Showing papers in "Educause Quarterly in 2003"

The Hybrid Online Model: Good Practice

Abstract: 18 The growth in online education in American colleges and universities continues at an astounding rate. The International Data Corporation predicts that by 2005, 90 percent of all higher education institutions will have e-learning programs.1 E-learning is a subset of distance learning that uses audio, video, and computer delivery modes. Distance learning, which can be described as any learning setting where faculty and students are physically separated, encompasses a broad category that spans a range from low-tech correspondence courses through high-tech delivery options. E-learning provides nontraditional adult students, who are juggling full-time employment and family responsibilities, an opportunity to leverage the new technologies of the Internet to achieve the skills they need to stay competitive in an increasingly digital job market. Colleges and universities are responding to pressures from a range of forces to move into the delivery of courses via online methods. Many institutions find it difficult to enter the distance learning arena because of resource constraints or restrictive mission statements. This critical connection to mission has been emphasized by accrediting organizations that evaluate the relevance of the distance learning program to the institution’s mission during the accreditation review.2 Baldwin-Wallace College, a small liberal arts college in suburban Cleveland, Ohio, developed and implemented a successful hybrid online model that serves institutional needs and also follows the paradigm of “The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education”3 developed almost 20 years ago, updated specifically to target the new communication and information technologies being used in higher education.4 The hybrid online model employs the best characteristics of online education and the interactivity that typically characterizes face-to-face classroom instruction.

Using Technology To Enhance a Course: The Importance of Interaction

Abstract: 24 Iteach the course Organizational Behavior to undergraduates in the School of Business at Indiana University Southeast, a regional campus in the IU system. In 1999, I became interested in the possibilities of using Internet technology in my courses. According to many studies, differences in media used to provide lectures make no difference in student outcomes. (See the sidebar “Some Reviews of Media Comparison Studies.”) Known as the “no significant difference effect,” this conclusion has been used to support more technology in education based on the logic that if it is as effective as traditional means, technology should be used when it is cheaper and more convenient. As part of an Ameritech grant in 2000,1 I began a systematic investigation of Internet-based classroom technology to improve my teaching. Six sections of 118 students total have participated in two studies to investigate the use of educational technology. In one study, lectures and interaction were provided online and compared to a face-to-face experience. A second study, performed the next academic year, assessed the impact of interaction apart from lecture. In the second study, after online lectures were provided to all students, interacting online was compared with interacting face-to-face in a classroom. In both studies, surveys were administered before and after each semester to gather demographic and psychological measures. Both performance and student perceptions were tracked across each semester. Results ran counter to the no-significant-difference effect, as differences in media and interactions were associated with differences in educational outcomes.

Technology Literate Students? Results from a Survey.

Abstract: 34 Contradictory beliefs exist about student information technology skills. One is that high school students know more than college faculty about computers and information technology. Another is that incoming freshmen do not have the information technology skills needed for college-level work and that faculty do not have the time to teach these skills in addition to course content. These beliefs came up for discussion on the Colorado State University (CSU) campus, and the Office of Instructional Services formed a committee to investigate the relevant issues. The committee designed a survey to support or reject the hypothesis that a digital divide in ITbased knowledge and experience did exist among the freshman students newly arrived on campus. This article presents the need for, methodology behind, and results of that survey.

Electronic Portfolios Need Standards To Thrive.

Abstract: 34 More than two years ago, Arthur Levine, author and president of Teachers College, Columbia University, wrote that it won’t be long before “every person will have an educational passport.”1 He explained, “Such an educational passport, or portfolio, will record a student’s lifetime educational history.” Focusing more on learning outcomes than on diplomas that reflect “course seat time,” electronic versions of these portfolios seem the likeliest development of Levine’s vision. Trent Batson, director of Information and Instructional Technology Services at the University of Rhode Island, writing in Syllabus,2 acknowledged that “a general recognition of the usefulness of ePortfolios” already exists and pointed to the resulting momentum the tool is gathering, not just on “dozens if not hundreds of campuses,” but also among vendors and publishers. He declared that “electronic portfolios have a greater potential to alter higher education at its very core than any other technology application we’ve known thus far.” What, exactly, is an electronic portfolio? Most definitions so far have focused primarily on its purpose. For example, Helen Barrett of the University of Alaska Anchorage, a widely recognized expert on electronic portfolio development, defined it as an organized collection of digital and/or analog artifacts and reflective statements that demonstrate growth over time.3 In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jeffrey Young, senior editor for student issues, described an electronic portfolio as an “extensive resume that links to an online repository of . . . anything . . . that demonstrates the student’s accomplishments and activities.”4 The American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) also emphasizes purpose, stating that an electronic portfolio—whether produced by a student, a faculty member, or an institution—is for collection, reflection, and assessment.5 These definitions seem to assume that the tool’s functional aspects are the same as the current capabilities of any Webbased application. In other words, except for availability on the Web and the ability to use digital technologies, these descriptions portray electronic portfolios, by and large, as merely mimicking their paper counterparts.

Designing Online Courses To Discourage Dishonesty.

Abstract: One of the first questions asked of most Web-based educators is, How do you test the students? Following this question is, How do you know the students are learning anything? For instructors who are focused on content and its presentation, these questions address a facet of course design that might not have been specifically incorporated into their preparation. I will present techniques used at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis within the Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology department. The department has offered seven distance education courses 42 times since 1998.

Understanding the Value of IT.

Abstract: 14 In the late 1990s, the wealth of nations rose and fell based on their abilities to participate in the so-called “new economy.” The new economy, of course, was fueled by information and communication technologies. Less than five years later, we no longer hear of the new economy, most of the world languishes in recession, and a sharp debate has begun about how much information technology is enough.1 Higher education’s investment in IT has achieved both unprecedented scale and breadth. In just one short decade, terms like enterprise resource planning (ERP), wireless networks, and courseware have become as common a part of our vocabulary as library, student union, and athletic field. The past decade has seen the widespread consolidation of academic and administrative computing and the rise of the chief information officer (CIO) as a vital member of the campus leadership. Technology projects now approach bricks and mortar as the largest investments a campus will make. It is hard to find a campus today not investing tens of millions of dollars in a new ERP system, a network upgrade, or another IT project. If you doubt how intrinsic technology has become to the life of a campus, you need only observe the paralysis that ensues when the campus e-mail goes down. As technology has assumed a large and more vital role on the campus, it has also come under greater scrutiny. With millions of dollars at stake and institutional and executive reputations at risk, campus leaders are paying more attention than ever to their IT choices. Executives are routinely asking, ■ Why do I need to make this particular technology investment? ■ What benefits will the institution realize? ■ Am I spending too much on technology? ■ How much technology do I need, and why? Few would debate that significant investment in technology is required just to be an institution of higher learning in the twenty-first century. The decision then becomes how much, which technologies, and to what purpose. EDUCAUSE and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), with the support of Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY), Gartner, Microsoft, PeopleSoft, and SAS, convened a two-day meeting in April 2003 of 70 leading CIOs and chief business officers (CBOs) to explore the value of information technology. The group assembled to discuss the following issues: ■ What is IT value and why is it important? ■ How can it be measured and communicated? ■ How can decision making about IT projects be improved? The group’s work took place in the CGEY Accelerated Solution Environment, a place and facilitation methodology designed for deep immersion and rapid problem solving. This article presents the major conclusions reached by the attendees at the IT Value Forum and suggests a direction in shaping the industry’s discussion of information technology’s role and utility in the academy. Understanding the Value of IT

What Academia Can Gain from Building a Data Warehouse.

Abstract: 41 Organizations exist in a dynamic environment that has experienced significant changes in the past 10 years. Advances in technology have made the world smaller, competition has increased, the pace of change has quickened, accountability continues to rise, and customers are becoming more demanding and less patient. These changes, as well as others, are forcing organizations to identify and adopt new strategies for growth and survival. One of the most important components to facilitate the development of these strategies is information. Information is required to identify where the organization has been, where it is now, and where it needs or wants to be in the future. The business community has been investigating the use of data warehouses for some time in an attempt to glean insight into customer behavior, analyze supply chain activities, and support performance measurement systems, as well as other business process operations.1 Since their initial development in the 1970s,2 data warehouses have become a significant component of strategic decision making for business. Major users of data warehouses include credit card companies, retailers, financial services, banks, airlines, What Academia Can Gain from Building a Data Warehouse

Considering User Satisfaction in Designing Web-Based Portals.

Abstract: 35 Arecent Gartner Inc. survey declared portals the second-most hyped information technology trend, right after e-business.1 Along with this hype come various interpretations of what actually constitutes a portal. Traditionally regarded as World Wide Web gateways,2 portals have become more than convenient launch pads for Internet searches. Today’s portals are increasingly sophisticated applications designed to give users simple, quick, secure access to relevant organizational and personal data. Combine these qualities with the provision for users to select and arrange their portal content in ways that make sense to them, and you begin to understand the basis for some of the hype. Many universities have recently jumped on the portal bandwagon, developing enterprise-wide portals and sharing their experiences in journals such as this one. Enterprise portals offer important benefits to higher education institutions. In particular, they let universities coordinate user access to multiple services and information sources, and let users personalize how they view and work with that information. Enterprise portals also present several development challenges, however. On the technological side, a single application must bring together and make available vast amounts of organizational data. The administration must redefine business practices to let individual departments and business units update and maintain their information within the new environment. And, if the final product is to be a success, users must ultimately adopt the portal. As with other technologies, user acceptance hinges on the intended audience perceiving portals as both useful and easy to use.3 Surprisingly little research focuses on user satisfaction, however. Experts routinely tout personalization as portals’ primary attraction,4 yet offer developers little guidance on how best to provide such features to users. To create portal systems that meet both organizational and user requirements, universities must first identify enterprise portal characteristics that contribute to users’ satisfaction and potentially to their ultimate adoption of the system. Toward this end, we share findings from a usability study of an Indiana University enterprise portal application. The results suggest that, although Webbased portals are a relatively new phenomenon, many existing interaction design principles still apply.

Next Generation Course Management Systems

Abstract: It’s déjà vu all over again, in the words of Yogi Berra. As course management systems (CMSs) spread worldwide and become more complex, they grow larger, slower, more costly, and less responsive in customer support. A creature that once seemed to embody the best qualities of technology and instruction is now entering a difficult adolescence, and we all wonder how to deal with changes in teaching and learning that are happening too quickly for reflection or assessment. Despite an appreciation of the many fine qualities of this hybrid creature, customers of the CMS (whether commercial or homegrown) have a list of expectations as CMSs move into the next stage of maturity. One great frustration, with CMSs and with life in general, is simple time management. A CMS should not demand significantly more time from students and faculty than the same course before technology was added. CMS improvements that simply save time may not be pedagogically driven, but if time-saving features can’t be built into the technology, the users’ initial incentive and enthusiasm will turn to frustration, exhaustion, and disappointment. Improvements for next-generation CMS software might include the following capabilities: ■ The ability to share materials and modules across course containers. New partnerships of commercial vendors with the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) allow for standards of course export, but it’s unclear whether CMS vendors will ever implement easy export of developmental pieces. An oft-heard example of where module sharing is needed lies in the new burden on library support. As information literacy grows more significant in learning outcomes, the role of the library in course support increases. We cannot ask librarians to create assessments, announcements, and electronic reserves over and over again for each course container. Integrated library services need to be available via the course container. Within departments and programs, the lack of CMS module export capability has hampered learning-object sharing and collaboration at a time when national endeavors like the IMS Global Learning Consortium,1 OKI, Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT), and the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII) Learning Objects ProNext-Generation Course Management Systems

Web Content Management Systems in Higher Education.

Abstract: 43 As the World Wide Web has matured, so have people’s expectations of their Web experiences. After becoming familiar with what they can find and how to find it, Web visitors have begun to expect more and timelier information from the Web sites they visit. Web managers, in turn, have had to find new ways of meeting these expectations. For campus Web managers, the challenge is to meet these expectations in a largely decentralized environment and with a limited budget. Nearly a decade ago, Gonzaga University realized it needed to establish a Web presence. Although Gonzaga still viewed print as its primary means of communicating with students, parents, and alumni, the expectation had arisen that anyone with an interest should be able to type an institution’s name and “.edu” into a Web browser and instantly learn more about that institution. Our Web manager had the responsibility to ensure that information on the site was accurate, but no great emphasis was placed on the information being timely. Most print publications about the university were assumed to have a lifespan of a year or more, and information on our Web site was assumed to age in the same way. Web Content Management Systems in Higher Education

Open Standards Versus Open Source in E-Learning: The easy answer may not be the best answer

Abstract: The first decade of the twenty-first century is witnessing the convergence of three strands of development in e-learning, strands that had relatively independent origins during the 1990s. The first is the development of e-learning technology as a recognized industry. This is based on the rise of the Web and the widespread adoption of e-learning software and courses, especially learning management systems (LMSs) such as WebCT and Blackboard in the education sector and Saba, Click2Learn, and others in corporate training. This strand grew predominantly from software innovation around proprietary e-learning systems and has found its way into the wider market through venture-capital investment. The second strand arose from attempts to create open standards for elearning software and content, driven by specification organizations such as the IMS Global Learning Consortium, Aviation Industry CBT (Computer-Based Training) Committee (AICC), and Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) network sponsored by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense, and relevant committees of international standards bodies, such as the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. Despite the potential relevance of these open standards for the proprietary e-learning systems of the first strand, the consistent adoption of e-learning standards by LMS vendors was slow, particularly in the education sector. The third strand is the much wider open-source software movement, which has produced highly successful software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server. While opensource software has both historical and philosophical roots within universities, e-learning was not one of the major focus areas of the open-source software movement during the 1990s. There have been exceptions that crossed the boundaries among the three strands. The major impact of each

Using Relevance To Facilitate Online Participation in a Hybrid Course.

Abstract: Number 4 2003 • EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY 67 University enrollments are swelling with a new generation of students who expect campusbased courses to be supported by Webbased resources and communication tools. Instructors have begun meeting the demand by using Web-based tools such as online discussion boards to support face-to-face instruction. However, attempts to use these online communication tools are often accompanied by struggles to boost and maintain enthusiasm and participation among students. In the study briefly reported on here, I worked with an instructor who was using Blackboard to support a classroombased introductory course in educational technology. I was a graduate teaching assistant and co-taught the class. Using a control group and a treatment group, we set out to study the effectiveness of a simple strategy designed to enhance the relevance of the online discussion. We examined students’ perceived relevance of the required online discussions and how those perceptions related to actual online participation and satisfaction. Relevance plays a large part in learning and motivation. Research has shown that relevant information and experiences can improve achievement and perceived motivation, predict a student’s commitment to and effort toward a particular goal, and increase the likelihood that learners will try a variety of learning strategies. According to John Keller’s Attention-Relevance-Confidence-Satisfaction (ARCS) model of motivation, instructional designers and teachers can use relevance-enhancing strategies to make instructional content and delivery more familiar or more aligned with learners’ goals. The strategy we used was to modify the title of the discussion prompts so that the title made an explicit connection to a particular course assignment. We hoped that this simple strategy would increase student participation and satisfaction with online discussions.

Identity and Access Management and Security in Higher Education.

Abstract: 12 In June, a person identifying herself as a recently hired faculty member calls an academic department to ask that her email and course management system access be enabled early. Logging in to the account management system to add the new information, the assistant notices the department chair coming in and explains the situation. The chair quickly grabs the phone and hangs up, saying, “We haven’t hired any new faculty this year.” Respondents to this year’s EDUCAUSE Survey of Current IT Issues ranked security and identity management as critical issues not only because of their strategic importance but also because of the high staff requirements in both the management and technical areas. The preceding scenario illustrates how some of the elements that go into security and identity management affect a campus’s ability to deal with challenges to the integrity of its security processes and policies. A key component of security plans is well-managed access to services that protect online resources and user privacy while enabling ease of use. Centralizing the management of user identity and related information not only reduces the staff required to manage appropriate access and monitoring, but also allows better service through automatic granting (or revoking) of services based on institutional roles. This article discusses the drivers for an identity management system (IdM), the components of such a system, and the role it plays within a security strategy. We close by offering deployment suggestions and resources. Basic Access Management Identification, authentication, authorization, and accountability (or IAAA) are essential functions in providing the required services. Working together, these systems answer questions like ■ Are the people using these services who they claim to be? ■ Are they members of our campus community? ■ Do they have permission to use these services? ■ Is their privacy being protected? Identification is the act of preassigning a unique marker or a token (for example, a “username”) to an individual, program, script, application, or database (“entities”), such that the entities can be distinguished from each other. The identity token is seldom, if ever, a confidential bit of data. These tokens are also called identifiers. Authentication is the act of validating that an entity producing a token (or identifier) is the one to which the token was assigned. Authentication generally takes three forms. When protecting resources considered most sensitive, combining two of the three forms is reasonable practice. To authenticate the entity, the system may require ■ Something the entity knows, like a password. ■ Something the entity carries, like an identity card. ■ Some physical attribute of the entity, like a fingerprint or retina pattern. Authorization is the act of ensuring that the entity is afforded access only to the services and data required to support allowed tasks. Authority can be associated with an entity explicitly on its authority record or implicitly to groups or roles to which the entity belongs. Accountability flows from appropriate administration of identification, authentication, and authorization, ensuring that only the authorized entity can exercise its individual authority. Ensuring that authentication is commensurate with the data or function being accessed and that an unauthorized person cannot assume an authorized active session are examples of maintaining accountability. Sharing identities among multiple entities eliminates accountability. Permitting entities to choose easily guessed passwords reduces accountability. Clearly, the security of functions and data rely on well-managed IAAA processes. If it is easy to gain unauthorized access to sensitive data via flaws in the implementation of IAAA, securing the host computer counts for naught. Intruders wouldn’t have to identify a security flaw in an operating system, write a program to exploit that flaw, find computers with the flaw, and execute the program to gain access—they would merely have to co-opt already authorized credentials.

Developing Security Education and Awareness Programs

Abstract: These and similar headlines are now commonly seen in The Chronicle of Higher Education and other publications most of us read regularly. High-profile incidents such as these underscore the vulnerability of our campus networks (and therefore our systems, data, and research tools) to hacking, viruses, and other types of attacks from the broader Internet. While security education and awareness has long been part of the IT staff member’s professional development and education, the need has never been greater—as these headlines illustrate—for individuals at all levels and across all segments of the institution to understand what security threats exist and what to do about them. How do you develop an effective education and awareness program for a topic that is not considered particularly interesting by the average person? How can you help the wide and varied groups of people on your campus (including students, parents, campus administrators, and faculty, to name just a few) understand the role they play in campus security? The Case for Security Education First, let’s talk about why a security education and awareness program is so important—even when putting it together takes a lot of time and energy. Experts generally agree that people are the greatest source of IT security problems. Statistics consistently show that the majority of security breaches are caused by insiders, and the damage they levy on their organizations can be much more severe than anything wrought by hackers on the other side of the world.1 Many, if not most, insider breaches are caused neither by disgruntled employees nor by students intent on doing harm. The sources are often people who either ■ are not aware of the security threats, ■ are wrongly relying on someone else to deal with them, ■ are not adequately skilled to address them, or ■ simply feel they have more important things to do. Unfortunately, potential intruders are all too aware of this human vulnerability, and they take advantage of it in a big way. Higher education offers many examples of security incidents leading to confiscation of hardware by federal authorities, loss or corruption of critical research data, and worse. Some incidents have garnered national attention, and most could have been prevented with better education. Education, though, can be devilishly hard to deliver when ■ few computer users acknowledge personal responsibility for security, ■ many consider the issue too technically complex for them to understand, ■ executives and middle managers often fail to comprehend the business implications of poor security and consequently don’t assign it a high priority, and ■ security budgets and staff are typically stretched to the limit. In the face of these obstacles, it is especially important that a security education and awareness program be finely focused and all possible resources be leveraged. So let’s start by analyzing precisely what information needs to be conveyed, and to whom.

Enhancing the Classroom Experience with Learning Technology Teams.

Abstract: 19 The driving force behind adoption of educational technologies in universities is the belief that they improve the quality of teaching.1 Despite this assumption, faculty experimentation with technologies in the classroom is slow and focuses on a narrow range of tools such as e-mail, presentation handouts, Web pages, and Internet resources.2,3 This pattern suggests that weaving technologies into the learning experience poses challenges that go beyond mere adoption. The use of new tools in the classroom, however, does not ensure that teaching will improve or that students will learn. Rather, thoughtful pedagogical strategy matters most if educational technology is to succeed in building invigorating learning environments.4 How are faculty best supported in efforts to integrate technology in their courses? This question identifies the single most important technology issue for the next few years in U.S. public universities, according to the 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in U.S. Higher Education.5 In response to the need for faculty support, some campuses have developed comprehensive programs to reach this goal.6,7 Queen’s University, a midsize research university in Canada, provides a selection of activities to engage faculty in thinking about educational technologies. The Learning Technology Unit offers regular workshops on both the technical and pedagogical aspects of frequently used tools such as WebCT, PowerPoint, and HTML. Educational Technology Days showcase best practices Enhancing the Classroom Experience with

Online Admissions and Internet Recruiting: An Anatomy of Search Engine Placement.

Abstract: Number 4 2003 • EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY 63 Youth of today are strongly inclined to use the Internet to research colleges and universities. Children are trained to use the Internet beginning in grade school and will research and visit colleges from home or from libraries.1 Discussions with recent high school graduates reveal that many prefer the privacy of searching online and using online forms. There is less interaction with people using this method—they simply fill out the information online.2

Data, Data Everywhere--Not a Report in Sight!

Abstract: Many colleges and universities find it difficult, time consuming, and costly to get the information they need from their administrative systems. These systems, designed to manage student, financial, human resource, and payroll processes, are often complex and rigid. Institutions find themselves flooded with data but often unable to access the information they require for sophisticated reporting. This article outlines an effective methodology for extracting data from complex administrative systems and turning it into useful information that supports core business requirements. Read on to learn about the six steps of data warehouse development that result in valuable, long-term reporting solutions.