Multimedia Reports

February 2001: MULTIMEDIA AND T3 ACTIVITY MEETING 1. Careful definition of “multimedia” [Campus-wide survey being prepared] 2. Finding a Consultant (Interviews with Tim Flood) 3. Classroom design - computers on wheels [COW] or individual instructor laptops and docking stations in each classroom 4. Continuing training/support 5. Full hardware replacement/3 yrs and Full software upgrades annually 6. No wireless designs for now -- Committee members: Ed Showalter, Mary Ruth Cox, Nancy Floyd, Jennifer Harrison, Darryl Daley, Patricia Smith, Kaye Campbell Note: the Committee does not have an electronic copy of Tom Badey's proposals for the three SmartBoard rooms--276, 240, and the Writing Lab

April 2001: REPORT TO TITLE III DIRECTOR The Multimedia Task Force was created during academic year 2000-2001 in order to complete the following tasks: 1. development, implementation, and analysis of a classroom-needs assessment; 2. development, implementation, and collation of a faculty-use survey; 3. recommendation of specific multimedia consultants for hardware, software, and faculty training. Our reports on items 1 and 2 have been submitted; copies are enclosed here. Item 3 resulted in our bringing to campus Mr. Timothy Flood and Dr. Tom Badey. We recommended that Dr. Badey be retained as our first-stage-implementation consultant, responsible for the hardware and classroom-design components; and that Mr. Flood be considered for software training and support after the first stage of hardware is in place. We also recommended that Ms. LaRue Chuman, the Student Support Services staff, and the new Writing Lab Director maintain a close working relationship with the consultant who is hired to design the Writing Lab. We recommend now that Dr. Badey be retained as our hardware and classroom-design consultant; that his proposal be accepted with the alterations detailed below; and, whether he is retained or another consultant is found, that he be compensated for his services to this point. With the following recommendations for specific components of Dr. Badey’s proposal, we believe that our three-part assignment has been completed and ask that a new task force be assembled or the current task force redirected toward the implementation stage of the multimedia component of Title III. We believe that when a new Multimedia Committee is formed, it should consider the following Badey-approved recommendations: (1) Add IS personnel or consider modifying policies to ensure 24-hour/7-day availability of all resources (2) Improve the appearance of facilities which may determine frequency of use and may be an important factor in student retention (3) Conduct student and instructor evaluations of rooms being used now (4) Plan incentive programs and the inclusion of “modest stipends” for students as well as faculty (5) Assign a faculty member or the new Writing Lab Director to work closely with Dr. Badey (6) Find a way to freeze internet access during class sessions held in the Writing Lab (7) Although the replacement cost for laptops is higher than that for PCs, using a laptop system and offering (not forcing upon) all faculty and staff laptops for their own use would enable those who prepare heavily outside class to bring their own materials into class already mounted on their own computers. Responsibility for each faculty/staff laptop would then be the primary user’s and could decrease the need for IS personnel to be on call at the beginning of each class session. Within the Multimedia Task Force, some of us are very much in favor of laptops for that reason; some of us are very much against laptops, which do require the attachment of at least one cable if used more than 3 or 4 hours at a time. We recommend strongly that each faculty/staff user be given a choice of laptop or desktop (8) Smartboard and whiteboard should be installed in positions that minimize glare; and glare-reduction covers for computer screens should be installed. A Kurzweil reader should be added to equipment costs, and Software such as speech-to-text/text-to-speech and hardware such as in/out audio should be installed (9) Consider multiple screens in existing classrooms or smaller classrooms (10) Research and design of a five-year plan should be initiated immediately

JUNE 2001: > From: Winslow, Kathy [mailto:KWinslow@WESNet.ncwc.edu] To: Faulkner, Belinda
> Subject: RE: Satellite Dish on Pearsall -- Al LaRose purchased the satellite sometime in the 1980's. Joyner Satellite Systems has done some maintenance on it. I believe it can be fixed; the problem is that it is still no use to anyone unless we upgrade the system to accomodate current technology. They talked about using it at the Dunn Center but could not come up with the $1,000 or $1,500 to do so > > Cc: O'Connor, Tom > Subject: Satellite Dish on Pearsall > Barbara and Kathy, My memory is failing. Which of your areas was responsible for getting the satellite dish that resides on top of the Pearsall Building? My reason for asking is that it is clearly damaged and not working and as Tom O'Connor pointed out to me this morning, it just sits there as a monument to broken technology. Steve Sparks and I have talked about having it removed but I need to know where it came from, if there are some restrictions on who does it, how long we must keep it, etc. > Belinda

SEPTEMBER 2001: Multimedia Advisory Committee new composition: Tom O’Connor, Chair; Darryl Daley, Doug Enders, Nancy Floyd, Steve Lawrence, Patricia Smith, Weimin Wang -- AGENDA AND MINUTES -- Old Business:

1. The committee held a discussion of the pros and cons of Timecruiser.com’s CampusCruiser. Among the pros were its aesthetic value, being good for linking ADP with the main campus, and having backup files on a remote server. These pros are common to this type of software. Among the cons were that this particular piece of software seemed unfinished (not off the shelf), not well-known, not a seamless connection, some textbook incompatibility, and apparent difficulty teaching through it. The committee decided that if it had to turn in a vote (as requested), that vote would be 4 Nays, 1 Aye, and 2 Abstentions with the proviso that the administration may have other reasons for reaching its decision.

4. Continuation of the faculty/staff hardware/software survey was discussed. Agreement was reached that we should continue doing this, if only for auditing or tracking purposes. The committee is attempting to get a handle on single user/multiple user/site licensing. It was decided that we will use our bully pulpit to prevent piracy. Another idea was the creation of user groups by software titles.

1. Due to time running short, the committee did not get to all scheduled new business. The classroom needs issue was tabled for our next meeting, as were the assessment and project planning issues. There was some discussion about whether or not we are responsible for faculty training to reach the outcome of a set percentage of faculty authoring student-directed interactive multimedia by year four or five. It was decided that we will serve in an advisory capacity to Weimin Wang who is primarily responsible for faculty training. It was agreed, further, that Item 2 of new business on our agenda should be acted upon. Members are therefore drafting a memorandum to the IS department requesting that a 5-year technology infrastructure plan be created and provided to us, such plan to include exactly how faculty technology support (help) services will be implemented. The committee is forwarding some examples of such plans by referring the IS department to http://nms.monterey.edu/centers/

1. The committee noted a memo from the Academic Dean's office seemed to indicate administrative support for the Campus Cruiser product since the words "We are seriously considering this product" were used to invite faculty and staff to a product demo at 9:30 AM in the Trustee's room on Wed, Oct. 17^th. There was some short discussion, with the committee believing that other products, like BlackBoard and WebCt must have priced themselves out of consideration. It appears the administration seriously wants a product that integrates with DataTel.

2. Development of Multimedia website (http://annex.ncwc.edu/multimedia) was discussed. Few hits are reported, and FrontPage access for all members does not appear to be working. Doug Enders has authoring privileges. This site will host, among other things, our lists of faculty/staff hardware/software, in the context of recording licensing considerations, of course, and training materials.

3. Extensive discussion ensued of the IS five-year technology plan. Tom O'Connor had a couple of talks with Charles Whitley, the IS dept. head, who essentially said his area was too busy and underbudgeted to produce the kind of plan we needed. Belinda Faulkner, the VP of operations, was also spoken to. Per Belinda's suggestion, our committee decided to specify the exact items we need elaborated upon from IS. Those items appear below in Special Report A.

4. Extensive discussion was conduced on faculty training and development. This issue also included discussion on classroom upgrades. It is fair to say our thoughts are mostly preliminary at this time, but the ideas we have appear below in Special Report B.

5. Curricular assessment issues were tabled for another time. There was some discussion, however, of the importance of assessment. Members felt that Smartroom classroom dynamics need to be assessed. Other questions revolve around how students will learn to use classroom technology, and the pedagogical advantages of multimedia education.

6. Course projects were discussed. The committee started working on a course-by-course template which would be used to consult with instructors teaching a course about what type of multimedia components might be most appropriate in a course. While far from complete, that template appears below in Special Report C.

SPECIAL REPORT A: INFORMATION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE

The following are exactly what the Multimedia Advisory Committee needs in writing from the IS department. We do not care which member of the IS department does the writing, be it Charles Whitley, Andy Castillo, Steve Lawrence, Robin Williams, Tina Chinn, Cory Drakeford, Brian Milburn, Clint Murray, or anyone else associated with the IS department. Our steadfast belief, corroborated by our consultant, Tom Badey, and the numerous spoken concerns of faculty, staff, and students at NCWC, is that the following needs to be articulated in writing, if not policy, and it needs to be done right away. Due to a lack of response to our earlier request in the form of our September 19^th Resolution, we are hereby submitting this request (Special Report A) to VP Belinda Faulkner in hopes of a response. The committee realizes that IS is busy, but the need for the following should be obvious. If any of the response needs to remain secure, the committee promises to maintain confidentiality.

1. Network System Logon -- the committee needs to know current and planned system policies for end user access on campus. This refers to the roaming user profiles and signon capabilities with our server-based network. Technically, we need to know about the policy file used to mandate the same interface for all campus computers, file exception handling, and which system settings are blocked out from users. Several multimedia products, such as applications found on textbook CD-ROMs, require users to tweak so-called "critical" settings such as display, peer-to-point networking, and video or audio. We do not desire any wait-and-see response based on an application-by-application consideration. We desire an overall policy for system logon privileges that enables a wide variety of student-centered multimedia applications typically found in higher education.

2. Server System Capabilities -- the committee needs to know more about our DNS, proxy, and web servers, not the brand names or hardware specs, but the gateway, router, hub, and port configurations, as well as other information. Technically, we need to know our pipeline speed, network speed, dial-up speed, fax speed, storage capacity, and how many hubs and ports are available. We are especially interested if our server system is capable of high-bandwidth streaming media applications, such as those typically used in multimedia education. We are also interested in any server crash recovery policies, for example, when web or email services go down at 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning, who is responsible or on call to restore services.

3. Faculty Tech Help Queueing -- the committee needs to know how IS assigns priority to the hundreds of requests for hardware/software troubleshooting. Being Work Order #157 for not being able to use e-mail has become a joke, for example, among faculty. Technically, we need to know exactly what constitutes an emergency, and what sets of problems qualify as less-than-emergencies. The committee is especially interested in how IS would provide go-out response at a moment's notice, for example, when an instructor has a problem installing or operating multimedia software during the start of a class period.

4. Faculty Desktop Upgrades -- the committee needs to know how IS goes about assigning or rotating computer and peripheral equipment. Technically, we need to know who gets exactly what, and how they got it. We also understand that there is some kind of informal check-out procedure for laptops that IS has on hand. We would like to know who has Pentium 4s (if any), Pentium 3s (rated by clock speed and storage capacity), scanners, printers, Apples, memory, and any other equipment that might be suitable for multimedia development. Specifically, we need to know how IS determines upgrade need, whether by user proficiency, FTE, urgency of classroom product, or personal clout.

5. Acceptable Use -- the committee needs to have what industry calls an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) which is part of an overall information security policy. An AUP typically states what hardware, software, and peripheral devices can be hooked up to the campus network, as well as other guidelines for use of the network and Internet connectivity. A security plan typically discusses denial of service and virus attacks as well as intellectual property rights. We are especially interested in any policies on harassment, confidentiality, misrepresentation, copyright, intellectual property, and other matters related to what an instructor or students might do in an interactive multimedia educational environment.

6. Student Workers/Monitors in Labs -- the committee feels that there should be regularly posted hours when student workers will be assigned as lab monitors in the classroom computer laboratories. Security as well as tech help functions should be addressed in the job descriptions. In addition, the committee feels that equitable access to the labs should be addressed in an hours of operation schedule.

7. Classroom Equipment Maintenance -- the committee feels that IS should address how it plans to be involved in the security and maintenance functions of any computer equipment in the classrooms. This includes any portable carts, Smartboards, A/V, and other equipment. Specifically, we feel that a division of labor needs to be articulated between what IS is responsible for, what the Instructional Technologist is responsible for, and what the Assistant to Academic Affairs is responsible for.

8. Programming/Scripting Language Support -- the committee feels that IS should address how it plans to support faculty use of any programming/scripting needs, such as what is commonly referred to as CGI scripts, Java implementation, DirectX, FrontPage Extensions, and Server Side Includes. These features, and others, are typically used in multimedia applications, and cannot be implemented from the client desktop alone. They require somebody to throw a switch in the IS server room. Since approximately 75% of educational multimedia applications require some server tweaking, we are, of course, interested in how IS plans to support this.

9. School Web Page Design and Maintenance -- the committee feels that IS should have a plan for how the school's webmaster goes about maintaining and updating the school's web site, as well as performing an academic support function. Specifically, we feel that major design changes are in order, and should be regularly scheduled. In addition, we feel that ADP faculty ought to be included more in the system. Further, the committee is concerned about the several subnet masks used to segment the web into smaller units, for example, the annex web, the intranet, students.ncwc.edu, and others, which are not indexed or made part of the rest of the school's web site.

10. Organizational Liasion with Faculty -- the committee feels that IS ought to have something like it's TAG group or more that results in permanent and ongoing communication and consultation between faculty and IS personnel. Specifically, we would like to see an organizational chart that reflect this.

SPECIAL REPORT B: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IDEAS

The committee is looking at faculty training and development issues at this time in the context of what is needed for classroom upgrades. The specific parameters which are guiding our thoughts on faculty development include: Content (training for what); Time (best time); Place (best place); Format (delivery mode); and Incentive (what motivates). Currently, our ideas should be considered as preliminary as we have not discussed their full implications.

1. Classroom upgrades -- the committee believes that an additional two (2) classroom upgrades ought to occur each and every year. There is also a consensus that the same thing as last year ought not to be done the next year. There are three areas the committee is concerned about: computer labs; classrooms; and the library. We feel that the library needs more space, particularly computer space, and we feel that priority ought to be given to creating at least one more computer teaching laboratory. Each year, one new lab and one more Smartboard room ought to be created. However, the committee plans to evaluate and assess Smartboards in the near future.

2. Supply and maintenance -- the committee feels that there needs to be a better system of providing faculty with all the various supplies needed to operate computer equipment in labs and classrooms. Items include A/V light bulbs, electrical cords, surge protectors, CD-Roms, floppy discs, zip disks, and other material.

3. Training Content -- multimedia authoring and web authoring were identified as the two priorities in this area. Basic and intermediate workshop levels were deemed as sufficient, representing a 2+2 model of training.

4. Training Time -- summers were identified as the ideal time. Other times were discussed, but nothing preliminary came of it.

5. Training Place -- the writing lab was identified as the ideal place. Other places were discussed, but nothing preliminary came of it.

6. Training Format -- multiple formats were identified as ideal, including CD-Roms, face-to-face, off-campus, online courses (like ZDNet), newsletter subscriptions (like Syllabus, Converge, and Matrix), and User Groups (formed around specific software, like Camtasia).

7. Training Incentive -- some ideas included stipends for training over breaks, release time for multimedia development, recognition as area expert, placing something like "innovation" as a 4^th rung (in addition to teaching, research, and service) in tenure, promotion, and post-tenure evaluation packages, and creation of divisional leaders and innovators (such as WesDrip - Divisional Resource Innovators Program).

Second Meeting of Committee in October: NO REPORT - The committee felt that any assessment or evaluation it will be doing should involve surveys and questionnaires directed at students rather than faculty. This is because of the Title III grant emphasis upon students making multimedia projects rather than just being exposed to them. We are looking into whether Vann Newkirk has already done any such assessments.

November 2001: The Committee met on Wednesday, Nov. 14 to discuss ASSESSMENT. We are planning three (3) types of assessment. One will use the technology types and 4-item response set from Ed Showalter's old faculty preference survey but give it to a random sample of 150 students in hopes of seeing what they would like to use themselves. A second, faculty survey will be classroom-dependent and explore instructor satisfaction with SmartBoards, Labs, Mobile Projectors, TVs, the Web, Transparencies, Acoustics, and other classroom configurations. Our third assessment involves the summer curriculum pilots, and we are not sure about what instrument to use for those. Rob Larsen was welcomed to the Committee.

December 2001: The Committee presented the first SmartBoard Classroom Utilization Survey, which summarizes responses (by course) to 10-point scales for students enrolled in SmartBoard classes during Fall 2001.

1. SEATING was more comfortable than other classrooms
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
8.5	9.3	8.7	9.1	8.9	8.4	9.6
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
8.2	9.1	9.3	9.0	7.9	8.7	8.8

2. LIGHTING and vision were better than other classrooms
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
8.2	9.6	8.3	8.0	8.7	7.9	9.6
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
8.2	8.7	7.7	7.0	7.7	7.2	8.2

3. SOUND and acoustics were better than other classrooms
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
7.2	9.6	7.6	6.4	8.7	7.7	7.8
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
6.5	7.6	7.4	7.6	8.7	7.8	7.8

4. The SmartBoard room made for an effective LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
8.1	9.1	8.9	7.4	9.3	8.3	9.4
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
8.5	8.9	8.1	9.6	8.7	8.6	8.7

5. EQUIPMENT was usually in working order
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
8.3	8.0	6.5	7.4	8.6	8.4	7.0
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
7.7	8.4	7.7	8.7	8.7	8.2	8.0

6. When HELP was needed with equipment, it usually arrived soon enough
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
7.2	6.3	7.1	6.5	7.6	6.6	7.6
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
8.1	6.2	5.5	8.6	7.9	6.0	6.6

7. STUDENTS as well as faculty used the equipment
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
6.1	4.3	6.2	8.2	7.3	6.9	5.4
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
7.0	3.0	5.2	9.6	5.3	4.1	6.1

8. Use was made of the TOUCH SCREEN capabilities
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205	BUS 307-1	BUS 307-2	BUS 308
6.1	4.3	5.6	7.1	9.0	8.4	6.0
CIS 310	ENG 112	ENG 205	ENG 307	PHI 202	PSY 201	ALL
6.1	7.6	5.2	8.1	9.3	3.6	6.7

9. Use was made of ELECTRONIC HIGHLIGHTING of text
ACC 315	BIO 308	BIO 401	BUS 205