LEAD Project Update for AC4 Vicki Suter IT-DCAS September 17, 1999.

LEAD Project Update for AC4LEAD Project Update for AC4

Vicki Suter

IT-DCAS

September 17, 1999

LEAD Update TopicsLEAD Update Topics

• New way to look at the LEAD project (what is an architecture/infrastructure definition?)

• Progress on the final report

• LEAD Event Planning

• Faculty Needs Assessment - status and results so far

Needed from the AC4 as sponsorNeeded from the AC4 as sponsor

• Assignment of technical subcommittee to review distributed architecture definition draft

• Approve November Think Tank Plan

• Review analysis to date of needs assessment, and provide direction for future data collection and analysis

LEAD Project PurposeLEAD Project Purpose

• Learning Environment Architecture Development Project

• Consult with faculty, students and staff to identify needs

• Research and summarize current use of technology for teaching and learning

• Assess new technologies• Define architecture; make recommendations

Assignment of subcommitteeAssignment of subcommittee

• Approve assignment of research subcommittee, headed by Richard Plant, to work with LEAD project team to review and refine the overall distributed architecture definition

Progress on Final ReportProgress on Final Report

• Handout: DRAFT Final Report Outline as of 9/99

• Early, preliminary drafts have been circulated and reviewed– Situation Inventory (II-A-1, Preliminary Results of

Faculty Needs Assessment)– Technology and Service/Support Issues (III)

• Full draft of final report to AC4 11/8/99

• Final draft, 12/99

Progress on Final Report, cont.Progress on Final Report, cont.

• Active technical teams with draft reports out or due 9/99– Web server/Database Architectures– Authentication/Authorization– Distributed File Systems– Course Management Systems– Web Authoring Tools– Digital Libraries Issues white paper

Progress on Final Report, cont.Progress on Final Report, cont.

• Technical teams with draft papers due out 10/99– New drafts from all of the previously listed teams

– Interactive Communication (message requirements, collaboration servers, voice/video conferencing)

– Testing and Testbank Systems

– Back Office (SIS) integration

Coordination with ITF ProjectsCoordination with ITF Projects

• Distributed File Systems (AFS, I-Drive)

• Gateway

• Faculty courseweb tools

LEAD Event PlanningLEAD Event Planning

• LEAD “First Fridays”– All are at the Arbor, from 10 - noon– 10/8/99 (Readiness Criteria)– 11/5/99 (Review 1st Full Draft of Final Report)– 12/3/99 (Review 2nd Draft of Final Report)

• LEAD Think Tank– 11/17, 11/18, 11/19– Purpose: Provide consultation/education event for

public review of LEAD draft final report

Format of Think Tank for AC4 approvalFormat of Think Tank for AC4 approval

• All sessions 2 hours– First 45 minutes, seminar presentation open to

public, with Q&A/comment time at the end, 15 minute break

– Seminar presenter either local resource, or, in case of technical topic, off-campus resource

– Followed by one hour facilitated discussion group, attendance by invitation

Potential Seminar Topics/TimesPotential Seminar Topics/Times

• 11/17/99 - Needs Assessment and Situation Inventory

– 9 to 11 AM: Faculty/Student Needs– 1 to 3 PM: Technical Staff Support

Needs– 3 to 5 PM: Situation Inventory

(particularly, activities at other comparable universities)

Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 2Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 2

• 11/18/99 - Architecture & Technical Infrastructure– 9 to 11 AM: Distributed Computing Architecture– 1 to 3 PM: Presentation and Distribution of

Course Materials (Image Database Repositories, Lecture Support, Course Management Systems)

– 3 - 5 PM: Interactive Communication

Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 3Potential Think Tank Topics, Day 3

• Friday, 11/19/99: LEAD Key Points and Recommendations– 9 - 11 AM : Review key points of discovery

from previous 2 days, summarize recommendations and findings

Results from Faculty Needs AssessmentResults from Faculty Needs Assessment

• Faculty use of computers for instructional purposes

– Nearly Ubiquitous (93%)

– Mobile (50% laptops, 30% laptops in classroom, 90% do some off-campus work)

– Multiplatform

Use of course web pagesUse of course web pages

• Majority (65%) either already uses, or has specific plans to start using course web page

• Course web page features rated most important - general, static information (syllabus, examples)

Use of other on-line resourcesUse of other on-line resources

• Electronic Mail– Over half (51.5%)

suggest use

– 36% require use

• More than half (52%) use Melvyl as an instructional tool

• Electronic file distribution required by 22%

Sources for Faculty SupportSources for Faculty Support

• Faculty find their primary source of assistance in their departmental or college technical support staff– Hardware (84%)– Software (73%)– Web Page (38%)– Courseware (19%)– Network (60%)

Further Assessment PlannedFurther Assessment Planned

• Faculty Interviews– Sample from same population as surveys

(excluding those who were sent surveys) – 50 planned, 20 completed– “Drill down” into

• Web page features which might be valuable

• Presentation and distribution of classroom materials

• Faculty Support

Further Assessment Planned, cont.Further Assessment Planned, cont.

• Demo/Focus Groups (to address “test-drive” problem)– Involve scheduled demo (by current faculty

user) of technology, followed by facilitated discussion

– Topics• Use of library resources in the classroom

• Course Management Systems/Web Delivery

• On-line testing and testbanks

Demo/Focus Groups, cont.Demo/Focus Groups, cont.

• Interactive Communication– Audio/videoconferencing– white boards– Chat and other collaboration services

• Presentation/Distribution of Course Materials– Image Resource Collections– Lecture Support– Course Materials Distribution