These advantages are significant, and the fact that other universities (including York, U of T and Ottawa U., among others) are moving in this direction is an indication of the potential most observers see for such technology. Indeed, it can be argued that Ryerson must move in this direction simply to remain competitive in attracting students (although this would obviously be an insufficient argument if it had no pedagogical value).
A further advantage arises with respect to allocating support staff. Currently, L72 requires a technician to be present to operate equipment; other rooms require staff to deliver all varieties of multimedia equipment whenever they are needed. Similarly, faculty must expend extra time booking equipment for each usage, and sometimes find that this means they forego using multimedia material (e.g., the procedure is too awkward to warrant showing a five or ten minute video clip). Equipping classrooms with presentation technology would free both staff and faculty time for more productive activities. (Indeed, this was one of the factors which initially drove Ottawa U. to begin equipping classrooms; only as faculty used the equipment did the pedagogical opportunities become more evident for most users.)
Hence, there are compelling reasons to believe that classroom presentation technology must be included as part of any overall information technology strategy at Ryerson. What has not been discussed above are the various issues which arise in determining both the costs and the appropriate means of implementation. Briefly, some of the major concerns are as follows:
Cost: both the equipment (computer, data projector, VCR, audio equipment, network link, etc.) and the retrofitting of classrooms is costly, and Ryerson clearly cannot afford to implement the technology on a universal scale in the next few years. Instead, it is likely that rooms will be equipped on a selective basis (including, but not limited to, those rooms which are relatively large and in high demand). In addition, it is suggested that mobile carts be made available as a supplementary source, in order to increase availability in the short term. (Such carts are not seen as a desirable long-term solution, both because of security concerns and the fact that the staffing demands noted above are not resolved by this approach.) Despite the costs, Ryerson should be seeking to ensure that a significant proportion (e.g., 1/3) of class groups have access to presentation technology within the next five years.
Support resources: to make the technology effective, faculty will require access to training and support in the use of both the hardware and related software (e.g., using Powerpoint, digitizing existing notes and materials). While the Digital Media Projects office currently exists to serve some of these needs, as the equipment becomes more available, it is likely that demand will increase significantly. (In addition, it is likely that late adopters will require more assistance than early adopters, who often are already technologically sophisticated.) Ottawa U. has addressed these concerns in part by reallocating staff who previously were required for in-class deliveries and support, but there is no question that Ryerson must be prepared to respond to increased demands for support, or risk faculty resistance and under-utilization of the technology.
Design--in order to be maximally effective, equipment must be simple to use, reliable, and present a consistent set of controls in every room. (The frustrations engendered by things like VCR controls, which differ from brand to brand and even model to model, would be significantly compounded if the implementation of presentation technology does not meet these criteria.) Similarly, computers must provide a consistent set-up, and yet be amenable to the needs of users who wish to access non-standard software applications.) The implementation must co-ordinate a wide range of aspects, including classroom design/modification, pedagogical needs of faculty, security concerns for classroom equipment, etc. Currently, a committee has been formed to address these issues, and will solicit broader input from the community this Fall.
Scheduling--given the cost of presentation technology equipment, it is evident that Ryerson must seek to maximize the return on this investment by ensuring that the equipment is utilized as much as possible. This raises questions about how rooms which are retrofitted are to be assigned to individual faculty, and also how requests for mobile equipment are to be handled (especially if demand outstrips availability). Addressing these issues will require close liason between Timetabling and users (or at least some group to which faculty refer requests for use), as well as possibly new software to accommodate scheduling needs. Clearly, current scheduling procedures cannot fully address these issues, especially in circumstances where faculty needs are intermittent, rather than arising in every class.
Pedagogy--faculty must be supported in learning to make effective use of presentation technology, and in some cases this will require both rethinking current practices and acquiring new skills. As well, it is important to identify what uses are most effective in enhancing student learning. As with other aspects of information technology, the rapid rate of change in what is possible makes this issue particularly challenging, but also of crucial importance: if Ryerson's goal is to foster effective learning, than the use of presentation technology, like all other activities, must be evaluated to ensure that it meets this goal. In this regard, surveys of the needs of faculty and students, as well as outcome assessments, must be integrated into the planning and implementation of presentation technology in the classroom.
While not exhaustive, this paper is meant to provide an overview of both the advantages and challenges associated with implementing presentation technology at Ryerson. Currently, a committee reporting to the VP Academic is engaged in proceding with acquiring two mobile carts and retrofitting 2 or 3 classrooms during the coming year. While significant, this activity barely scratches the surface in terms of what will ultimately be needed. However, this initial step will allow the Ryerson community, especially faculty, to become more familiar with the potential uses of presentation technology, as well as provide input into future planning and implementation. The co-chairs of the Presentation Technology Implementation Committee are Rheta Rosen, Judy Britnell, and Bill Glassman.