Terms of Reference

The committee will produce a 3-4 year plan to implement and support the APG-IT report. This will require some consultation with constituencies that are involved with IT at Ryerson, and will require considerations of near-future budget constraints in addition to the academic and technical issues.

This plan should be available in the October/November time frame and it will be used to guide the 1998/99 budgeting process where IT investments are concerned.

The plan should specifically address investment issues including: central vs. departmental IT labs; classroom delivery technologies; SRC; distance education delivery; high-end vs. commodity users of IT. Recommendations on issues such as intellectual property as related to the delivery of course material may also result from the deliberations.

The recommendations in this report satisfy the outstanding requirements for IT found in Ryerson's Vision Task Group Report.

• ITSDC constituted by V.P Academic March 25/97
• Meetings through the Spring/Summer/Fall
  May 8,21, June 5,10,26, July 4, Sept 30, Oct 14, Nov 4
• Sub-committee discussion papers mounted on ITSDC web-site
• ITSDC all day meeting with V.P. Academic July 4 to discuss issues
• ITSDC Conference Oct 28,29 to present issues and preliminary recommendations and obtain feedback from Ryerson faculty and staff
• Post-Conference Meeting Nov 4 to review feedback from the October Conference
• Draft report issued Nov 28 to ITSDC members with detailed feedback from Conference still required to be incorporated into the Final Report.
• Committee member review of Draft Report Nov 28 - Dec 3.
• Final Report Integration Meeting Dec 3, and submission of all notes taken from the October conference
• Draft Final Report issued to V.P. Academic for review February 13, with a summary of the notes included in the Findings Section 3.
• Final Report issued by March 11 incorporating all Final Review comments.

Recommendations from the ITSDC Committee are that

• Each Department needs to specify student competencies as measurables.
• Student centered learning is the highest priority.

In planning an IT strategy for Ryerson, the central focus must be the impact of IT on students, in terms of what they learn and how they learn it. What do we want our graduates to know? And in what ways will the use of IT enhance learning, or hinder it? These are obviously broad questions, without complete answers. For discussion purposes, the two issues may be considered separately.

1. Expectations for graduates: Although much of the learning which students do involves acquiring specific information, discussion of competencies is related to the type of skills students develop, not particular knowledge. Beyond the specific skills associated with each program, there are also some general skills which Ryerson seeks to foster, including:
   1. the ability to apply theory to practice
   2. the ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing
   3. the social skills to work effectively with others
   4. the ability to evaluate information critically
   5. a life-long capacity to learn.

   While this list is not exhaustive, it serves to indicate the type of general competencies which our graduates should have, regardless of what program they attend.

   In this regard, IT, like any technology, is necessarily a tool to enhance human capabilities. As such, it is not something to be learned for its own sake, but only as a means of enhancing the skills which we want students to develop. (Even if it were seen as desirable, a tools-as-an-end focus would be thwarted by the rapid rate of change in both hardware and software.) If trying to define the skills we would want students to have, given the current state of IT, it might be tempting to say, ``Students should be able to write using a word processing program, communicate using e-mail, and research information from the Web.'' Yet evaluating these objectives in the context of the above goals, one would conclude that word-processing has no direct relevance, while using e-mail effectively may well be relevant to social skills. The key aspect of using the Web is not information access, but evaluating the information obtained--indeed, the ease with which material may be posted on the Web makes the ability to critically evaluate information even more important than it is with conventional texts and journals. Similarly, students must be able to apply sound judgement when using IT as a tool--e.g., evaluating whether a spreadsheet for marketing projections is using correct formulas. IT can make large quantities of information easily accessible, but students must know how to select relevant information, and evaluate its meaning.

   Given the foregoing arguments, it is not appropriate to define IT-related competencies narrowly (e.g., ``the ability to compose an essay using WordPerfect 7.0''), even though specific competencies may be appropriate to a particular program (e.g., use of GIS software in Applied Geography). For the University as a whole, we must identify broader outcomes, such as making students comfortable with adapting to the changing nature of information technology (perhaps by addressing how it works), understanding the advantages and limitations of communicating by e-mail, and enhancing the evaluation of information and its meaning, however obtained. Doing so will require reconsidering how we teach and how students learn.

2. If we accept that information technology has a role to play in enhancing the abilities of our graduates, how does that decision alter (positively or negatively) the way students learn? Several implications seem obvious (and there are likely others):
   1. universal access must exist for all students (whether through labs or laptops, etc.), which raises obvious questions about costs, and who bears them
   2. the use of technology such as multimedia course materials for out of class learning, or presentation technology within the classroom, will potentially alter/undermine the interactive nature of learning at Ryerson, as well as the social skills which our graduates need
   3. if IT-related competencies are deemed important, then curricular content and delivery must be examined to determine how these competencies are to be developed; this in turn has implications for faculty skills and institutional resources
   4. IT is changing the nature of work in many settings, particularly in terms of home-based work and ``mobile offices'', which in turn is changing the functions of corporate offices. In similar ways, the use of IT at Ryerson has the capacity to change relationships between students and faculty as well as between students and the university; this may affect recruitment, retention rates, and other elements that could significantly affect Ryerson's success.

It is obvious that IT is becoming a pervasive element of our society, and it is crucial that we determine it's relevance to our educational goals. In itself, the rapid advance of IT does not imply that we should make it the focus of our endeavors. Instead, we must emphasize the goals we want to achieve as a university, and identify those usages of IT which will foster those goals.

The recommendation of the ITSDC Committee is that the V.P. Academic should make a facilitation announcement to the community that Ryerson will support Departments willing to move in the direction of laptop computers, with financial support in place to students in need.

Information Technology

1. is a requirement of a modern polytechnic curriculum;
2. is required to enable and enhance teaching and learning in a polytechnic university;
3. is a necessity for scholarly research and creative activities in a world where information technology is a pervasive reality.

In the professional world computing is ubiquitous. The textual mediation of social relations is now digitally mediated. Reports, engineering drawings, memos, quotes, and every other form of business and professional transaction are now done electronically. In every industry the nature of professional work, research, and development are being continually redefined by networked computing. From the patient management and record systems used by the medical industry to the accelerated visualization, design, and simulation of complex systems enable by networked CAD/CAM/finite element analysis systems in aerospace engineering, computing has changed the work practices of professionals in every industry that hires Ryerson graduates. The clear divisions between traditional careers has been eroded by the re-engineering of industry that computing has made inevitable. It is not enough for many professionals to have a deep knowledge in one discipline. The modern professional is expected to work with digital tools as an expert within their discipline and as a generalist capable of working on aspects of projects that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. One classic example is in graphic communications where one person may perform all prepress activities in place of the traditional roles of designer, colour separator, layout artist, film stripper, plate maker etc. The nature of work, research, and development have changed. At the same time, despite significant investments, the nature of Ryerson's computing resources have not.

Ryerson has:

1. little advanced computing capability;
2. adequate, restricted access, entry level specialized labs and servers;
3. inadequate general purpose drop-in computing labs.

The lack of modern ubiquitous computing resources at the University is a fundamental impediment to Ryerson's progress as a modern polytechnic. The traditional model of buying computers to serve the curricular requirements of a limited number of programs will not work when computing is the pervasive reality in every industry. Ryerson cannot afford to buy the computing equipment, software, development, and support for modern pervasive computing for over 14,000 students on campus. Another model must be found. The ``laptop'' university is only one them.

Should Ryerson be a Laptop University?

Access

Students who purchase notebook computers under a University program will have excellent access (any-time and any-place) to information technology. Where other solutions are implemented access will not be truly ubiquitous.

Graduate Employability

For basic skills notebooks provide an excellent platform for learning and working. However, for certain high-end applications notebooks may not provide sufficient technological base to achieve certain skills. In Computer Aided Design, image processing, multimedia development, and other visualisation and design areas affordable notebooks are a disadvantage to students working on basic to mid-level problems.
In some programs employers will value the laptop experience such as in Business and perhaps Journalism. In other programs the experience may be considered outside of normal work practices and may seem irrelevant. However, computer use is increasing, even in areas such as nursing and early-childhood education, and nobody is predicting that such use will diminish.

University Image

If communicated properly becoming a laptop university can have a positive impact on Ryerson's image. Selling a hybrid solution to ubiquitous computing is much more difficult.

Cost to students

There are two basic models to provide laptops to students:

1. In most existing programs laptops have been leased with a 3-year replacement cycle. This means that students will never have to work with a computer that is more than 3 years old. The other side of the coin is that these plans are typically fairly expensive. Done this way the cost of a laptop program for Ryerson students would, in effect, raise their tuition by roughly 50%. In some programs this may be acceptable. In others this may lead to significant enrollment reductions and reduce the quality of students available to them.

2. The alternative is to go to tender every year and have all of the students starting that year purchase the same computer. They would normally then use the same computer through the 4 years of their program. The brand might differ from that used the previous and following years, but all the students in a cohort would have the same system. The big advantage of this approach is that it could cost as little as 50% of the cost of the lease option and they would own a functional, but out-of-date computer upon graduation. The disadvantages are:
   • students have slightly more out-of-date computers in their last year;
   • technical support may have to be managed a bit more carefully;
   • departments and faculty must commit to provide educational material and academic work that can be accomplished on the equipment for at least the 4 years of a student program (this is much more practical at Ryerson where student cohorts are more clear than at most other universities).

In theory if every student were required to purchase a notebook computer access to IT at Ryerson would be be pervasive on and off the campus. In practice there are two fundamental problems with this. First, many students may not be able to afford a notebook solution. Second, the high cost of notebooks may render them an inappropriate technology for many disciplines. The cost of notebooks capable of running certain classes of critical applications may be unreasonable whereas the cost of a desktop system may not be. At some point notebook computers may be available that address both of these concerns. At this point they are not. Programs with such requirements must explore other solutions such as requiring students to purchase desktop systems. Where appropriate Ryerson must allow individual programs or departments to move forward with entrance requirements such as the purchase of a laptop (or other system) where those departments deem it appropriate.

Regardless of whether a program requires a student to purchase a laptop computer, most students will incur significant costs associated with information technology. Ryerson and other universities must push governments to ameliorate these non-tuition costs through options such as tax credits or deductions.

The recommendation of the ITSDC Committee is that there be ongoing support to computer labs (low and high end) during a transitional phase where Low end Labs will decline as laptops become more prevalent.

Strategic Directions Regarding Labs and Infrastructure

Policies regarding the access to and use of Information Technology at Ryerson would need to address a number of issues regarding labs and infrastructure. The assumptions made in identifying these include the expectation that financial resources will never be abundant, that there will be competition among spending options and that there will be uncertainty regarding which expenditures provide the optimal return to the Ryerson community. Many, but by no means all, of the concerns centre on the differentiation of departmental and centralized facilities and responsibilities. That finances and campus-culture may come into conflict is a likely outcome of any policies in this area. Different departments have differing degrees of commitment to and dependency upon computing, with very different traditions for system acquisition and maintenance. Users of software for instance have very different needs from developers of software; established users have more outside contacts upon which to rely for advice or other support.

1. An initial issue is that of the facilities-planning process. With approximately 1100 microcomputers currently on campus (see attached inventory) and a useful lifespan of only about 3 years, there is a need for ongoing planning of machine replacements. Policies should be developed regarding priorities, platform architectures, timing, expediting etc. That machines and other hard and soft infrastructure meet campus-wide standards, and that acquisitions are coordinated to take advantage of comprehensive purchasing are seen as justifications for a centralized planning process. In order to facilitate this, a mechanism for planning that recognizes the various constituencies across the campus must be put in place, perhaps including committees to validate orders, set technical specifications and manage RFP's.

2. Among the responses to financial constraints is the quest to keep per-unit prices as low as possible. Since the ``economy-of-scale'' principle seems to be a significant component of the price for equipment and licenses, efforts should be directed at fewer, larger, purchases. Not all acquisitions will benefit from this, however. Policies on whether low-end users' needs or high-end users' needs or both are provided should take into consideration the opportunities for bulk orders (although recent experience is that this effect may only be on the order of 10%).

3. It will need to be established what the responsibilities are for departments and a centralized authority, such as Computer and Communications Services (CCS). Who does what with respect to all aspects of labs and infrastructure. What should be addressed, could consist of servers, routers, cabling, peripherals and other hardware, backing up and restoring, accounts administration, software and operating systems installation, upgrading and support, help desk management, software licensing, data licensing etc. Targeting of centralized support to user departments (along the lines of the LRC's organization) for some of these functions could be undertaken to facilitate the invoking of standards (including the identification and phase-out of archaic systems) and implementation of an efficient service with a customer focus.

4. The apparently natural tendency for departments to prefer autonomous labs acts counter in some respects to the financial and other arguments for centralized facilities. Among the issues presented for this are the specialized computing needs of individual programs, licensing agreements for software and data, maintenance and control of a discipline-specific computing environment, and accessibility to students. Policies to maximize access to computers should be adopted, with both remote and on-campus perspectives taken into account. If carefully planned so that available facilities match demand, then lineups and conflicts over scarce facilities should be minimized. On-campus accessibility would seem to be maximized if departmental labs were nearby other departmental facilities -- offices and classrooms. Centralized labs with more campus-wide generic appeal could be centrally located.

5. Policies should be established supporting partnership initiatives that result in reduced overall costs for labs and infrastructure. Release from other responsibilities to permit acquisitions and maintenance could result in the upgrading of all campus facilities, though an initiative to upgrade under-serviced departments or programs could be a priority.

6. Although the focus of another initiative, policies that assure appropriate classroom technology should be developed. Each room (including labs, lecture halls and faculty offices) should probably have a network connection at least. Other rooms should be designated as requiring current technology, backing up this designation with a commitment of continued resources as necessary to ensure that the highest standard for the specified purposes has been maintained. This would require that specific facilities would be linked to specific student competency expectations. Centralized labs for instance would attend to word-processing, spreadsheet, database, graphics and networking capabilities, whereas more specialized labs would serve the various specialties.

The highest priority for attaining labs and infrastructure to facilitate the published statement of our Vision would seem to be a high-level policy and financial commitment to the best undergraduate computing facilities in Canada.

The recommendations of the ITSDC Committee is that Ryerson needs a clear policy on Intellectual Policy. Our present suggestion is that the university retains rights to use all courseware developed for Ryerson, while the authors retain the intellectual property rights, and can use the courseware elsewhere, if they leave the employ of Ryerson.

Without clear policy on ownership of courseware and media, most faculty will not be willing to make the necessary investment. There have to be benefits to faculty, as well as the students and the university, to make change happen.

There are many views about the ownership of courseware and media. At one extreme is the idea that all courseware and media developed for a Ryerson course belongs to the university. The university has the right to take the material and give it to other faculty for their use in continuing to deliver the course. The faculty because of their contract can not use it outside the university without permission. At the other extreme is the idea that the faculty as author hold copyright and so can do with courseware as he or she deems fit. The university does not have access to the courseware without permission.

Somewhere in between the extremes is the idea that there needs to be a sharing of use. This is a necessary pragmatic and partnering point of view. The university provides development time and some resources while the faculty provides the creativity. A reasonable balance might be: The faculty, once the course is developed may use the material for other purposes as long as it is either credited or revised to make it different from the original course. The university may also use it in aiding other faculty in continuing to deliver the course when the originating faculty member moves onto other courses or another university.

The recommendations from the ITSDC Committee are that there are several models for presentation technology and that;

• Ubiquitous laptops for faculty will change the model
• Ryerson should provide faculty with laptops
• Ryerson should provide support from CCS and DMP.

As information technology becomes more closely integrated into teaching and learning, it is essential that it also be integrated into the classroom. Typical examples of usages would include accessing Web sites or other local network/Internet resources, using presentation software like Powerpoint, or using digitized audio, images, and video material as part of classroom activity. In addition, the availability of data projectors can also enable projecting videotaped or live (using a camera) material onto a large screen, for enhanced visibility. Whatever the specific usage, classrooms which are properly equipped with multimedia presentation resources can enable faculty to utilize new options, without impeding any of the traditional classroom tools. (Indeed, it could be argued that even traditional techniques would benefit, since control of lights and other elements would be both more effective and simpler to use.)

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 coordinate a wide range of aspects, including classroom design/modification, pedagogical needs of faculty, security concerns for classroom equipment, etc. A committee has been formed to address these issues, and has solicited broader input from the community last 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 liaison 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.

To date, E321C, V204, and L72 have been equipped, and several mobile carts have been commissioned.

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 proceeding with the acquisition of 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.

The main issues that the ITSDC Committee found for faculty relate to the following:

• Intellectual Property
• Presentation Technology
• Student centered learning

Faculty Issues Related to Instructional Technology

Assumptions

• Instructional technology acquisition and use will be driven by pedagogy (the science of teaching and learning)
• Use of instructional technology in the teaching and learning environment will be dependent on faculty interest and expertise
• Faculty who choose to maintain currency without incorporation of IT into course offerings will be respected. Do all faculty need to recognize resources available to students on-line that are course-related?
• The introduction of IT will not compromise individual personal communication between faculty and student within the teaching/learning process

Transitional Steps

1. All faculty require access to hardware and software that minimally will enable e-mail and Internet access.
2. Faculty need available and user-friendly support and training to learn about the use of the new technologies. Identification of persons responsible for specific schools within Ryerson is recommended e.g. organized like Ryerson Library in terms of designated contact person
3. Incentives need to be determined for the development of IT in new course offerings, i.e, recognition (release time/course prep time), incorporation into teaching dossier
4. A policy is needed regarding ownership of courseware developed for on-line access. (Refer to intellectual property committee)
5. Educational research on the outcomes of the digital classroom is valid and necessary.

The trend is for use of the INTERNET to provide students and faculty with easy access to course materials. Faculty websites can provide students with access to course curricula, course learning modules, student/professor discussion groups, threaded newsgroups, FAQ's, and worked examples. Collaborative Team Learning and Distance Learning are facilitated by use of the Internet and tools such as Internet conferencing which can include real time video, audio shared white boards and shared applications. Hybrid applications using Web Browsers to access local CDROMs and/or remote sites on the Internet are also used. Ryerson has many initiatives in the use of the Internet and also CDs already established across many diverse faculties. One of the objectives of the Digital Media Projects Office is to support faculty and staff in these kinds of endeavours. Evaluation and adoption of course development tools will assist faculty in rapid Internet based course development.

It is the desire of this ITSDC Committee to reinforce the role of the professor in the classroom or Lab, by providing the support to introduce and sustain appropriate technology enabled learning. It is also our desire to facilitate and support the learning outside the classroom through the appropriate use of technology.

In Distance Education, remote access by the student, and asynchronous learning may be very desirable to both students and professor. It is therefore necessary that the appropriate infrastructure be established within Ryerson to facilitate remote access via the Internet through to the ATM Backbone, and by maintaining a level of support to our modem pools.

The only limitation to Internet use is the access and availability to the student from outside via their Internet Service Provider (ISP), and the present Internet bandwidth capability. Introduction of faster modems, and cable technology such as Rogers Wave will rapidly diminish this concern.

The finding of the ITSDC Committee is that an annual budget of 2.15 $M initially (plus 0.2 $M per 1000 laptops in use in a given year) for 5 years will be required to implement our recommended IT Strategy. The breakdown of the annual budget is as follows:

Through vigorous and invigorating discussion both within and without the committee, we have reached broad consensus on the following points:

• The only constant in the area of information technology and education is change itself. While there are detailed costing tables in the appendices, they reflect prices at the time of preparation. Likely we will get more bang-for-the-buck when we actually purchase systems. This is welcome, but it does not suggest that less money be provided than requested. The committee has attempted to produce a budget that is attainable for the university, rather than a wish-list. Funding these initiatives at lower levels will have a serious impact on Ryerson's future.
• Ryerson is an extremely diverse community and specific initiatives in the area of information technology, particularly the use of notebook computers, must be driven by the faculty members in particular programs and departments.
• Lastly, and most importantly, the needs and futures of our students must remain paramount. Every program needs to regularly re-assess the information technology needs of their students and ensure that they will be well prepared for the social and work environment they will meet upon graduation.

Membership