This brief consists of four parts:
Background
Ryerson provides education and training in 37 programs which include a very wide variety of fields from accredited engineering and applied science programs, through community-based professions, through business, to the fine and applied arts. These include programs in which Information Technology is the major focus of study (Applied Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Administrative Information Management, for example), in which IT is a key method (many Schools), to those in which it is mainly used for routine student and faculty research and writing (fewer Schools.)
Ryerson has included appropriate computing (and associated media) in its programs throughout the history of each program. But it could be argued that due to its lack of adequate resources and advanced research programs, it has rarely been ahead of the technology wave. Ryerson was an important but junior partner in the York-Ryerson Computing Centre when sole ownership of one or more mainframes appeared prohibitive (early use of remote batch computing and distributed terminals to medium-sized computers was advanced at the time.)
In the early 1980's, when Ryerson established its own computing facilities (multiple mainframes) it also developed a fully staffed computing centre with many skilled individuals covering needed specialties. This was accompanied through both centralized and School-operated PC labs, as well as widespread placement of PC's on staff and faculty desks.. A fibre-optic backbone and lots of other network facilities were introduced. The model for computing and telecommunications management was a centralized one, supplemented by School labs. Efforts by Schools to break completely away from the centre--taking their share of computing support funds with them--were resisted.
In the early 1990's, the aging mainframes and PC labs, and the rise of graphical interfaces and the importance of Unix servers and workstations led to the switch to an IBM-RS/6000-based Unix system (Matrix) and to the addition of newer graphical PC's and Unix workstations in labs and offices. Once again, a relatively centralized model was followed, but some Schools had now established significant labs and networks which were more important to their students than were the CCS facilities. All computers and nets, no matter who operated them, were connected to the backbone--albeit at an average cost basis for new nodes. Again these efforts barely kept up with the curve, so to speak, as faster and faster PC's fought with the Unix workstations for supremacy in engineering, business, and design fields.
Problems Today
During the ITSDC process a number of problems have been identified with Ryerson's IT facilities:
In addition to the findings in the ITSDC process, the Information Technology Committee of FCS has identified a number of important other limitations which affect the entire University as well:
Background
Over the years, the Faculty of Community Services has had pockets of strong computing use. Today, FCS schools range from those that use a good deal of IT in their teaching (Urban and Regional Planning, Nutrition, Environmental Health) to those that use IT to overcome distance education challenges (Child and Youth Care) to those that have only a little IT beyond what students need to research and write university courses (the other Schools.)
Representatives of FCS at ACAC and other forums on IT have strongly supported central academic computing shared across the University (the author was chair of ACAC for two years when Matrix was created, and headed ACAC software selection for the VM/CMS system in the early 1980's.) This steady support for centralized management was intended to support all Schools at RPU and their ability to cooperate and coordinate IT activities--not just FCS Schools. The principle of protecting the computing activities of low-intensity users was paramount in the thinking of FCS (and some Arts) representatives.
During the VM/CMS period, Urban Planning and Nutrition both had clusters of 327X terminals in support of this strategy and their teaching of statistics and other software. With School and Track funds, UPLG gradually build a 7-station PC lab. Nutrition recently installed a research and advanced teaching lab with 6 Pentium workstations.
The cutbacks in academic computing over the last 4 or 5 years have meant that FCS adherence to strong centralized computing, and the use of CCS teaching labs like L393 and E135, may have proven to be a serious mistake. During a period when the importance of IT is rising rapidly everywhere, this loyalty has severely hampered many faculty and most students in moving ahead in their fields using IT.
But all the schools are developing in their use of IT in teaching, SRC, and service, buoyed by new faculty for whom this is routine, and older faculty who are old hands at using computers, or have recently extended their IT skills. The School Directors and administrators are using many different aspects of IT--although the rudimentary state of administrative systems for easy downloading and uploading of data makes this frustrating and inefficient.
In addition to what the University is doing, the Faculty of Community Services has an active program to enable more faculty and staff to use IT effectively, and to bring it into their courses. We have a part-time IT specialist, Peter Kowal, who works in conjunction with the IT committee; his consulting fees and expenses through 1997/1998 are supported by Track 2/3 funds. We have conducted a survey (Spring, 1997) of faculty IT facilities and activity. We are just about finished with an updated inventory of on-campus technology in FCS--something which the University itself does not have available across the campus. A small competition for modest funding for IT projects is being conducted (also funded from Track funds.) Peter has promoted successfully the use of database management systems and Web and multimedia authoring tools.
Despite these established and new accomplishments, FCS lags behind the Faculties of Engineering and Applied Science, Business, and Applied Arts in the intensivity of IT use. Some of this is simply a result of what professionals do in the real worlds of nursing, social work, and other fields served by FCS: most time is spend hands-on or face-to-face with clients, rather than in a lab, office or studio creating products, reports or artistic creations.
Nevertheless several of the schools find that graduates must now blend into a setting that is now very IT-based. Even in the least IT-intensive fields, lead agencies are switching from paper and analog data storage to digital storage. Furthermore, individuals rising to senior management positions in all fields are required to use IT more, and be knowledgeable about how to make IT decisions.
Problems Today
But the IT infrastructure of the Faculty of Community Services lags far behind those of other faculties, even factoring in the lower level of current use of IT, compared to Engineering, Business, and Applied Arts.
Source of These Ideas
The ITSDC process is mulling over a number of solutions which might address these problems. First I will review them briefly, with a twist that I hope provides a new view of the problem.
I believe Ryerson will increase steadily the IT content and IT use in the curriculum--this is almost inevitable. Some faculty may argue that we should resist this shift to IT, but they are wrong at least in degree: we cannot resist, we can only have modest effects on the pace of change, and a significant effect on the nature of the change.
Traditional Teaching Values and New Approaches
But to guide this secular change we have to do more than provide hardware and software. We have to change our thinking; we may have to reorder the way we organize teaching. We have to find a way to keep the things that are good about the way we have taught for the last 50 years--such as lots of discussion in class, and close bonds between faculty and program students.
We have to help faculty adapt materials and methods of teaching where appropriate. We have to get students up to speed in basic IT as early as possible when they do not already have those skills. For those incoming students fluent in computing we have to have up-to-date facilities.
We have to be sure that we at least demonstrate, and preferably arrange for students to use, close to ``state of the art'' information technology for their field. If possible, they should get an opportunity to actually participate in improving IT or in extending it into the community, the government, and industry. In fact, some of this leading edge computing might be seen or accessed in the workplace, rather than at Ryerson.
Renewal of On-Campus Labs
One solution is to concentrate on adding and renewing teaching labs, both low-end and high-end. This strategy requires constant renewal--most observers suggest a 3-year obsolescence schedule for the best labs, 4 at the most. Equipment and software may possibly migrate from high to low-end facilities over the years. So equipment used at first to develop multimedia products can three years later be used to view multimedia teaching simulations.
Significant free time for drop-in use must be maintained. Once the labs are renewed, this means that only class hours requiring students interact with the software be scheduled into the labs.
Dual purpose computer lab rooms--for computing and for seminar use-- may have a role. I have seen labs at Florida Atlantic University in which the PC monitor is located below a glass tabletop so that conventional classroom activities are less-impeded. But this further increases the cost of ergonometrically acceptable furniture at each station, and ``wastes'' computer resources when other modes of teaching occur there.
The Portable Solution
The other approach is taken by the proponents of a portable computing solution for some or all programs at Ryerson. In this scenario, students in incoming years would be required to lease/purchase a specified bulk-purchase portable PC and software. Provision for teaching using these PC's would be required, including a large investment in networking and docking equipment and software, course development for many more courses than those already prepared for Business.
A significant proportion of students we currently enroll could be financially eliminated by this decision; on the other hand some competitive advantage and prestige in recruiting is also possible: the Business Link program is currently unique in the GTA. Acadia University, Wake Forest University in the U.S., and many others, are following this strategy. In Canada, this approach adds $4,000-$5,000 to the total mandatory cost of a university education in Canada, a sizeable percentage increase which most families have not planned for. And this does not count any net increases in costs for the university implementing the program.
Classrooms
We must increase the number of large and medium-sized classrooms with good projection facilities and a built-in CPU and/or portable docking station. This would require some fixed and some portable projection equipment (palettes and small projectors), and might be combined with the new classrooms/movie theatres at Yonge and Dundas Sts. While the portable solution might lower the number of required ``projectable'' classrooms slightly, teaching in a classroom with all students staring at their portables may not be the best learning environment, unless the students are learning the use of software.
Because we start from almost no digital classroom technology, one cannot question the initial part of this investment. But nowhere near every classroom has to be so equipped. There is no advantage to using a portable PC to display a PowerPoint or Freelance slide show that can be duplicated with fixed overhead transparencies prepared in advance. While there are many cases (a course where using PC software is taught at some point; demonstration of Web searching in a field, or use of an interactive Web site live) that are exceptions, the first step to digital media is to use software to make better slides. This allows for the material to easily be put on the World Wide Web, or to be used in full interactive mode, at a later date.
Curricular Change: Why So Intimidating?
Most important of all are changes in courses and the way professors (and academic assistants) work. This is a monumental task, not because there is anything currently wrong with Ryerson faculty and how they teach, but because it takes a large initial investment to convert even one course to effective presentation techniques which utilize: multimedia where appropriate; Web pages which contain not only fixed text, but up-to-date links or data and exhibits; so-called applications or ``applets'' which allow students to try different scenarios; and CD-ROM's for distribution of large data or complex courseware. But just ``Webbing'' a course is not real change in the curriculum; it is a different and more public way of communicating with students, colleagues, and potential customers.
The change in teaching methods, even if introduced a year at a time, is much harder for Ryerson to do than for a liberal arts university: we are organized into 37 different programs, and do not have a pattern of shared introductory courses across all engineering majors, all applied arts fields, or the like. The number of courses which have to be changed is much greater, and this conversion is another crucial burden on small schools. Exactly the same work is required to convert a small enrolment required program course as is needed to convert one with a large enrolment.
A count of first year courses that are unique would exceed 100 year-course equivalents, based on 2-3 program courses, and 2-3 liberal and professionally-related electives, in each first year. I have not counted up the courses exactly, but this will do for argument's sake. Second through fourth year would provide no respite, as the number of professional courses, and their complexity, rises each year in most programs, and the earlier year courses will require revision. Once the steady-state is reached, constant revision remains to be done. At least it is easier to change digital information!
A further problem arises where course are still taught differently by several instructors to relatively small classes, rather than being merged into large lecture sections. To continue this style, multiple preparations will be required. To change the style for the sake of incorporating IT is backwards, and it also poses staffing and student relations problems.
Any change in teaching methods will happen gradually in any case, but the pace and nature of this major change are conditional on the approach taken to getting students in front of computers. The portable solution, where mandatory, requires an immediate mandatory response: most courses which participating students take must be IT-based, with few glitches or failures. Faculty teaching those students must have matching machines (portables, even two portables, one for home and one for campus).
If the traditional lab strategy is followed, with students often following along with a desktop PC bought to fit their household budget, the introduction of more intensive IT can be more gradual. On the other hand, the opportunity to insure greater curricular change is lost, and many faculty members will avoid the conversion as they approach the end of a career.
The choice is not between choosing ``portables and change'' versus ``labs and the status quo''. The pace of change may be different, but changing IT will produce changing teaching, period.
The Portable Solution, Is it a ``Two-For''?
Before you approve a policy which forces students to buy a particular portable computer, remember to ask the affected faculty to buy one too. Just think about that notice from Human Resources: ``...$100.00 per month is being deducted from your pay stub in perpetuity to provide you with the portable PC you must use...'' If instead you plan to have Ryerson pay for the portables out of the regular budget, figure on $4000-$5000 every three years for each participating faculty member. Within four years (if all Schools participate) that is 500 portables minimum, at an additional budget of $2-$2.5 million every 3 years.
I believe the appeal of the portable solution, at least for some programs, is very strong because of the intensivity of IT use in some programs, and because of the fear that another university in the GTA, or in Ontario, will jump ahead with that solution at the undergraduate level. For example, some fear York will scoop us. As one colleague pointed out to me, that is a realistic projection--unless you know the force of Luddism up in Downsview. A shift to portables by an undergraduate program like business at York--as Queen's has just done--might well occur.
Another important appeal of portables is the argument that the portable solution ``kills several birds with one stone''. Which birds?--it does reduce the need for recurring lab expenditures, and perhaps for some projection equipment in classrooms. But it has very high costs at the front end for docking facilities, personnel to manage the distribution, service, and coddling of portables and their owners, faculty portables, and immediate courseware conversion. If great deals are reached with hardware and software vendors, the prices which students and faculty face might be reduced, but isn't this sort of deal possible for desktops as well?
However, I think that the ITSDC discussion has focused some light on the need for a dramatic move to improve IT at Ryerson, similar to the divorce from York-Ryerson or the ditching of mainframes. So one or more ``two-fors'' are really required.
What RPU Needs:
An Emerging Solution
The Faculty of Community Services has to be prepared to act, and to react, to these problems, and the suggested solutions: lab renewal, portable computing, and classroom presentation technologies. Since FCS really has no lab of its own, and is not likely to adopt the portable strategy unless it is mandatory; new and better labs are the solution.
Impacts of Solutions Like Portables
Required First-Year Portable Purchase like Acadia
If the portable solution is made mandatory for roll-in year-by-year, FCS will lose more student enrolments than most other Faculties due to the unclear relationship between the fields and IT, the socioeconomic groups from which many students come, and the lower salaries on graduation than in Engineering and Business. If this cost increase were to come simultaneously with sizeable tuition increases, the impact would be even more dramatic.
An informal poll of U.S. and Canadian planning professors at the annual ACSP conference this month found no known examples of mandatory computer purchase, let alone mandatory portable acquisition, among city planning faculties, even graduate programs. Of course most planning students have PC's, but most schools are aware of the need to provide facilities on campus, particularly for the least-advantaged students. The combination of high-requirement software like GIS, CAD, and incoming visualization packages, and the sue of huge data sets, all suggest that putting the students solely on portables is inappropriate.
Based on experience at Ryerson, the other FCS fields are even less likely than planning to face competitor programs which require computer purchase, let alone portable purchase.
The School-Option Portable Solution
What about the School-option portable solution? The danger is that if Engineering and/or Business choose this route, so much of scant IT resources will be devoted to accommodating the portables for those schools, that the rest of the campus will get no support at all. Take the Summer and Fall of 1997 problems, for instance. It is true that there were several resignations, but the task undertaken across the campus were minor compared to what would be required by a first-year roll-in for over a thousand students in Business and Engineering.
In the opinion of FCS, the School-option portable solution, requires guaranteed increased financial and personnel allocations for the non-participating schools, including new and renewed on-campus labs.
The situation, where new labs in Business and Applied Arts completely tied up CCS for months, pushing other activities down the queue, must be prevented.
Lab Renewal
FCS should support the renewal of labs, including a new lab for FCS exclusive use. It is prepared to contribute its capital allocation for two years, but will require matching funds, including enough for permanent personnel and support.
As the one Faculty with essentially no dedicated lab facilities, FCS must be funded to open and operate on an ongoing basis, a dedicated teaching/drop-in lab.
Presentation Technologies
What about the progress toward better presentation technologies? Many faculty in FCS are ready to get moving on course conversion, but they feel it is not worthwhile when the availability of equipped rooms is unknown, booking of portable equipment is a gamble, and the reliability of equipment, even old-fashioned overhead projectors, is low.
So FCS should say that presentation technology should be done not for show, but for real applications that need it, and Internet access is likely to be crucial. Portable equipment for teaching (like earlier efforts and the recent acquisitions) might be a good way to reduce the waste of any investment in projection equipment fixed in rooms which are not used enough to justify the costs.
To repeat:
According to the needs of FCS Schools and faculty: