends in Academic Computing
p. 19
Comparative Peer and Competitor Institutional Use
p. 24
Impact and Risks of Technology Adoption
p. 31
Emergent Trends and Candidate Technologies
p. 37
References
p. 45
Appendices
p. 49
Appendix A: Example Portals
p. 49
Appendix B: ePortfolio Definitions
p. 52
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
p. 53
Appendix D: Per Building Assessment of Network
Health and Upgrade Expense
p. 54
Instructional Technologies
iii
List of Tables
Table 1 Portal Accessed Service Challenges
p. 10
Table 2 Outcome Oriented Technology Services
p. 11
Table 3 Peer Institution Comparative Adoption Matrix
p. 25
Table 4 Impact and Risk of Service Interruption
p. 33
Table 5 Creighton University Corrective Actions
p. 34
Instructional Technologies
iv
List of Figures
Figure1 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Trends
p. 06
Figure 2 Portal Trends
p. 09
Figure 3 Course Management Systems (CMS) Trends
p. 14
Figure 4 ePortfolio Adoption Rates
p. 16
Figure 5 IT Budget Trends by Academic Function
p. 22
Figure 6 Relative Complexity and Adoption of Extant Technologies
p. 27
Figure 7 Comparative Adoption of Network Technologies
p. 28
Figure 8 Comparative Adoption of Web-Derived Services and Tools
p. 29
Figure 9 Comparative Adoption of Synchronous and Collaborative
Technologies
p. 29
Instructional Technologies
1
Academic Computing and Instructional Appropriateness
It is challenging to address academic computing and technologies from a
perspective that is solely information technologies centric. An issue central to
meaningful consideration of academic computing systems and tools in the active learning
environment is the idea of appropriateness. Thus, it is within that context that existing
instructional technologies will be profiled and examined in relation to Creighton
University’s academic and faith derived mission, with attention afforded to the idea of
instructional appropriateness. A brief exploration of exigent risk and infrastructure
impact to existing systems, alignment with peer or competitor institutions and feasibility
associated with said technologies will augment the broader trend analysis. Ultimately,
this consideration will provide an environmental scan of the current academic computing
and e-learning environment, as well as theoretical and applicative basis for further
strategic decision implementation germane to Creighton University’s unique positioning.
In 1973, economist E.F. Schumacher advocated the concept of appropriate
technologies and the importance of purpose when assessing systems. Admittedly, his
concerns centered upon rudimentary hardware and advanced mechanical system
integration into human-organic systems, rather than instructional design (ID); but, his
espoused principles remain valid in the academic context more than three decades later.
Essentially, Schumacher contended that the highest degree of technology is not
necessarily the wisest export into any human system. Appropriateness of the innovation
in terms of impact, is of greater importance than intrinsic advancement (Schumacher,
1973). Dr. Leslie Briggs, an educational systems and ID researcher at Florida State
Instructional Technologies
2
expanded Schumacher’s work into the realm of instructional computing, likening
academic computing systems to cars, universities to roadways and students, to drivers:
The Cadillac has many desirable features and in some situations, such as
transporting heads of state or participating in funeral processions, it is a clear
choice, particularly when compared to lower cost vehicle such as a Chevy.
However, it is important to recognize that both the Cadillac and Chevy
will get you there (Briggs as cited in Ragan & Smith, 1999, p.372).
Appropriate technology therefore translates into appropriate instruction when academic
computing systems and e-learning technologies are involved.
Creighton University must consider the availability, feasibility and most
importantly the advisability of particular instructional technologies. Further adapting
Brigg’s analogy, while a fully integrated student personal area network (S-PAN) with
virtual university, e-book cache and e-community system inlets, and routing streamed
digital cable represents the educational Ferrari of the status quo, Creighton University’s
constituencies might be best served by a nicely appointed Toyota Forerunner. While this
white paper is not directly concerned with instructional content and curricular formation,
the inescapable reality of instructional technologies’ impact upon the former will be
noted and addressed through this notion of technological and instructional
appropriateness and advisability. While conclusions are offered, recommendations have
been intentionally excluded in an effort to ensure objective consideration of the issues
offered herein.
State of Academic Instructional Technologies
“I’ve been having these two parallel dreams about e-learning. One is rosy and
rich with possibilities. The other isn’t quite a nightmare, but has people running down
corridors and bumping into walls” (Rossett, 2002, p.3). Although dramatic, the statement
Instructional Technologies
3
does reflect the state of academic computing and e-learning, a composite portrait of
frenetic adoption and application balanced by the realities of steadied implementation,
overdue infrastructure improvement and client use. Prior to assessing dominant
technologies of the status-quo and near horizon, the current state of affairs merits some
inclusion. The Van Buren report-- a collective attempt by the American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD), The Higher Learning Commission (NCA) and
Department of Education to gage the impact and future of instructional technology—
quantifies this sense into a duplicitous reality. In 1998, educational leaders and corporate
executives predicted that 23 percent of training and education would be delivered via
instructional technologies of some ilk by 2000. In 2001, the aggregated numbers for
United States’ universities and training programs had reached only 8 percent (Van Buren,
2001). The Van Buren report concludes that actual measures so very different from
initial want dictate resource assignment to delivery technologies and platform
infrastructure. Attention to cohesive strategic planning around instructional computing is
critical and is also indicated.
Looking to the year 2004, the Taylor, Nelson & Sofres (TNS) educational
consulting firm report commissioned by the ASTD, American and Canadian
governments, sought to benchmark academic technologies integration and e-learning
adoption use by 2004. The TNS report echoed Van Buren’s findings to some degree in
that only 43 percent of education, government and corporate institutional participants had
implemented technology delivered training and degree programs. However, it was
slightly more optimistic in its findings that 85 percent of respondents intended to
continue aggressive pursuit of technology integrated curricula, 33 percent with goal
Instructional Technologies
4
timelines by 2004 (Taylor, Nelson & Sofres, 2001). More recent survey data garnered
solely from accredited, traditional universities validate the predictive elements of the
TNS study.
Data collected by Kenneth Green for the Wharton School, in conjunction with
University of Pennsylvania’s Syllabus journal “…reveal that over half (51.4 percent) of
the survey respondents report that their institution has a strategic plan for deploying
course management tools, compared to 47.5 percent in 2002” (Green, 2003, p.13). This
is in addition to basic campus services (registration, transcripts, book reservations), found
in the same study to be delivered via academic technologies at a rate of approximately
55.4 percent (Green, 2003). The state of academic computing and instructional
technologies is thus ripe in 2004, for selective adoption or honing of fully integrated
services/systems. This is highly dependent upon a candidate campus’ infrastructure and
modal acuities with the various delivery mediums. How might a large, Midwestern,
Jesuit university with varying degrees of integration throughout its programs thrive in this
technologically ripe environment?
For Creighton University, thriving versus surviving for the next 125 years is
dependent upon an accurate profile of extant academic computing technologies
(instructional and learning supportive) and the exigent benefits and threats wrought
thereof. Consider remarks from the 2004 convocation address heard by Creighton
University students:
For Creighton the exciting results of integrating the high tech knowledge age into
our quality academic programs has two distinct but related goals. First, the growth
and endorsement of “E”-learning (electronic learning) will encourage and sustain
learning communities that enhance the educational, personal and career
development of our students. Second, the integration of learning information
Instructional Technologies
5
technologies into quality programs, curricula and administrative processes are
guided by our vision of a Creighton “learning network…This goal seeks to
integrate information and communication technologies within and beyond the
classroom and to create an “anywhere, anytime access” learning network which
ensures students and faculty a universal and equal access to information
technologies and resources…It is our intent that the Creighton learning network
will strengthen the University’s strong tradition of academic excellence by
combining it with advanced technological infrastructure to create a fully
connected living and learning environment (Schlegel, 2004, sec.5,para.5).
The remainder of this discussion will focus upon said technologies and their potential use
within the Creighton University system. Peer institutional use, as well as near-analog
institutional competitive use will be addressed pursuant to technology trends validated as
truly national or international in scope among accredited universities. Within the
aforementioned constraints of appropriateness and technology, feasibility and impact will
be addressed for this ripe technological environment.
Primary, Extant Academic and Instructional Technologies
Wireless Networks (WLANs)
The survey data from Green’s Wharton Syllabus study suggest that community
colleges and universities continue to pursue wireless technologies. What can be
characterized as dramatic gains over the past year regarding campus planning for and the
deployment of wireless networks has occurred. Roughly 77.2 percent of respondents
reported wireless local area networks (WLANs). Other data mark the continuing
expansion of wireless services. For example, 14 percent of higher education institutions
claim full-campus WLANS are up and running (Green, 2003):
Instructional Technologies
6
Figure 1 Wireless LAN trend demonstrating increasing adoption
(Green, 2003, p.12)
The trend is reflected across the array of learning institutions and is even somewhat
underreported by this survey given the adoption by corporate universities and training
entities, already hovering at levels of 28 percent in 2001 (Horton & Horton, 2001).
Wireless services on campuses and in the consumer and corporate sectors are
improving at a pace equal to its adoption. Rising expectations about wireless services are
fostered in part by the recent, dramatic growth of inexpensive services in the consumer
sector. This could create a perception and reality gap should inbound student classes
arrive expecting wireless services similar to their home environment. There are two
seminal wireless protocols in market at the time of this document’s preparation:
Bluetooth and WiFi. Bluetooth is named for Harold Bluetooth, a tenth century Viking
king who was noted for constructing bridges to link his otherwise disparate kingdom.
Bluetooth is best suited to moderate-bandwidth (memory and power consumption)
environments such as transfer between pocket computers and laptops. Bluetooth’s
Instructional Technologies
7
broadcast rate is modest at 700 kilobytes per second, but is adequate for most basic
academic purposes (Horton & Horton, 2003).
A more robust standard is 802.11a also known as WiFi. WiFi operates with
greater efficiency and at higher bandwidths than does Bluetooth. Creighton University
currently employs the 802.11a WiFi protocol. WiFi can broadcast 300-1000 feet and at
11 megabytes per second. An emergent variant of WiFi is 802.11g. This newer WLAN
protocol transmits at 54 megabytes per second. It is fast and efficient, but far more costly
than 802.11a or Bluetooth (Pillous, 2004). Commercial service providers will likely
circumvent other slower WiFi standards in favor of offering consumer audiences the
fastest possible service and security for the price. It is worth considering the ideal
WLAN protocol for expanded wireless campus deployment in terms of fluid transition
for students. As paying consumers of Creighton University’s wireless 802.11a services,
they potentially arrive on campus with 802.11g experience and expectations.
In early 2004, Creighton University’s IT department undertook a comprehensive
assessment of each building on campus. The assessment was intended to garner a sense
of overall network and wireless health, as well as identify priority candidates for
scheduled improvements. Addressing the existing infrastructure and bringing the ten
most urgent buildings to a stable wireless standard will cost an estimated $6,230,000
(Mattson, 2004). This estimate includes: the Law School, Boyne Dental School,
Administration Building, Cardiac Care Center, Bio-Information Center, Criss I, and
University College. Service for several residence halls in the priority candidate list are
being addressed through vendor channels. There are an additional 27 buildings across
campus requiring some degree of upgrade to attain a fully enabled, robust, wireless and
Instructional Technologies
8
Ethernet standard of consistent quality (Appendix D offers a consolidated view).
Conservatively, the potential cost to bring Creighton University to a collective internal
parity and state of national leadership in network services and wireless capability will
exceed $20,000,000.
Although Creighton University faces some wireless networking challenges, it has
also been recognized as a leading wireless campus for students. It ranks 46th nationally
pursuant to assessment reported in the Intel Corporations "Most Unwired College
Campuses" survey. The annual survey ranks the top 100 schools in the nation for wireless
computing access. Creighton is the only university in Nebraska to be included on the list
and is one of a handful of Jesuit universities listed. The survey reveals a growing number
of schools across the country where students have the freedom to wirelessly access the
Internet on notebook computers—without a traditional wired connection—and stay
connected and informed (Sperling, 2003).
Portals, Campus eServices and Communities
US universities continue to progress in implementation of web portals. A web
portal can generally be thought of as a “website designed for people to visit when they
are looking for links to other sites or information” (Downing, Covington, & Covington,
2000, p.375). While the concept is proven, portal strategies have been (in recent history)
the purview of private industry, rather than a model of website taxonomy. The
aforementioned Syllabus survey documents the growing number of institutions that have
adopted campus portals as a means of accessing services and information:
Instructional Technologies
9
Figure 2 Portal trend demonstrating increasing adoption
(Green, 2003, p.13)
Adoption of a portal strategy is most recently confirmed at 28.4 percent of participant
campuses in 2003, a seven percent increase since 2002. “Another fifth (20.4 percent) of
the survey respondents report that the campus portal is “under development” or being
installed in the current academic year” (Green, 2003, p.12). Perhaps more importantly,
instructional design communities and e-learning practitioners place a lofty emphasis upon
the portal as a proverbial lynch pin for successful central access to services, information
and research resources, online social events, and course offerings or materials (Clark &
Mayer, 2003).
Web delivered university services represent the use of a web site and portal
taxonomy most immediately and often useful felt by campus systems, personnel and
students. Web-accessed and in some cases delivered campus services have tripled since
1998, particularly in the areas of registration and records and admissions. Recalling that
Instructional Technologies
10
more than half of America’s universities can accept application or tuition payments
online, makes this immediacy and utility concrete. While Creighton University and its
sibling institutions can feel positive about these initial steps, higher education’s primary
clientele—students ages 17 to 67—often look at many campus portals and find them
wanting (Green, 2003). Effective portal sites for example, online banks, online malls such
as Overstock and Amazon, file sharing such as Apple iTunes, or education as with
Walden University, offer increasingly customized web delivered services that have
become the standard.
The impetus for the growth of portal access and web delivered university services
has been the importance placed on student life outside the courses themselves. Many
colleges have actually created noteworthy student services web portals. However, most
do not address the churning student environment. Student expectations, access and
operational pressures, service demands and technology costs are impacting higher
education institutions as never before. Ultimately web portal and online services
strategies must address the following challenges:
Table 1 Portal accessed service challenges
Environment
Competition
New markets
Expectations
Mass Customization
Virtual Community
Electronic, Digital
Characteristics
Non-traditional, entrepreneurial universities
Global opportunities, market-oriented students
Personalized services, on-demand help, no delays
Individualized services, flexible processes
Internet access, mobile, distant
Web, services to match new instructional technologies,
Cost / Benefit
Reallocation of operating funds for education
(Haugen, 1999, np)
Instructional Technologies
11
Institutions must refocus, redesign and optimize their student and personnel service
systems with processes that are:
Table 2 Outcome oriented technology centric university services
Attribute
Self-service
Studentcentered
Streamlined
State-of-the-art
Outcome
Increased use of portal delivered "one or none"-stop
service
Renewed focus on serving students, parents, alumni and
community
Greater efficiencies, less or no paperwork, better
accountability, instant completion
User-friendly/convenient technologies
(Haugen, 1999, np)
These technology centric and revitalized student services can improve customer support
by providing flexible, focused processes for students who value time, want anytime
support and expect fully integrated and portal delivered services. Further, a robust portal
services solution can produce cost-efficiencies by reducing paper use, extending service
availability without extra office hours, and align proper tools for expedient and effective
solutions. Ultimately this supports the academic mission by minimizing administrative
support costs, thus protecting educational funding thereby fostering positive public and
alumni relations (Haugen, 1999 & Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
The notion of student life and community can also be enhanced with an effective
portal strategy. This extends beyond the notion of chat rooms. Comprehensive ecommunity efforts and web service portals benefit students and school equally. They
extend access for current and prospective students by exploiting telecommunications and
information technologies. The university’s stakeholder community can also benefit from
portal accessed alumni, area employer, government agency compliance and outreach
Instructional Technologies
12
focused pages. Student constituents are increasingly computer savvy and expect webbased information services, interactive systems, Internet access, chat services, e-braries
and e-mail communications (Gravett, 2004).
This type of portal use builds community by enhancing each person's ability to be
more self-reliant within a framework of collaborative structures (faculty-student, studentstaff, parent-institution). These same portals can assist faculty by improving
communication links to students by reducing paperwork, documenting efforts and by
saving time. E-communities and web delivered services also enhance retention efforts by
fostering greater service satisfaction among the student body. Recruitment can be further
enhanced by demonstrating a commitment to the student beyond the classroom.
Prospective students and their parents often view efficient, customer-focused services as
a proxy for the general quality of student life (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Appendix A offers
a glimpse at Capella University’s, St. Louis University’s and Regis University’s service
portals.
Capella University is a blended-model, NCA accredited university with 10,000
students and relies upon its iGuide services portal for delivery of most student services,
course and library access, registration, payment, transcripts, chat communities, etc.
Regis University is a Jesuit university with 13,000 students in web-based programs, as
well as a host of campus services available online. St. Louis is a second Jesuit University
with 11,000 students, primarily enrolled in traditional programs. Lest the importance of
the e-community be understated, consider the ongoing research at Stanford University.
Byron Reeves and Cliff Nass initially demonstrated an increasing humanization of
Instructional Technologies
13
technology in their work The Media Equation. Additional research in 2003 indicates that
the trend has become a fully actualized phenomenon in which people have emotional and
utterly anthropomorphized relationships with computers (Gravett, Nass & Ortiz, 2003).
CMS, ePortfolios and Synchronous Tools
The natural convergence for these academic technologies is a comprehensive
campus delivery and management system. The campus/course management system
(CMS) is actually one or a combination of the following systems: learning management
system (LMS), learning content management system (LCMS) and virtual university
system (VUS).
A basic LMS integrates courses created in traditional and digital modes,
into a basic organizational structure for e-learning. “Pure LMS works primarily at the
curriculum level, tracking what courses learners have taken. Some systems track
classroom training events as well as online training” (Horton & Horton, 2003, p.169).
Oracle iLearner, KnowledgeHub by Element K, and Conductor by Sage are a few of the
58 basic LMS packages available at this writing. An LMS is not sufficient for the
delivery of complete asynchronous-web based certificate or degree programs; but, it is
the framework within which basic support elements of blended programs can be offered.
An LCMS is the next evolution in the campus management system. As the name
implies it is endowed with course content crafting and creation features. An LCMS
cannot accommodate assessment, but it can help create assessment instruments.
iPerformance by Online Factory Courseware, KM studio by the KMGP Group, and
Knowledge Bridge from Websoft Systems are several widely adopted LCMS packages.
Creighton University currently employs a third stage system or virtual university system
Instructional Technologies
14
(VUS) known as Blackboard. A virtual university system that enables the delivery of
faculty led and partially or fully facilitated online learning. VUS represent a “hybrid
category of tool that combines capabilities from learning management, content
management, and collaboration systems” (Horton & Horton, 2003, p.253). Web CT and
Blackboard’s respective self-titled suites and Lotus Learning Space by IBM are the three
prevalent VUS systems. A notable exception is the University of Phoenix and its reliance
upon Microsoft Exchange as a modified VUS application (Soukup, 2004). The adoption
of an LMS, LCMS or VUS can take the form of a silo or blended structure campus
management system.
Returning once again to the Wharton School 2003 survey, data reveal that 33.6
percent of all post-secondary courses now entail the use of a CMS. This is a marked
increased from 26 percent in 2002, 21 percent in 2001, 14.7 percent in 2000 confirming
learning management software’s status as a core institutional element (Green, 2003):
Figure 3 Percentage of courses employing digital management tools
(Green, 2003, p.14)
Instructional Technologies
15
Simultaneously, the raw number of classes that use CMS resources and the number of
institutions that have established a campus standard for a CMS product, each continue to
rise. Creighton University’s decision to adopt Blackboard as an instructional CMS
standard propels campus consideration to the level of complementary technologies and
enhancement. As an extension of course management and assessment initiatives,
electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) and synchronous (same-time) collaborative tools, are
also emerging as an important resource for students and for institutions.
An ePortfolio is a customizable, web-delivered information management system,
allowing students to archive and display individual and collaborative work:
An ePortfolio can be used in support of career planning and resume building,
advising and academic planning, academic evaluation and assessment, and as a
tool for reflection. ePortfolios are of value to students for a number of reasons, but
essentially, they place students at the center of their learning experience (Devlin
& Schulden, 2004, p.6).
ePortfolios empower students to manage their basic academic information and
coursework, ideally sculpting their collective learning experiences into what researchers
from University California Berkeley’s ePortfolio exploration committee term trajectory,
by mapping out professional goals, experiences and outcomes. Nationally, ePortfolios are
being deployed as a campus offering for institution-wide reflection, assessment, student
credentialing and career placement, and for accreditation processes archiving and record
keeping (Devlin & Schulden, 2004).
ePortfolios are a growing trend among academic institutions across the country
and abroad. Approximately 13.5 percent of the institutions participating in the Wharton
survey of instructional technologies offer ePortfolio services on their campus Internet or
Instructional Technologies
16
Intranet sites. The survey data considered by sector reveals that nearly one-quarter of
research universities, like Creighton University, offer ePortfolios on a campus-wide
basis, as opposed to selectively by degree program. This number declines sharply when
examining totals for community and junior colleges to only 5 percent (Green, 2003).
At time of preparation, Creighton University does have ePortfolio services in
education, pharmacy and fine arts; however, there is no campus-wide offering or strategy.
This is consistent with 75 percent of its peer institutions:
Figure 4 Percentage of colleges with comprehensive ePortfolio offerings in 2003
(Green, 2003, p.14)
The ePortfolio is considered a major tool in the pedagogy of student-centered learning, a
concept that is central to the idea of person development. In spite of this somewhat selfdirected flavor, ePortfolios excel at fostering knowledge sharing and management.
There is a rich variety among perspectives and definitions for an ePortfolios. Appendix B
reports findings from a 2003 research effort “However, ePortfolios offer ways of making
meaning out of information …through two important practices: reflection and social
Instructional Technologies
17
construction” (Barbara Cambridge as cited in Devlin & Schulden, 2004, p.12). Therein
rests a rationale consistent with instructional appropriateness and Creighton University’s
broader mission of an education grounded in ethics and service.
The final specific technology related to the CMS family of tools is synchronous
(same-time) communication techniques. At this point in their respective evolutions video
conferencing and telephone conferencing are widely understood and deployed
synchronous communications. Increasingly though, institutions of secondary and tertiary
nature are employing software and web-based synchronous communication tools. There
is a simultaneous trend it seems, of blending these synchronous tools with asynchronous
CMS delivered courses and services. If one briefly considers the increasing prevalence
of real-time chat support on most large commerce websites and the pervasive nature of
this type of communication, the expectation thereof among students becomes clearer.
Chat, blogs, OWBs and MOOs are four common synchronous instructional technologies
of growing use and popularity in academic computing. A focus study of a blog-MOO
hybrid known as Groove is currently underway at Creighton University, and will be
expanded upon shortly.
Online chat is perhaps, the most approachable of the synchronous applications.
Online chat is aided by user-interface software installed on each communicator’s
computer, or via a web-enabled interface. AOL Instant Messenger is commonly held as
the most prolific of the chat applications in terms of its installed user-base and public
acceptance. Blogs, a foreshortened version of the phrase online biographical web logs
are a more recent addition to the instructional technologies arena, although less recent in
general computer use terms. Blogs are websites that are regularly updated by the owner
Instructional Technologies
18
and allow visitors to post materials as well. “Each blog is as unique as the person who
designs it and chooses its focus” (O’Sullivan, 2001, para28). The number of current
person and institutional blogs online is unknown, but doubtless exceeds hundreds-ofthousands. A blog is akin to the aforementioned ePortfolio, but less formal in nature. The
chat and blog tools made possible OWBs and MOOs.
A MOO is a Multi-user Domain Object Oriented exchange point. Less
colloquially, they are built around objects or things of shared commonality. At first these
objects were created only with text descriptions (as was the entire Internet). Gradually,
with the advent of web-interfaces for MOOs, the environment became a little easier to
navigate and graphics were added. MOOs are often associated with educational
endeavors (O’Sullivan, 2001). Online-whiteboards or OWBs are a formal, education
evolution of the MOO. An OWB can serve as a stand-alone application or as part of a
CMS, such as Creighton University’s Blackboard system. OWBs provide a space in
which materials and comments can be posted and disseminated into participant user
storage areas. These participant storage areas can be on student machines or common,
shared network space. OWBs however, tend to be less equitably led by all participants,
rather inheriting an overt instructor led pedagogical quality from the traditional classroom
environment.
During the 2004-2005 academic year, the department of academic computing and
the College of Business Administration will be jointly evaluating the synchronous MOOblog application, Groove, as part of the Creighton University academic computing ePod
program. This ePod’s intent is to assess the instructional appropriateness, efficacy, and
technical feasibility of Groove as a synchronous tool to be used in conjunction with
Instructional Technologies
19
Creighton University’s Blackboard system. A blended faculty, administrative, and
technologist membership will help ensure this ePod’s efforts are balanced; and
subsequently, its findings pertinent.
Non-technical trends in academic computing
The trends in academic computing extend beyond specific instructional
technologies. Three movements of an intrinsically non-technical nature are beginning to
influence the proverbial landscape. The first of these is the development of measurable
standards in the delivery of campus computing services. Complementing this is the
decline in emphasis upon instructional integration. Finally, declining budgets for
traditional IT functions completes the brief portrait. These trends reflect the impact of
information technology commoditization, impact of private-for profit learner centered
programs, and the ongoing permeation of appropriate corporate practices into the higher
education environment (Phillips et al, 2002). Turning first to the issue of standards, one
finds an almost supply-chain measurability and quality assurance application of standards
occurring on campuses. This phenomenon is similar to that which occurred in corporate
settings during the latter 1990s and spawned the global proliferation of LEAN, TRIZ and
Six Sigma (Laux, 2004).
This trend incarnates itself in three ways: standards as minimum service,
standards as norms, and standards as academic accreditation tenets. Classroom
equipment profiles, typical or required computer profile or installed software
configuration (known as an image), service level agreements published as campus
knowledge, and statistical measurements in terms of attainment and deviation against
these measures represent common modalities for campus standards introduction
Instructional Technologies
20
pertaining to academic computing. These are standards of minimum service and
expectation. Two additional standards of increasing importance, laptop initiatives and
student learning evaluation as an accreditation issue, warrant exploration of greater depth.
The laptop standard is a standard of normative expectation. As of April 2004, 178
universities primarily in the U.S. and Canada had official standard laptop issue programs
for first year students (Brown, 2004, p.1). Creighton University does not have an official
laptop issuance initiative. The evaluation of student learning and knowledge attainment
in various e-learning environments is both a function of properly assessing return on
investment of time, student effort and university resources; but, is also mandatory in the
prevailing regulatory accreditation environment (Phillips et al., 2002). Accordingly,
numerous adaptations of traditional academic impact and knowledge transfer standards
have been advanced. Notable among these e-learning measurement standards are the
modified Kirkpatrick model (Horton, 2003) and Comprehensive Evaluation Model
(Forman, 2002). These academic assessment standards remain in a fairly unsettled state
at this time of writing due to the relative youth of e-learning adoption by traditional
higher learning institutions. Developments in this area demand ongoing scrutiny as the
various regional accrediting bodies arrive at an e-learning assessment tools and standards
consensus.
The second non-technical trend is the decline in efforts surrounding instructional
integration. Assisting faculty introduction and integration of technology into traditional
instructional settings appeared an urgent issue in the aforementioned Wharton School
survey between 1994 and 1998. However, following the 1998 academic year the
importance began steadily declining. Current numbers of participants identifying
Instructional Technologies
21
instructional design integration as the single most important campus technology
challenged have declined by 50 percent since 1998 (Green, 2003). The Wharton research
teams offers the explanation that this decline does not reflect declining importance of
instructional integration as much as increased priorities like wireless computing, CMS
deployments, and the constrained state of resources.
An additional influencing agent, of equal impact is the proliferation of courses
and degree programs delivered entirely by instructional media. While this seems
counter-intuitive, the delivery modality since 2001 has been of a dual nature: alltechnology media delivery or all-traditional classroom delivery. In May 2004, the
research firm Eduventures, Inc., released a study on distance learning showing that the
market for degree programs offered entirely through instructional technology media is
growing at an annual rate of 40 percent. During the 2001-2002 academic year, more
than 350,000 students were enrolled in degree programs fully delivered external of the
traditional classroom. This figure represented $1.75 billion in tuition dollars redirected
from ground-based programs.
The same study reports 2004 enrollments in similar programs to reach 1 million
students and $4.9 billion in redirected tuition dollars from traditional programs
(Gallagher, 2004). This dramatic increase in programs delivered without a physical
classroom curtails the need for instructional design integration in said classrooms as less
seat space is occupied by students. Thus it is a function of divergent delivery
environments—virtual or remote versus physical—rather than declining importance in
remaining traditional classrooms, compelling this second trend.
Instructional Technologies
22
The final non-technology trend of note reflects the general strain placed upon
university and corporate resources since the latter 1990s. When dollar value is adjusted
against cost of living and business increases, information technology and academic
computing departments have experienced a steady reduction in budgets:
Figure 5 Academic IT budgets by function (Green, 2003,p.38)
Two-fifths (41.3 percent) of the institutions participating in the 2003 Campus
Computing Survey report a decline in the academic computing budget at their
campus for the current academic year, compared to a third (32.6 percent) in 2002,
just under a fifth (18.0 percent) in 2001, and about one-eighth (11.4 percent) in
the 2000 survey report (Green, 2003, p.38).
A similar pattern revealed reduced administrative computing system expenditures as
well. The trend seems then, to broadly impact most IT systems.
The Wharton Survey alludes to a potentially troubling tendency for universities to
engage in mid-fiscal-year budget cuts, with 9.2 percent of participant institutions
reporting this rescission practice. This same survey data also demonstrates clear funding
priorities that linger in that wake of these IT budget reductions. While the general
Instructional Technologies
23
computing and system support budget declines, portal and CMS expenditure is
increasing. IT and anti-virus security initiatives remain funding priorities as well.
While most of the respondent universities in the Wharton survey remained positive about
the general academic technologies state on their respective campuses, slightly more than
one third nonetheless agree that these selective foci within broader cuts will necessarily
impair and impede efforts to enhance learning through technology. Desktop and
classroom system upgrades and equipment replacement efforts are also deemed as
threatened by this initiative “cherry-picking” (to employ the colloquial phrase) with 29.7
percent of participants indicating severe disruption of planned activities due to budget
reductions or midyear rescissions (Green 2003).
Looking at these three trends in concert, the non-technical implications for
technology reflect a tension between the needs of aging ground-based infrastructure, and
the needs of emergent instructional media and e-learning methods. Certainly there is a
continuing concern for instruction and the instructional infrastructure with a new focus on
administrative systems in spite of limitations upon information technology budgets. This
same intrinsic tension between enhanced instructional technologies and ground-based
systems ultimately impact the faculty and student client.
The efficiency and supply disciplines that helped corporations address these same
pressures have thus arrived on the proverbial campus doorstep. Emergent measurement,
assessment, service minimums, and compliance standards will help alleviate some of this
fiscal pressure in the academic computing environment. In the interim, the notion of
DoIT—more with less, merits consideration. The manner in which peer institutions have
adapted to these trends, and adopted or forsaken the specific technologies discussed
Instructional Technologies
24
herein is a means of deciding what suite of academic computing tools should comprise
that affordable, feasible and elusive less with which Creighton University might do more
for its faculty, staff, student, and community constituents.
Peer and Competitive Institutional Use
Comparative examination of adopted technologies can be precarious. Essentially,
looking at basic system profiles and fundamental use of specific technologies in a
particular campus setting cannot reveal the nuances peculiar to each campus that rendered
said technologies appropriate. This deficiency notwithstanding, care in selecting peer
and competitive institutions, and finding Creighton University near-analogs, can alleviate
this lack of nuance. Accordingly, the following have been selected as peer institutions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Loyola University Chicago, Illinois
Drake University, Iowa
Gonzaga University, Washington
Regis University, Colorado
Marquette University
St. Louis University
In addition, four competitor institutions have been selected. Three represent an
immediate geographic pull on a potential student body/consumer base. The fourth
represents a fully online university accredited by the same regional body with oversight
of Creighton University’s accreditation. This second institution is also of similar size as
Creighton University in terms of enrolled students:
7. Bellevue University, Nebraska
8. Capella University, Minnesota
9. University of Nebraska-Omaha
10. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
This collection of comparative higher education institutions thus addresses peer Jesuit
and private, regional and online competitive, near-analogs of Creighton University.
Instructional Technologies
25
A matrix model affords a simplified means of exploring the unique technologies
and basic use at each of these campuses. Additionally, this can be done within the
confines of the technologies explored herein, thereby limiting scope. Moreover,
Creighton University’s adoption and basic use can be included resulting in a comparative
instrument tool that is simple to understand, without compromising data quality.
Comparative measures are also offered (Figures 6-9), complementing the information
detail with a qualitative, relative use by academic technology category:
Table 3 Comparative technology adoption matrix
Technology
Adopted →
Institution ↓
Loyola
University
Chicago
(Illinois)
Regis
University
(Colorado)
WLAN
Portal
CMS
ePortfolio
Synchronous
Collaboration
WiFi
802.11g and
802.11b in main
library and ½ of
Lakeshore
Campus, lobby
of Watertower
skyscraper
LOCUS
Comprehensive
self-built portal
and e-services
system
Heavily
Customized
version of
George
Washington
University’s
Prometheus
CMS called
course connect
None in
education or
fine arts
Internet 2
Synchronous and
asynchronous
collaboration
with 200 other
universities and
libraries.
None
Focus is online
not on-ground
Yes.
Regis.edu student
resources and
InSite
Yes.
Drake.edu the
virtual hub
WebCT
WebCT
assigned
space by
application
LiveText
None
None
Exchange 2000
and Microsoft
Messenger
Lotus Learning
Space
None
Heavily
customized
Blackboard
space called
Cyberactive
learning
None
Integrated
version of AOL
Instant
Messenger
No official tool
Drake
University
(Iowa)
WiFi 802.11a
with some
802.11g
experiments
Gonzaga
WiFi 802.11a in
University
library,
(Washington)
engineering,
pockets
Capella
Not Applicable
University
(Minnesota)
Bellevue
University
(Nebraska)
WiFi
802.11b in
limited pockets.
Focus is online
not on-ground.
No portal, but one
is planned
iGuide
comprehensive
portal built by
IBM.
BRUIN
comprehensive
self-built portal,
e-library and eservices system
Blackboard
&
Cowles
e-library
Blackboard
None
Instructional Technologies
26
Table 3 (continued) Comparative technology adoption matrix
Technology
Adopted →
Institution ↓
St. Louis
University
(Missouri)
WLAN
Portal
CMS
ePortfolio
Synchronous
Collaboration
Fiber Optic
10/100
Ethernet
WebStar,
Web Pro
WebFac,
(Linked via
SCT)
For Blackboard
CMS only at
//bb.mu.edu
(Few web
integrated
services as of
6/04)
WebCT
None
None
Blackboard
(still on
release 5.0)
ORBIT
(piggybacks
on the
Blackboard
system)
Blackboard
UNODigital
Portfolio
Internet2
(Through its
school of
engineering,
includes I2
Apps and ondemand video
and simulcast)
myFolder
(this is
synchronous
document
delivery versus
collaboration
similar to
Groove)
Internet2
(Includes I2
Apps and ondemand video
and simulcast)
Marquette
University
(Wisconsin)
WiFi
802.11b and
802.11g in
pockets over
most of campus
University of
Nebraska
System
(Omaha
Campus)
WiFi 802.11b
(In pockets on a
closed network.
Remainder of
campus is
mostly10/100
ethernet. )
myUNO
e-BRUNO
University of
Nebraska
System
(Lincoln
Campus)
WiFi
802.11b and
802.11g
(Although on a
closed network,
users pay $78$84 per year
Non-wireless is
10/100 and
Roadrunner.
WiFi 802.11b
pockets
covering a good
portion of
campus
WAM
(What About
Me, most web
campus
services web
enabled to
some degree.
Some
integration with
Blackboard)
Under
Development
using Liquid
Matrix
Creighton
University
(Nebraska)
Blackboard
Blackboard
(moving to
release 6.1 on
August
2,2004)
(Developed in
school of
education
using PT3
Grant funds)
Portfolio
Academy.
Com
(Integrated
with
Blackboard
system)
LiveText
Groove
exploration
A cursory review makes evident, the struggle that universities face balancing
ground-based, infrastructure needs with web-delivered services. A “dabbling practice,”
for lack of a more eloquent description, has emerged. As institutions of tertiary learning,
universities are presently facing funding decisions and shortages in IT systems that mimic
those of the secondary and primary institutions. The notable exception is the causality
Instructional Technologies
27
that underlies the fiscal strain. Whereas primary and secondary institutions are severely
limited by funds resulting in limited choices, universities face consumer wants that
present unlimited technology choices thereby constraining the use of finite funds. This
dabbling effect is an attempt to satisfy the highest degree of constituent want, while
maintaining the experimental adoption and exploration that differentiates academic from
corporate computing. The following represents a simplified comparative adoption view
in relation to complexity and scope regarding the technologies discussed:
Figure 6 Relative Complexity and Adoption of Extant Technologies
While a Kano predictive line, offered against a diffusive curve of economic or innovative
adoption demonstrates an ideal, the relative complexity and need driven adoption of true
portals and WLANs skews the actual curve. The wireless network is the most poignant
among these technologies in terms of impact. This stems perhaps from the recent move
Instructional Technologies
28
to student-centered learning, particularly in graduate and continuing education programs.
A student centered model favors incorporation of blended and alternate curriculum
delivery modalities, which tend to have a higher network dependency.
This dabbling is not limited to traditional university settings as evidenced by
Capella University’s exclusion or abandon of several instructional technologies
surrounding ePortfolios and class-related (versus social) synchronous tools. Creighton
University’s relative position, given the data reported in table three, can be summarized
in terms of three general technology groupings: network technologies, web-derived
services and synchronous/collaborative technologies. Please note that these relative
summations are qualitative and anecdotal assessments versus correlative or quantitative
models. The latter is beyond the scope of this white paper:
UNL
UNO
Bellevue
Drake
Capella
Ethernet
Gonzaga
WLAN
Regis
Loyola Chicago
St. Louis
Marquette
Creighton
Relative Strength Low -->High
Figure 7 Comparative Adoption of Network Technologies
Instructional Technologies
29
UNL
UNO
Bellevue
Drake
Capella
ePortfolio
Gonzaga
CMS
Portal
Regis
Loyola Chicago
St. Louis
Marquette
Creighton
Relative Strength Low --> High
Figure 8 Comparative Adoption of Web-Derived Services and Tools
UNL
UNO
Bellevue
Drake
Capella
Synchronous
Gonzaga
Collaborative
Regis
Loyola Chicago
St. Louis
Marquette
Creighton
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Relative Strength Low --> High
Figure 9 Comparative Adoption of Synchronous and Collaborative Technologies
Instructional Technologies
30
As with its near-analogs, Creighton University has implemented all but one or two of the
existing technologies explored herein to a degree considered meaningful. Meaningful
instructional technology in this instance means active use in numerous physical settings
on campus, accessed by more than 50 student, staff or faculty clients and possessed of
attributes that render it appropriate for expanded use on campus. Creighton University
and Drake represent the two most similar institutions in terms of adoption and
deployment of academic computing. Each continues aggressive efforts to deploy a robust
WiFi standard-compliant wireless network. Both institutions use Blackboard v.6 for
CMS, with a lesser degree of customization than the other schools considered in this
review. While both universities have portal strategies, Drake’s is more advanced in its
implementation. In contrast, Drake is less progressive in its use of ePortfolios with the
same tool. Finally, Creighton University’s current scholarly assessment of Groove as a
synchronous technology represents aggressive exploration.
Removing the three non-Jesuit institutions from comparative assessment,
Creighton University surpasses Gonzaga and Regis Universities in terms of broadly
adopted and implemented academic computing. While Regis University is noted for its
online, asynchronous learning programs, its ground-based infrastructure and students
have not benefited equally. Wireless networking is not under consideration for
deployment at Regis, nor is the use of synchronous tools (video, telecommunication or
web derived). Gonzaga University is the slowest adopter in the group of schools
examined. A portal plan has not been drafted yet, although it is desired. WiFi wireless
networking is being experimented within limited pockets on campus and ePortfolios are
not planned for the Spokane branch of Jesuit learning.
Instructional Technologies
31
Of the peer schools, Loyola University in Chicago represents the adoption and
deployment of greatest breadth and depth across its campuses that surpasses Creighton
University’s current efforts. Loyola Chicago has deployed a heavily customized
asynchronous course system called Course Connect based upon Prometheus (a CMS
originally developed by George Washington University). LOCUS is the comprehensive,
and again, custom portal. LOCUS connects students, staff and faculty with support,
research and some basic academic record keeping functions. WiFi is deployed in the
802.11b and 802.11g standards. Loyola Chicago is atypical in its current deployment of
the faster and more expensive 802.11g protocol rather than replacing the slower 802.11b
with 802.11a (B is indeed slower than A, but A is slower than G, the ordering protocol is
not consistent). In essence this allows the university to leap-frog the competition in terms
of wireless speed and access it can offer its constituents. Finally, its Internet 2 system
provides synchronous campus tools and asynchronous connection with 200 other
universities.
Loyola University Chicago is not pursuing ePortfolios at this time, an area in
which Creighton University continues to advance. Creighton University and Loyola
Chicago can be said to have dabbled with greater agility and depth in terms of academic
technologies. Likely, the presence or absence of unified area strategic planning and
strong leadership to implement said plans accounts for the differing states of achievement
in the varying institutions given the similarity of market and technical challenges.
Impact, Organizational and Exigent Risks
Having reviewed the existing technologies of merit at a national level, some nontechnology trends in academic computing, peer and competitor use, and Creighton
Instructional Technologies
32
University’s relative standing therein, the concept of risk requires attention. To expect
that the adoption and deployment and operation maintenance of any newer or emerging
technology is not fraught with risk is foolish. In order to address the specific risks within
the Creighton University campus and culture, in a manner meaningful for strategic
planning, the premises of organization and exigency will be important. Risk associated
with a situation is exigent in that it requires immediate action, so as to render it somewhat
unavoidable. Conversely, risk can be of a long-term, organizational nature that is
avoidable. Exigent risk is therefore inherently internal, but born of reactions to market
and fiscal demands placed upon institutions. In this case these demands are embodied as
the pressure to be technically astute in the delivery of comprehensive and stable academic
computing systems and instructionally appropriate technologies. Given proverbial
oceans of risk, there are a few big fish upon which to focus. Service interruption,
organizational capacity and cultural capacity are three big fish of immediate relevance to
Creighton University.
Service interruption is a guaranteed event with power and telecommunication
dependent equipment. For each technology explored in this white paper there are two
degrees of impact that should be considered, and two degrees of risk. The degrees of
impact are to university academic computing systems and to the client/end-user. The
degrees of risk associated with service failure are exigent client detriment given
interruptions, and long term organizational health given a specific technology’s
abandonment or absence from campus. To better understand the two degrees of risk and
two degrees of impact with service interruption risk consider streaming video.
Instructional Technologies
33
Continuous feed—or streaming—digital video is an emergent technology to be
addressed in the final portion of this document. Should a streaming media server fail, the
first degree of impact is to the university’s server clusters. This is a hardware impact.
The additional impact is to disrupted classroom viewing or the presentation involving the
streaming media. The first degree in the pair of risks in this type of scenario entails the
risk of thwarting learning and faculty/staff efficacy—this is exigent risk. The second risk
is that of having never provided the technology in the first place, saving clients and
systems from interruption but perhaps failing to provide students with the utmost learning
setting, and faculty with a means of delivering the curricula they imagine for courses.
This long-term, organizational risk may threaten Creighton University’s strategic efforts.
Table 4 Impacts and risks
Technology→
Trait ↓
Impact One
Wireless
Networking
The wireless
receivers and pointof-service or hubs,
are down.
Both.
Portal
Impact Two
Connectivity is
disrupted for endusers preventing
email and Internet
access. Client
frustration.
Critical data and
email not delivered
or backed-up.
University activity
slows or halts.
Users cannot
access Creighton
University web
based services but
can access the
Internet.
Students, staff and
faculty fail to get
immediate need
services. Webbased university
activity halts.
Prospective
students and
donors, or job
applicants reach
dead site.
Creighton brand
compromised.
Exigent Risk
Organizational
Risk
Creighton
loses/tarnishes
growing national
reputation as leader
in wireless
networking. Users
abandon wireless
networking.
Server might be
down. Code could
be improper. Both.
CMS
(Blackboard)
All Blackboard
courses could be
down due to
network failure.
Internet service
compromised.
Both.
User cannot access
Blackboard system
to post or
participate. Client
frustration.
Students and
faculty cannot
complete courses.
Grades and course
schedule suffer.
Blackboard is
abandoned by
faculty and
Creighton’s
progress towards
integrated learning
is compromised.
ePortfolios &
Synchronous
User workstation
is down. Software
is not functioning.
Both.
User cannot use
software or
possibly complete
time sensitive
tasks. Client
frustration.
Student
experience
suffers.
Communication in
current courses is
disturbed.
Synchronous tools
or ePortfolios are
abandoned
impeding
Creighton’s
progress towards
integrated
learning.
Instructional Technologies
34
Corrective procedures exist at Creighton University for each of these instructional
technologies should service interruption or failures occur. Additionally, customer followup and satisfaction measurements are provided and required of IT employees with each
service path taken with clients:
Table 5 Corrective actions
Technology→
Trait ↓
Corrective Actions
in
Place at Creighton
University
Wireless
Networking
Creighton has
around 70 nonstandardized)
access points
When wireless
connection trouble
is identified:
Confirm station is
properly
configured for
wireless.
Connect to
wireless access
point via http or
telnet and check
status. Re-boot
access point in
question.
Portal
CU has a dual
service feed with
redundancy from
two separate
providers. Should
one fail the other
assumes service.
While service can
slow down,
complete failure is
unlikely.
In case of single
station confirm
failure of station. If
unable to resolve
fill out jack check
form for customer
and dispatch wire
tech to check port.
CMS
(Blackboard)
If user calls with
issue other than
password/ID,
she/he is
forwarded to
Blackboard admin.
If user reports
Blackboard
failure, support
confirms
availability.
If outage cannot
be confirmed a
remote user is
advised to consult
her/his Internet
provider. A local
user goes through
basic diagnosis.
For all confirmed
outages IT assigns
local technician
and may
Call Blackboard.
ePortfolios &
Synchronous
When problems
arise with
supported software
tools a First level
tech addresses an
initial report.
If problem cannot
be resolved
expeditiously over
the phone, or via email exchange a
work order is
assigned to second
level regional tech.
If problem is an
emergency (user
cannot work)
problem is
prioritized for
immediate
attention.
(Rummel, 2004)
Service interruptions are a reality and superficially ominous. However, it is
only the rarest of incidents that impacts all university provided computing services.
Similarly, these service failures or interruptions are atypically of a simultaneous or
utterly irreparable nature. Readily addressed by recovery protocols and sound customer
support measures, most end-user impacting service related risks can be mitigated in the
short term, thereby decreasing longer term impact to the academic computing efforts on
Instructional Technologies
35
an organizational scale. Of additional note is Creighton University’s agreement with
Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. The two universities provide reciprocal
disaster recovery and web application emergency hosting services. Given an absolute
failure, each school is thus afforded an active or “hot” recovery site within one to two
business days.
Organizational capacity is the second of the big fishes in the ocean of risk with
which Creighton University must contend. From a developmental perspective each
institution has only a finite capacity for change and surpassing that threshold results in
what could colloquially be deemed “sloppy results.” This capacity stems from the
support structures, formal change and communication mechanisms in place, and the
formal stance conveyed through leadership espousal and adherence to mission, vision and
goals. The concept of capacity in nonprofit settings is similar to the concept of
organizational development, organizational effectiveness and/or organizational
performance management in the business arena. The exigent element with capacity risk is
the over-taxation of existing resources to the point of poor service, inability to deliver
service and potential customer dissatisfaction. The longer term impact is that of reduced
confidence in the IT department, its programs and staff as a collective service provider to
the Creighton University constituencies, or ultimately in the university itself.
Capacity assessment and readying efforts can include a broad range of
approaches—the importance however, rests in understanding current limits (McNamara,
1999). Prominent methods of organizational capacity management in for-profits are being
applied in higher education capacity building. For example, the Balanced Scorecard,
Traffic Light Analysis and Six Sigma Voice of the Process can be instituted as a means of
Instructional Technologies
36
assuring academic computing pursuits do not over extend or surpass current
organizational capacities. Creighton University’s Department of IT already employs
Traffic Light Analysis in relation to computing and network infrastructure (Mattson,
2004). The adaptation of this technique, already validated as meaningful and appropriate
by Creighton University’s staff and managerial populations, to academic computing and
instructional technology would entail nominal effort. This capacity measurement is
unique to each organization. However the risk of over-extension is nearly universal. It is
also closely related to the final big fish, organizational cultural tolerance.
Perhaps the least formally documented, most elusive measurement, but most
intuitive and critical risk facing new instructional computing systems is Creighton
University’s cultural tolerance. It may seem odd to attach a qualitative issue like
emotion, end-user acceptance or degree of confidence to a fairly quantitative technical
issue. Nonetheless, constituent acceptance of new technologies is the biggest fish in the
ocean of risk. While leadership can formally express a particular stance with the
establishment of proper capacity levels, mission support and procedures, end-user clients
ultimately dictate the cultural verdict. The manner in which to allay this final risk is the
adoption not only in use, but in idea ownership by the organizational body at-large.
Technology that is deployed through edict and which lingers in a state of inutility and
non-adoption represents detrimental use of time, resources and an unknown opportunity
cost had culturally appropriate technologies been pursued. As organizational culture is
almost exclusively informal, the inclusion of faculty, staff, student and peer evaluators in
the exploration of instructional technologies is critical. The ongoing support and training
Instructional Technologies
37
of this same clientele is warranted to preclude abandonment and adverse positions
between Creighton University’s formal and informal operational structures.
Emergent Trends and Technology Candidates
The final portion of this white paper will briefly address instructional trends and
technologies that are truly emergent in nature, impact, or are being employed only
experimentally at present. Their purpose herein is that of candidates for future revisions
of Creighton University’s academic computing efforts and strategic pursuits. Periodic
updates will be made to this foundational document that will include revised practices
involving this emergent group, entrant trends and technologies, and those that are no
longer considered viable instructional technologies. Two trends are emergent in
academic computing, though not necessarily emergent in the broader academic
landscape. The first of these is the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) impact on
CMS delivered courses. The second is the shift to learner-centric pedagogies and
assessment techniques on university campuses, particularly in graduate programs.
The increasing use of CMS to offer web-enabled courses and programs essentially
means that a collegiate education need not be tied to a physical campus. This is
convenient for fully able students, and is promising for the many potential students with
physically limiting disabilities. Of 12,500 households randomly selected in 1986 of the
general population, 15 percent of the people 16 and over had physical disabilities. The
1994 results are not atypical. Data from the 2000 United States census reveals 19 percent
of the same populace demography as having a physically limiting disability (Tusler,
2002). While the cause underpinning the increase is beyond the scope of this white
paper, the ramifications to college campuses remain pertinent.
Instructional Technologies
38
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to public entities,
including public colleges and universities. Title II requires entities to:
…make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the
modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,
unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the services, program, or activity (Title II 1990
ADA as cited in Edmunds, 2003, p.5).
Title III of the ADA applies to places of public accommodation, including private
colleges and universities, Title III provides that:
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns,
leases (or leases to) or operates a public accommodation (Title III 1990 ADA as
cited in Edmunds, 2003, p.6).
Further, the Department of Justice clarified the role of Internet and computing
technologies in 1996 stating that in its official regulatory opinion, covered entities under
the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless if said entities
generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as
the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their
programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through
accessible means as well (Edmunds, 2003).
The new accessibility guidelines essentially mandate the adoption of CMS and
creation of higher quality, web-enabled courses, offered to those who cannot access a
physical campus. Web pages designed with the disabled in mind can seamlessly interact
with adaptive technologies like automatic Braille readers, text-to-voice screen readers
and head pointing systems. The primary objective of an online course is to emulate a
traditional classroom-based course while minimizing the impersonality of computer-
Instructional Technologies
39
based interactions. The specific challenge with ADA complicity lies in assuring that the
e-learning content and caliber are precisely comparable to a traditional classroom course
(Tusla, 2002). Without this measure of parity, ADA compliance is absent. As Creighton
University expands to new student constituencies, its ADA compliance efforts can be
enhanced with academic computing. At present there are no formal standards that apply
to ADA web pages, although the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) offers industry
guidelines. Creighton University will continue to adhere to changing W3C recommended
standards in its portal and CMS development efforts. In so doing, the University is
better able to contend with the potentially increasing number of physically disabled
students in its constituent demography.
The second academic computing trend is the delivery and assessment of learner
centered, versus institutional or instructor centered curricula. The institutional rumblings
of student centered learning came to poignant station in 1993 in Ackoff’s Fables. Its
assertion that learning had to shift from traditional lecture-led modalities, to the creation
of silent learning through learner reflection was a portent of sweeping changes in higher
education (Ackoff, 1993). In 1998, the trends in general student centered learning was
officially deemed a paradigm shift in higher education (Barr, 1998, p.19). The proverbial
question of how will this be taught, versus how do students hear this, has a particular
impact on graduate programs. While this modal shift impacts undergraduate programs,
the self-actualization and efficacy among graduate students is more pronounced. Ergo,
the issue of learner centered delivery is more germane (Huba & Freed, 2000). How then
does this fairly established paradigm shift translate into an emerging instructional
technology trend of strategic importance for Creighton University?
Instructional Technologies
40
An increasing number of graduate students are opting for online learning (recall
the Eduventure statistics). The majority of asynchronous web and distance delivered
degree programs are for graduate studies. The MBA and Ed.D./education Ph.D. remain
the two largest online degree programs by enrollment in the country (Soukup, 2004). As
e-learning technologies further permeate ground-based, traditional institutions like
Creighton University, student-centered pedagogy also becomes learner-centered tool
selection, web site design and instructional technology integration realities.
Indirect organizational concerns could potentially change from faculty research
needs that drive 802.11g wireless upgrades to the number of dental or law students crossenrolled in e-courses at San Francisco University or Georgetown, and what upgrades
their wireless needs dictate. Concerns about balancing data entry and systems
management with usability and pleasant interface are more easily allayed if
accommodated in planning, versus reacted against when the full momentum of studentcentered learning and e-learning arrive at traditional campuses. While formulating portal
and CMS plans, it is therefore wise to observe ongoing wants and needs within the
graduate and professional student consumer base. It is this constituency —its collective
access to technology, tuition reimbursement dollars, higher degree of selfactualization—that is uniquely positioned to overtly shape the impact of the learner
centered paradigm for academic computing through consumer expectation.
Shifting from these two emerging trends to the emerging technologies, streaming
video, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and on-demand viewlets represent three
candidates of particular interest. Streaming media is the most established of these
instructional technologies, also forming the backbone for VoIP and viewlets. Internet
Instructional Technologies
41
streaming media as a general type of media, has changed the Internet from static text into
a multimedia experience populated by sound and moving pictures. Streaming media is
positioned to become the de facto global media broadcasting and distribution standard,
incorporating all other media, including television, radio, and film. The low cost,
convenience, worldwide reach, and technical simplicity of using one global
communication standard makes web broadcasting irresistible to media publishers,
educators, broadcasters, corporations, and individuals.
Streaming works by first compressing a digital audio file and then breaking it into
small packets, which are sequentially broadcast over the Internet. When the packets reach
their destination (the requesting user), they are decompressed and reassembled. To craft
the illusion of seamless access, the packets are buffered so a number of them are
downloaded to the user's machine before playback. As those buffered or preloaded
packets play, more packets are being downloaded and queued up for playback. However,
when the stream of packets gets too slow (due to network congestion), the client player
has nothing to play, and service is disrupted, or more colloquially, the stream is
“dropped” (Beggs & Thede, 2003).
For use in education simulcast and e-delivery of courses, requiring that Creighton
University stream audio and video content to tens or even thousands of simultaneous
users, server based features and tools are required. In order to broadcast live events, a
university also needs a real-time encoding and streaming system that runs on a dedicated
web server. RealMedia and Windows Media are the leading technologies for large-scale
broadcasting, with SHOUTcast (MP3) and QuickTime as typical alternatives. The
RealServer and Windows Media Server provide bandwidth negotiation that ensures
Instructional Technologies
42
smooth audio playback for the end listener and prevents annoying drops when bandwidth
fluctuates. Creighton University has an experimental streaming technology server
running Windows 2003’s built-in streamer application, MMS v.9 (Bauer, 2004). The
server is housed in the University’s Academic Development and Technology Center, or
the ADATC. Expansion is scheduled, including Front Page support.
VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) is a term used for a set of facilities for
managing the delivery of voice information using the Internet. It is very much a
descendent technology of more basic streaming audio. In general, this means sending
voice information in digital form in packets, as with streaming audio, rather than in the
traditional circuit-committed protocols of the public switched telephone network. A
major advantage of VoIP and Internet telephony is that it avoids the tolls charged by
ordinary telephone service, resulting in free long distance anywhere in the world.
VoIP, now used somewhat generally, derives from the VoIP Forum, an effort by
major equipment providers, including Cisco, VocalTec, 3Com, and Netspeak to promote
the use of new standards for sending voice (audio) and video using the public Internet
(SBC, 2004). Its use in the delivery of courses and materials to remote or visually
impaired students is intriguing. Presently, global network quality is difficult to ascertain,
measure or guarantee. This is due both to the piggy-backing that occurs and VoIP’s
reliance upon public systems. As private networks expand and public access networks
improve, VoIP becomes increasingly tenable and desirable as a lower cost course and
information delivery medium. VoIP is a largely provider directed technology in its
current state; viewlets however, represent a user, self-directed application of streaming
media technology that seems poised to have a profound impact in training and education.
Instructional Technologies
43
Viewlet is a proprietary trade mark name that refers to the computer generated
animation sequences produced by the software application named Viewlet Builder,
marketed by Qarbon Inc. Although, the phrase is quickly becoming public domain in its
use and connotation as have kleenex, q-tip and coke. Viewlet animation sequences are
constructed by capturing a series of screen shots into the Viewlet Builder (VB)
application which can then be annotated and edited before being exported using the
popular ‘Flash’ SWF format. SWF is a common format, so the resulting Flash based
Viewlets have the potential of reaching 90 percent of the known Internet using
community. There are many applications that create similar animations; some
applications are free, others cost money. Different practitioners’ have their own favorites.
As with other software application, commercial varieties tend to be more feature rich and
are increasingly being tailored for the corporate training and e-learning markets (Banks,
2004).
The intuitive educational uses for viewlets are software demonstrations and
walkthroughs to assist students and staff when learning to use software applications or
reviewing new information. These can be greatly enhanced using well conceived text
annotations that inform and instruct the viewer. Furthermore, good use of audio to
reinforce the visual and written information that the viewer is getting, and confirmation
of understanding through the use of quiz/testing features can greatly assist the learning
process. Results from testing and feedback about the animated tutorials can be emailed to
the author. Thinking in terms of sensory input – seeing/watching, seeing/reading, hearing,
doing/testing – well produced sequences hit all these senses thus greatly improving the
effectiveness of the learning that is taking place (Ragan & Smith, 1999). Mark Banks, a
Instructional Technologies
44
noted applied technology researcher with the British Telecommunications Council, also
notes less obvious but appropriate viewlet use on a collegiate campus. Using images or
graphics imported into Viewlet Builder to create a viewlet Creighton University could:
1. Provide a site walkthrough (house, library, college site, field trip).
2. Offer demonstrations of any sort of equipment (microscopes, scalpels, Jaybucks
cards or cameras) using the annotation and hotspot features to identify controls
and features; and using hotspots for testing.
3. Show chemistry or algebra sequences of problems being solved step-by-step to
help explain the solutions.
4. Offer sports/games tactics walkthrough in conjunction with the various BlueJay
teams
5. Ergonomic and posture analysis for staff and students, reducing occupational
expenses.
6. Staff training on health and safety issues that would benefit from demonstration,
but are difficult to orchestrate in reality, for example correct fire extinguisher use
7. Multiple path stories and training scenarios using hyperlinks to follow certain
options (Banks, 2004, p.2).
Creighton University is currently experimenting with viewlets in its technology
Discovery Workshop series (Makoid, 2004) and eFellow program. Additional, specific
interest in viewlets and self-directed training has been expressed by: the President’s
office pertaining to diversity, human resources, the office of continuing medical
education and residence life.
Instructional Technologies
45
References
Ackoff, R. (1993). Ackoff’s fables. New York City, New York: Wiley & Sons.
Banks, M. (2004 April). An introduction to viewlets [self-published]. Coventry, UK: British
Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Barr, R. (1998 October). Obstacles to implementing a learning paradigm—What it takes
to overcome them. About Campus Journal. pp.18-25.
Bauer, G. (2004). Creighton University’s IT network support technician in a telephone
and email interview with Amber Gravett July 15, 2004. Omaha, Nebraska:
gbauer@creighton.edu, 1-402-280-1245.
Beggs, J. & Thede, D. (2003). Designing web audio. Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly.
Brown, R. (2004 April). Colleges or universities with laptop or notebook initiatives
[ongoing project information online]. Retrieved June 8, 2004 from
http://www.acck.edu/~arayb/NoteBookList.html.
Clark, R. & Mayer, R. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco:
Pfeiffer, an imprint of Wiley and Sons.
Devlin, T. & Schulden, J.R. (2004 February). LDP ePortfolio report [Academic white
paper]. Berkeley, California: University of California Berkeley Leadership
Development Project.
Douglas, D., Covington, M. & Covington, M. [Eds] (2000). The dictionary of computer
and Internet terms [seventh edition]. Hauppage, New York: Barron’s.
Edmunds, C . (2003 January). Information Technology Access: State, Federal, and
International Law. Georgia Tech Research in Accessible Distance Education
(GRADE). Atlanta, Georgia : Self Published Center for Assistive Technology
and Environmental Access Georgia Institute of Technology.
Eduventures. (2004 May). Online distance education market update [private for-profit
research]. Boston, Massachusetts: Gallagher, S.
Finali Group. (2003). Constructs and characters: Decreasing banking card account
acquisition fees and increasing retention with eCRM [private for-profit research
and web delivered seminar]. Boulder, Colorado: Gravett, A., Nass, C. & Ortiz, J.
Instructional Technologies
46
Forman, D. (2002). Benefits, costs and values of e-learning programs. The American
Society for Training and Development e-learning handbook: Best practices,
strategies and case studies for an emerging field. New York: McGraw-Hill.
pp.399-413.
Gravett, A. (2004 March). The dangerous line, the foibles and follies of e-sources,
condensed materials and asynchronous modality education [organization white
paper]. Phoenix, Arizona: UoP Custom Press via Prentice Specialty Division.
Green, K. (2003 December). Tracking the digital puck into 2004. Syllabus, 17 (5).
pp.10-13. *Also available online at http://www.syllabus.com.
Haugen, E. (1999). Successful student centered services. Intelligence [online corporate
publication]. Retrieved May 26, 2004 from http://www.kaludisconsulting.com/
intelligence /sudent_centered.html.
Horton, W. (2003). Evaluating e-learning. Alexandria, Virginia: ATSD Publications.
Horton, W. & Horton, K. (2003). E-learning tools and technologies: A consumer’s guide
for trainers, teachers, educators and instructional designers. Indianapolis,
Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Huba, M. & Freed, J. (2000). Learner centered assessment on college campuses.
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Intel Corporation. (2003). Most unwired campuses [online version of commissioned
research]. Santa Clara, California: Self Published: Sperling, B. Retrieved on June
30, 2004 from http://www.intel.com/products mobiletechnology/unwiredcolleges.
Lankes, A. (1995 December). Electronic portfolios: A new idea in assessment. Retrieved
on June 2, 2004 from from ERIC via Johns Hopkin’s Sheridan Library at
http://www.johnshopkins.edu.
Laux, D. (2004). Evolution of Six Sigma [online article]. Retrieved June 8, 2004 from
http://www.isixsigma.com/library.
Makoid, M. (2004 June). Creighton University Professor of Pharmaceutical Science in
IT Discovery Workshops, Summer Session 2004. Omaha, Nebraska:
makoid@creighton.edu, 1-402-280-2952.
Mattson, K. (2004 May). Equipping buildings for the future [organizational report].
Omaha, Nebraska: Creighton University Department of IT.
McNamara, C. (1999). Non-profit capacity building [Research pamphlet]. St. Paul,
Minnesota: The Management Assistance Program for Non-profits.
Instructional Technologies
47
O’Sullivan, M. (2001). Is anyone there? Communication for online learning [online
article] retrieved on June 6, 2004 from the Virtual Online Instruction Center at
http://www.wwtc.edu/voice/teach/commun.htm.
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Phillips, J. et al. (2002). Evaluating the return on investment of e-learning. The American
Society for Training and Development e-learning handbook: Best practices,
strategies and case studies for an emerging field. New York: McGraw-Hill.
pp.386-397.
Pillous, J. (2004). Presentation du WiFi 802.11 [online article, original French].
Retrieved May 26, 2004 from http://www.commentcamarche.net.
Ragan, T. & Smith, P. (1999). Instructional design [second edition]. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.
Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1998). The media equation: How people treat computers,
television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rossett, A. (2002). Walking at night thinking about e-learning. The American Society
for Training and Development e-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies
and case studies for an emerging field. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp.3-19.
Rummel, J. (2004). Creighton University’s IT support services director in a telephone
and email interview with Amber Gravett June 14, 2004. Omaha, Nebraska:
rummel@creighton.edu, 1-402-280-1131.
SBC. (2004 May). What is VoIP [anonymous private for-profit research, online version]?
Retrieved July 14, 2004 from http://www.searchnetworking-techtarget.com.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. London:
Blond and Briggs Publishers.
Schlegel, J. (2004 February). At the threshold of the future: Creighton University
Founders Day Address [speech]. Omaha, Nebraska. Retrieved archive transcript
on June 28, 2004 from http://www.creighton.edu/president/speeches.
Skill Soft Corporation. (2004 February). Evaluating elearning solutions [private
organization commission research]. Nashua, New Hampshire: Woodall, D.
Soukup, S. (2004). Regional meeting of online faculty and administration for University
of Phoenix North American, North West region [keynote presentation]. March
18, 2004, Maritime Museum and Conference Center: Seattle, Washington.
Instructional Technologies
48
Taylor, Nelson & Sofres. (2001 April). E-learning in the USA and Canada:
Benchmarking survey [PDF version of Commission research]. Retrieved May 24,
2004 from http://www.skillsoft.com/resources/whitepapers/tn_research.html
Tusler, A. (2002). Reflections on 2000 census and Lou Harris Poll on disability a
nationwide survey of 1,000 & 1,021 Disabled People 1986, 1994 & 1998 [online
version]. Retrieved on July 2, 2004 from http://www.aboutdisability.com.
Van Buren, M. (2001). 2001 state of the industry report [non-profit commission
research]. Alexandria, Virginia: ASTD Publications.
Young, W. (2004 June). Creighton University Professor of Pharmaceutical Science in
IT eFellows ADATC, Summer Session 2004. Omaha, Nebraska:
wwyoung@creighton.edu, 1-402-280-5814.
Instructional Technologies
Appendix A
Example Portal Image from Regis University
49
Instructional Technologies
Example Portal Image from Capella University
50
Instructional Technologies
Example Portal Image from St. Louis University
51
Instructional Technologies
52
Appendix B
ePortfolio definitions and survey findings (Lankes, 1995)
Educational portfolio: A collection of a student's work that can be used to demonstrate
his or her skills and accomplishments. An educational portfolio is more than just a group
of projects and papers stored in a file folder. It includes other features such as teachers'
evaluations and student self-reflections. According to the Northwest Evaluation
Association, a portfolio is "a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the
student's efforts, progress, and achievements. The collection must include student
participation in selecting contents, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit,
and evidence of student self-reflection" (Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991).
Developmental portfolio: A teacher who is interested in documenting a student's
improvements in writing or mathematics throughout a school year can have the student
keep a developmental portfolio containing samples of the student's work along with selfevaluations of specific assignments. Such a portfolio provides specific documentation
which can be used for student evaluations and parent conferences.
Teacher planning: Teachers may use an existing portfolio system in order to receive
information about an incoming class of students. The teacher may gain a better
understanding of the ability levels of his or her students prior to the start of the school
year and plan accordingly.
Proficiency portfolio: Central Park East Secondary School in New York City uses
portfolios as a means for determining graduation eligibility. Students at this school are
required to complete fourteen portfolios which demonstrate their competence and
performance in areas such as science and technology, ethics and social issues, community
service, and history (Gold & Lanzoni, 1993).
Showcase portfolio: A showcase portfolio can document a student's best work
accomplished during an entire educational career. It can include the research papers, art
work, and science experiments which best represent the student's skills and abilities.
Employment skills portfolio: Businesses across the country are increasingly interested in
viewing student portfolios in order to evaluate a prospective employee's work readiness
skills. Students in the Michigan public schools, for example, are creating employability
skills portfolios to demonstrate their skills to prospective employers (Stemmer, Brown, &
Smith, 1992).
College admission portfolio: Colleges and universities are using showcase portfolios to
determine eligibility for admission. By requiring portfolios from prospective students,
college or university admissions officers are better able to assess applicants' potential for
success at their institutions.
Instructional Technologies
53
Appendix C
Glossary of germane terms (Douglas, Covington & Covington, 2000)
Blackboard: A software company that markets a course management system.
Course/campus Management System (CMS): A software tool that manages content and
communication to support teaching and learning. Course Management Systems typically
provide faculty with tools to post announcements, syllabi, and assignments; provide
readings; and facilitate communication; and online grade book.
Data Encryption System: A secure way to send secure encoded transmissions of data
from one party to another.
Data Warehouse: A very large database designed for fast processing of queries,
projections, and data summaries, normally used by a large organization.
Dynamic: Performed while a program is running. Change that seems to occur in real-time
and/or responsive fashion to the user.
ePortfolio: A highly personalized, customizable web-based information management
system, which allows students to demonstrate individual and collaborative growth,
achievement and learning over time. An ePortfolio can be used in support of career
planning and resume building, advising and academic planning, academic evaluation and
assessment, and as a tool for reflection.
HTML: Hypertext Markup Language. The language used to create World Wide Web
pages, with hyperlinks and markup for text formatting.
Information Management Processor: This is a system (a program, living on a server) that
retrieves, sorts, and delivers information.
Learning Management System (LMS): A centralized repository of online courses that has
built-in tools for developing, administering, and publishing your course website.
Multimedia: May include text, spoken audio, music, images, animation and video.
Portal: A Web site that integrates several services into a common interface. A student
web portal allows students to customize and access online campus services, websites, and
course information from one convenient location, using a single user ID and password.
Student Information System: The application that manages student information from
admissions through registration to alumni. Examples include SCT/Banner, Datatel, and
PeopleSoft.
User Interface/Graphical User Interface (UI/GUI [ooey-gooey]): The means by which a
user interacts with a computer. Includes the computer screen and what appears on it.
Instructional Technologies
Appendix D
Per Building Assessment of Network Health and Upgrade Expense (Mattson, 2004)
54