Northern Arizona University Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan

“It is essential that we prepare our students for the 21st century and the New Economy. A significant part of that preparation is inextricably connected to the use of computer technology ... “Through lack of action, we are allowing a digital divide to grow among our students at the very time when their ability to use information technology is becoming essential to their success in the classroom and in the workforce” -NAU President Clara Lovett NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary...... 4 II. Background...... 6 III. Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT)...... 6 A. SCOT Charge...... 6 B. SCOT Organization...... 6 C. SCOT Web Site...... 7 IV. Computer Ownership Rationale...... 7 V. Student Computer Ownership Program Oversight...... 8 VI. General Student Ownership Policies...... 8 VII. Financial Aid and Funding...... 9 A. Responsibility...... 9 B. Eligibility Criteria for Students...... 9 C. Grant Monies Available...... 9 D. Other Alternative Funding Options...... 10 E. Sources for Free “Loaner” Computers...... 10 VIII. Faculty Support and Training...... 10 A. Responsibility...... 10 B. Faculty Training Program Recommendations...... 10 IX. Curriculum in Support of Student Computer Ownership...... 12 A. Responsibility...... 12 B. “Technology Across the Curriculum” Recommendations...... 12 X. Technology Assessment of Freshmen...... 13 A. Responsibility...... 13 B. Assessment Program Recommendations...... 13 XI. Student Support...... 14 A. Responsibility...... 15 B. Minimum Hardware and Software Standards...... 15 C. Hardware Support...... 15 D. Software Support and Student Services...... 16 E. Internet Connectivity...... 16 F. Other Issues...... 17 1. Lease Payment Options...... 17 2. Adaptive Technologies...... 18 3. Environmental Concerns...... 18 4. Departmental Support Concerns...... 18

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 3 XII. Publicity and Marketing...... 19 A. Responsibility...... 19 XIII. Costs...... 19 A. Student Services and Software Support...... 19 B. Faculty and Curriculum Support...... 20 XIV. Risks...... 21 A. The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee’s Recommendation to Delay Implementation One Year...... 21 1. The Issue...... 21 2. The Risks...... 22 B. Lack of Funding for Student Support Services...... 22 1. The Issue...... 22 2. The Risk...... 22 C. Recommendation...... 22 XV. Appendices...... 23 Appendix A. Possible Timetable for a “Technology Across the Curriculum” Plan...... 23 Appendix B. Software and Hardware Recommendations...... 25 Appendix C. Computer Vendor RFP Considerations...... 27

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 4 I. Executive Summary

Introduction The NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan is the culmination of research and reflection by the Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT) during the spring semester 2001. This plan details the many issues that encompass the execution of a student computer ownership program and recommends courses of action with specific responsibilities assigned to various existing campus organizations. Background In December 2000, NAU President, Dr. Clara Lovett, made the decision to go forward with writing an implementation plan to support an NAU student computer ownership requirement beginning with the fall 2002 freshmen class. The NAU Chief Information Technology Officer, Fred Estrella, was named as the SCOT chair and was charged to investigate the details of an ownership program, assess any costs and risks to the campus, and to draft an implementation plan, which will be used by NAU management officials to execute the various aspects of a student computer ownership requirement. SCOT Organization SCOT was organized into four subcommittees, each charged with researching specific aspects of the plan. A website was created to keep the campus community apprised of the committee and subcommittee activities. The subcommittees met often during the semester, some on a weekly basis, to discuss and debate their portion of the plan. Several universities, which have student computer ownership programs, were contacted and provided helpful insight into implementation issues. The committee also received input from various campus constituencies. Each subcommittee issued a report on their findings and these documents were used as the basis for this plan. Major Implementation Issues Addressed in the Plan  Financial assistance to students with the most need: The committee focused on a method to identify NAU students with the most need and, then, to help those students get a computer either through grant money or loaner equipment pools. Student “need” will be based on their PELL eligibility information submitted by students on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form. Students with the most need will then have the following options for obtaining a computer: o University grant money to buy or lease a computer o Alternative funds provided through scholarships or other institutions o Loaned a computer from a university owned equipment pool  Faculty Training and Support: Faculty members must be exposed to methods and processes for integrating technology into their classes, receive technical training to increase their technology skills, be provided upgraded equipment, and have continual support in keeping their courses operational and up-to-date. A

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 5 combination of workshops, seminars, and other faculty development techniques are proposed to bring faculty up to speed.  Curriculum Changes: A “Technology Across the Curriculum (TAC)” program was determined to be an integral part of the NAU computer ownership program. All academic departments will engage their faculty to identify the needed technology skills and knowledge their graduates should have when they receive their degrees. Then, faculty must determine within the courses they offer as part of a degree program exactly where the technology skills will be taught and used. A recommended timetable for a TAC effort is given in the plan.  Technology Assessment of Freshmen: An assessment of freshmen technology skills is needed before they enter their first class. If deficiencies exist, a training capability must be made available quickly to get students to a basic skill level. Such an assessment process is included in the plan.  Student Support Services: A highly critical part of an ownership program is support for students to setup, network, and assist with problems when they arise. The following support issues are addressed in the plan: o A method to annually identify minimum hardware and software standards o Various options for hardware support, which are primarily based on vendors providing warranty support for their equipment o Increased need for more Academic Computing Help Desk and other student support organizations’ personnel to handle the doubling of their current service load Unresolved Issues Two significant issues emerged during the planning process that present risks to the program’s success. These issues must be resolved before proceeding with the plan. 1. Additional Costs: Approximately $135,000/year for four years in additional funding is needed to finance increased student support services. Extra funding may also be needed to subsidize the additional costs for adding students to our existing Microsoft Campus License Agreement. Faculty support funding is assumed to come from the E-Learning Initiative of Proposition 301. Departmental and other implementation costs may arise and will be dealt with by the Implementation Steering Committee. 2. Faculty Request to Delay Implementation One Year: The faculty subcommittee does not believe there is enough time, nor a sufficient faculty development support structure, to establish a TAC program, educate faculty members in the use of technology, and give faculty time to upgrade their courses before fall semester 2002. They recommend that NAU start executing all aspects of the implementation plan, but tell entering freshmen in fall 2002 that NAU “strongly recommends” owning a computer and establish the time to start the ownership requirement as fall semester 2003. Recommendation: The SCOT committee recommends to the President that she reallocate funds for support services and approve the faculty request to delay one year.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 6 Approval: On May 7, 2001, President Lovett approved the implementation plan, including the one-year delay and additional funding for student support services. II. Background

NAU began to investigate the issue of student computer ownership beginning in the spring, 2000. The Mobile/Ubiquitous Computer Committee (MUCC), headed by Fred Estrella, the NAU Chief Information Technology Officer, was formed at the request of the PMT to determine the feasibility of such an ownership requirement at NAU. The committee, made up primarily of faculty members, decided to first find out what the real expectation of student computer use in NAU academic work by developing a faculty survey. The faculty survey, which asked whether certain computing skills were required now and/or in the near future, was administered via the web in April & May 2000. The results show that nearly all faculty expected students to have basic skills now and a majority felt that students would need advanced skills in the near future. At the beginning of the fall 2000 semester, the next step was to ask students about their feelings towards computing at NAU. The MUCC and the Resident life staff gave two surveys to freshmen. One survey was administered to all freshmen living in ResLife Halls on the mountain campus. The other was part of the CIRP survey, in which 21 questions were asked of students about computer ownership and expectations of using computers at NAU. The ResLife survey found that nearly 70% of freshman brought computers with them to campus. This number was higher than expected and showed that students and their parents thought that personal computers were needed and they were willing to pay for a PC prior to arriving on campus. The CIRP survey showed that students truly expect to use computers for academic and personal uses. The MUCC then worked on a detailed set of benefits and costs of an ownership program and presented these in a briefing to the PMT in the fall. On Dec 4, 2000, the MUCC made a recommendation to the PMT and the President, who decided that a computer ownership program was the right thing to do for NAU students in order to properly prepare them for careers in the 21st Century.

III. Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT)

A. SCOT Charge

The Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT) was established to develop an implementation plan for a student computer ownership requirement at NAU. President Lovett and her President's Management TEAM (PMT) made the decision to go ahead with implementation planning in December 2000. The target date to begin the ownership requirement for all incoming freshman was initially set as Fall Semester 2002.

B. SCOT Organization

SCOT was organized into four subcommittees, each dealing with the major implementation issues. The deadline to complete the implementation plan was

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 7 established as the end of Spring Semester, 2001. This date was chosen to allow materials to be prepared for prospective freshmen, who plan on entering NAU in the fall 2002. Each subcommittee was given a charge document, which gave specific tasks for each group. The four subcommittees are:

 SCOT Chair: Fred Estrella

 Faculty Support & Curriculum Subcommittee (FSCS) Chair: Rob Till

 Financial Need & Funding Subcommittee (FNFS) Chair: Jim Pritchard

 Academic & Business Policies Subcommittee (ABPS) Chair: Ron Pitt

 Student Support & Technical Issues Subcommittee (SSTIS) Chair: John Campbell The subcommittee membership consisted of faculty, staff, and students. The SCOT and subcommittee chairs determined the actual committee members, with approval coming from Dean/Vice Presidential levels.

C. SCOT Web Site

SCOT primarily used a website (http://www4.nau.edu/scot/) to post information for the general NAU campus community about SCOT activities. The website also provided a frequently asked question page, a location to post full SCOT and subcommittee meeting minutes, and a list of pertinent references on student computer ownership. IV. Computer Ownership Rationale

In order to better prepare our students for the 21st century, NAU will require incoming freshmen students to have their own computer when they begin classes starting with the Fall Semester, 2002. The enormous expansion of the Internet and its increased use at home, school, and in business requires college graduates to have a high level of computing skills to be successful in their future careers. By experiencing firsthand the use of a personal computer, NAU students will build those necessary skills and, thus, be better prepared for the technology challenges they will face on the job and in their everyday life.

NAU administration noticed that more and more freshmen were coming to campus with computers. But, what about the students who do not bring a computer to campus? Are they at a disadvantage in their course work and other campus activities because they don’t have access to a computer anytime they want? The NAU administration feels the answer is yes, and by making computer ownership mandatory, NAU is making a

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 8 commitment to find the best way to get a personal computer into every student room, where they can use it at anytime day or night. Through this commitment, even students with the most financial need will not go without a computer, thus closing the digital divide that exists for our financially disadvantaged students.

With the adoption of a student computer ownership requirement, NAU is also committed to give its students a technology-rich education, which will better prepare them for their life after graduation. Knowing that all students will have a computer, the NAU faculty will explore ways to enrich their classes by adding more class information and materials online. Additionally, the faculty will be reviewing their curriculum for each degree major, identifying the technology skills that all graduating students should know as they enter into the 21st century job market in their chosen field.

V. Student Computer Ownership Program Oversight

The student computer ownership requirement must be supported by all academic and administrative agencies across the campus. In order to provide continuous oversight of the program, a high-level steering committee is needed. The recommended steering committee makeup is as follows:

Chair: Provost Provost Office Representative(s) Associate Provost, Student Affairs Director, OTLE CITO ACITO for Academic Computing Budget Officer Director, Financial Aid Office Director, Resident Life Faculty Senate Representative(s) Public Affairs & Marketing Office Representative Development Office Representative VI. General Student Ownership Policies

A. The computer ownership requirement will be analogous to requiring students to purchase textbooks for a class. Therefore, there will be no enforcement policy per se. Students will be expected by faculty members to have a computer and students will not be able to use the excuse of not having a computer to finish their course work.

B. Most central computer labs operated by ITS in Residence Halls will be phased out as the computer ownership requirement moves on from year to year. All labs will remain open during the first year of the ownership requirement and usage will be monitored by ITS. Based on these usage statistics, Residence Hall labs will be closed as usage decreases. Most likely, the labs in freshmen halls will close first. Some ITS supported

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 9 computer labs will always be available to students. One main reason would be to provide students a place to use a computer if their personal computer is not working. Plus, the remaining ITS labs would afford students services that they might not have access to in their rooms, like scanners, CD writers, and laser printers. Additionally, departmental labs, offering specialized software, will continue to operate. Residence Life and ITS will recommend to the Steering Committee when and what ITS labs should be closed.

C. Even though the ownership requirement will be mandatory for freshmen, any NAU student will be able to purchase hardware and software through any plan established as part of the ownership requirement program.

VII. Financial Aid and Funding

Establishing a robust financial aid program to support the NAU computer ownership requirement is paramount to the program’s success. The SCOT Financial Needs and Funding Subcommittee (FNFS) worked on several options to provide a variety of ways that a student in need can obtain funds for a computer or have use of a loaned computer.

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: Director, Financial Aid Office – Financial aid issues V.P. for Advancement – Foundation issues 2. Secondary: CITO; Director, Purchasing Office; other officials who deal with vendors

B. Eligibility Criteria for Students

Eligibility will be determined by the information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. A determination of the level of PELL eligibility, which will be used for participation in the need program, needs to be made based on the amount of funding available.

C. Grant Monies Available

1. The funds available from Retained Tuition Funds (Set Aside) would be approximately $500,000 each year and they would be only available to students with the most need as determined by the filing of a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Funds would have to be reviewed every year. 2. The amount available from various Scholarships would be approximately $70,000 annually depending on earnings each year on their endowments. 3. Other sources of grant money should be explored through other organizations like the NAU Foundation.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 10 D. Other Alternative Funding Options

1. The Financial Aid Office will continue to work with the Navajo Tribe and other Native American and ethnic organizations to make sure funding is available for ethnic students and that additional funding may be needed to meet the need for the computer ownership requirement. 2. Short-terms loans through the Bursar’s Office could be available to purchase or lease computers for the students who are not considered in need. The amount available to students would be around $200 a semester. A payment plan would be set up with the students and they would receive a monthly statement. These loans would be kept between the lender and the student. NAU would not be involved.

E. Sources for Free “Loaner” Computers

1. All vendors doing business with NAU should to be contacted to discuss donation options which might include: money to buy loaner computers; refurbished computers which would meet our minimum standards; and “free” computers for being an NAU “preferred” computer vendor, based on volume of sales. 2. ITS should provide computers from their labs as they are replaced, which would amount to approximately 100 computer annually. VIII. Faculty Support and Training

The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee was charged with developing a plan that would get the NAU faculty prepared to use technology in their classes. The subcommittee strongly felt that, in order to effectively enact the proposed student ownership initiative, the faculty requires extensive technology training opportunities. The training requirement depends upon the individual’s existing skill set, software and hardware requirements, available personal/professional time, and the individual’s own learning style. As with most populations, some will quickly utilize and adopt technology (early adopters), while others will adopt at a later time (late adopters).

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: Provost; Director, OTLE

2. Secondary: Deans; CITO; Associate Provost, Student Affairs

B. Faculty Training Program Recommendations

1. A comprehensive instructional technology training program using various types of training methods should be planned. For some faculty members, self-paced training in the form of online computer training, videos or even written text documentation is sufficient. The late adopter population requires a more structured learning environment to improve their technology skills. Small group training sessions (maximum of 10

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 11 members), with structured learning objectives should be made available on a regular basis. If possible, one-on-one training sessions should be available whereby a faculty member can meet with the trainer and work through various technology issues. Finally, training at other training facilities such as University extension and other commercial training organizations, should be made available to the faculty for their development.

2. If affordable, an Instructional Designer/Media Specialist should be hired by the University (from a central budget) for each college for the purpose of supporting faculty within that college. Faculty members are more likely to utilize the services of such a specialist if that person is housed in the same building and s/he is available when faculty most need help. Specialized software should be purchased by the University for college and departmental use in training faculty to support technology in the classroom.

3. The Academic Computing Help Desk (ACHD), Learning Assistance Centers (LACs), Cline Library, and residence halls are partners with other units and faculty in providing time-of-need support, tutoring, short courses, research assistance, and technology applications specific to class assignments. To be well prepared, these entities need to coordinate with the developers of the year-of-implementation courses, e.g., UC101, First Year Experience (FYE), EPS 101, English 105, and gateway courses.

4. Already, there is a reliance on Student Affairs, NAU PD, and ITS, to convey expectations and address incidents related to user behavior; acts of crime and misconduct, conflicts of fair use and intellectual property rights, online etiquette, etc. Student understanding of protocols and expectations may need to be enhanced.

5. If NAU embraces standard tools, support responsibility falls logically to ITS. Discussion will need to occur about whether colleges and schools are prepared to host and support other applications appropriate to the discipline, profession, projects, and course assignments.

6. NAU should design FYE instructional modules on developing NAU essential computing skills.

7. NAU should train personnel in the essential skills assessment process and the use of standard NAU tools. Personnel would include those involved in UC 101, English 105, FYE, EPS 101, first-year gateway courses, residence halls, labs, learning assistance centers (LACs) and library.

8. NAU should confirm that proposed first-year strategies are viable for 50 UC101 faculty, 8 selected gateway course faculty, 40 FYE peer mentors, etc.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 12 IX. Curriculum in Support of Student Computer Ownership

The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee was also charged with recommending an effort to support a “Technology Across the Curriculum (TAC)” program for all colleges and school curricula. A thoughtful plan must be devised for each degree program, which will define the technology skills and knowledge a student should have by the time they graduate from NAU.

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: Provost; Deans

2. Secondary: Curriculum Committees

B. “Technology Across the Curriculum” Recommendations

1. NAU curriculum will provide students with opportunities to develop and demonstrate technology skills and will allow them to graduate with technology competencies appropriate to their disciplines, to the future practice of their professions, and to life-long learning. A recommended timetable for a TAC program is given in Appendix A.

2. In Fall 2001 (and continuing as necessary), the issues related to the role of technological literacy across the curriculum should be addressed by all faculty curriculum committees, including departmental-, college-, and university-level committees.

3. A dialogue should develop within the individual colleges about the technology proficiencies that their students should possess at the time of graduation (such proficiencies would need to be phased in over a 2-4 year curricular period). It is expected that once these proficiencies are identified (through faculty, employer, and other input) and decided upon, the technology proficiencies will be addressed in specific courses (normally 300-400-level courses) offered within each college. If some colleges offer interdisciplinary degrees, collaboration among colleges and faculty will need to be recognized as critical in this process. An example of a possible TAC student skill set: a. Able to engage in electronic collaboration. b. Able to use and create structured electronic documents. c. Able to do technology-enhanced presentations. d. Able to use appropriate electronic tools for research and evaluation. e. Able to use spreadsheets to manage information. f. Able to use databases to manage information. g. Able to use electronic tools for analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. h. Familiar with major legal, ethical, and security issues in technology. i. Has a working knowledge of technology platforms.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 13 4. NAU should identify areas that will require ongoing assessment such as technology skill definitions, functional specifications of technology tools, infrastructure capacity, etc.

5. To an extent, essential skills should be customized to NAU goals and environment. For example, mastery of the NAU essential skills should allow a student to successfully participate in an NAU Online course.

6. NAU should adopt university cross-platform standard tools and practices for electronic communication, collaboration, content manipulation and creation.

7. At minimal to no cost to the individual, NAU should provide all students, faculty, and staff with software that supports university standard tools and practices.

8. When possible, NAU should maximize access and minimize support concerns for university standard tools (as well as specialized applications) by shifting from client to server applications.

9. NAU should confirm that a coherent, robust, and sustainable support structure is available to the unit level for a TAC effort. Plans and funds for a continuing support structure are critical to the credibility and success of the effort. X. Technology Assessment of Freshmen

The Faculty Support and Curriculum (FSC) Subcommittee was also charged with planning for a technology assessment program. It is quite possible that a freshman might not possess the basic computing knowledge necessary to begin their studies. Those students without this basic knowledge must be identified as soon as possible and a program established to help them get the knowledge they need early in their first semester.

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: Provost; Director, OTEL

2. Secondary: ACITO for Academic Computing; Director, Learning Assistance Center

B. Assessment Program Recommendations

1. The FSC subcommittee recommends that the University test the assumption that students entering the university have these foundation skills. In the fall of 2001, an assessment should take place. Results of that assessment should be shared with the

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 14 university community as a way of providing baseline data to inform the planning process outlined in the TAC programs.

2. If NAU assesses (and even certifies) essential skills in the first year, the university needs to decide if a final-year assessment of proficient skills and/or specialized skills should be conducted by the colleges and schools.

3. By Spring 2002, NAU should offer an online checklist of basic (foundation) technology skills that NAU assumes all first-year students will have when they start the fall semester of the ownership implementation year. The checklist should be linked to online resources that would allow any students lacking these basic (foundation) skills to remedy deficiencies prior to Lumberjack Welcome Week of the implementation year.

4. During Lumberjack Welcome Week (of implementation year), NAU should provide new students with the opportunity to self-administer a web-based assessment test, which measures their mastery of NAU essential skills.

5. No later than the first week of classes, test results should be sent to the students, their First Year Experience (FYE) academic peer mentor, their University Colloquium (UC101) instructor, and their English 105 instructor.

6. The University should identify what will be the standard NAU tools; which best practices should be followed; and develop an easy path for students to access the tools and information needed to succeed.

7. In FYE, students should be offered opportunities to remedy deficiencies in NAU essential skills and to re-test their skills. Learning opportunities should accommodate a variety of learning styles and skill deficiencies: computer-based instruction, research consultations with librarians, software training with LAC personnel, etc. Design opportunities to demonstrate essential skills in UC 101, English 105, EPS 199, and gateway courses.

8. In FYE, NAU should also offer learning opportunities to those students whose skills exceed the essentials level. For instance, students might design complex web-based projects that reflect curricular or community interest. Such projects would be added to their Electronic Portfolios.

9. NAU should design connecting mechanisms for essential skills assessment, feedback, retesting, and certification. No later than a student’s last day of enrollment in FYE, an authentication of essential skills could be added to the student’s Electronic Portfolio. XI. Student Support

Without a strong commitment to provide sound support services, NAU’s computer ownership program will most likely fail. Standards must be established for both hardware

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 15 and software that will ensure students will a computing system capable of handling the required workload. Reasonable repair and helpdesk services must be established to aid students when problems arise.

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: ACITO for Academic Computing

2. Secondary: Associate Provost, Student Affairs; Director, Purchasing Office

B. Minimum Hardware and Software Standards

These two issues were combined as the Student Support and Technical Issues (SSTI) subcommittee felt software drove the hardware requirements. The detailed hardware and software minimums are located in Appendix B. These minimums will be updated on an annual basis and will be published in the spring for the following fall semester. Individual colleges and schools will have the ability to recommend higher requirements for their degree-seeking students if they wish. However, the subcommittee felt the most intense computer use would still require students to use departmental labs until significant departmental infrastructure and/or curricular changes were warranted. A very informal survey seemed to indicate faculty were not yet ready for these changes. Students should always check with their college or department to see if there are additional requirements beyond these minimum standards. Also, hardware requirements are generally based on the software students are expected to run.

Software recommendations are broken between the two platforms: 1. minimum recommendations for an Intel-based PC; 2. minimum recommendations for a Macintosh.

Hardware and operating system recommendations in this document are broken into four parts: 1. minimum recommendations for currently owned Intel-based PC; 2. minimum recommendations for currently owned Macintosh; 3. minimum recommendations for purchasing a new Intel-based PC; 4. minimum recommendations for purchasing a new Macintosh.

C. Hardware Support

The SSTI subcommittee looked at various options to support student computers. Although the subcommittee wished to fully support all students with an NAU on-site repair facility, the $1+ million cost is prohibitive. In today’s consumer market, vendors selling computers with a warranty have the responsibility to provide support for the products they sell. NAU should work with vendors to provide a reasonable effort to have repair facilities on-site or in-town for students who purchase computers from them.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 16 Students, who bring computers from home under warranty, must work with their computer manufacturer to get support. Those students with no warranty must use in-town computer repair shops. Should a student’s personal computer take days to repair, ITS central lab facilities will be available for their use.

As state above, hardware support will be provided to students through the vendors who sell equipment to students. Vendors would become a “preferred NAU vendor” if, through a contract agreement, they set up an on-site or in-town repair facility for all student computers they sell. A guaranteed minimum downtime needs to be established, and if possible, a loaner program if the machine will require more time than the maximum allowable. Managing this program will require a careful RFP with sufficient service level agreements, remedies, and contract management (semi-annual reviews, data collection, etc.) to insure service levels are being met (see Appendix C for RFP suggestions). A contract administrator, with a strong technical background, will be necessary to administer and support this program. Such a staff member will cost approximately $40,000 per year. Note that the subcommittee also recommends setting aside a contingency fund for emergency student aid, legal assistance in case of problems with the provider, or to meet other unexpected needs.

D. Software Support and Student Services

The SSTI subcommittee felt the best way to provide software support and increased student services would be to extend the role of the already rich campus support structures to include helping students with operating system or software installation problems. This alternative, of course, implies an increase in staffing and training to cover these new and increased responsibilities.

Currently the Academic Computing Help Desk (ACHD) and the Residential Computing Consultants (RCCs) assist with common software and connectivity issues but do not work on operating system and software installation problems. The ACHD + RCC services must be brought up to the level needed to cover more computers and operating system and software installation problems. A similar expansion of Learning Assistance Center services should be planned for as well.

Cost associated with the increased need for student support is shown in Part XIII, Section A of this report.

E. Internet Connectivity

The computer ownership requirement clearly assumes that the student not only owns a computer but also uses the computer to access the Internet. The subcommittee believes that the current ResNet capacity and Flagstaff modem pools are sufficient if connectivity bandwidth expectations are kept at 28.8 Kbps.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 17 Moving beyond a minimum web design standard of 28.8 Kbps should be seen as a long term, but very expensive goal. The subcommittee recommends giving as many students as much bandwidth access as is reasonably possible, but at the same time requesting campus administrative and distance education designers to understand that many students will only have 28.8 or slower network access. There are exciting new options available in both Blackboard and WebCT to allow a web course to control a course produced CD- ROM. This may be a good hybrid option for solving high bandwidth course needs. Any departmental programs with higher bandwidth requirements should clearly state these requirements as part of their adjustments to the hardware and software minimum requirements. In addition, any individual courses requiring higher bandwidth, or special software and hardware, should clearly communicate these needs before students actually enroll in the course.

F. Other Issues

1. Lease Payment Options

Leases, while seemingly attractive, have a bad reputation in that most require students to take extremely good care of the equipment, original packaging, original documentation, and return the machine while it has some residual value. Lease restrictions often preclude adding new hardware or software, sharing, swapping or trading equipment. All of these restrictions may be difficult to explain or enforce on a campus where not everyone is participating in exactly the same plan. Also, penalties are often significant if there is the slightest variance from the conditions of the lease. Returning equipment, for example, involves properly packaging the machine for shipping and meeting a deadline or paying a stiff penalty.

A lease or purchase program should also respect the major assumption of our subcommittee: namely that all students have equal access to the program. Given that a lease involves a 3-year payment of around 90% of the total cost of the base machine, residual savings do not really translate into significant cost savings for students. Qualifying all students for a payment program, either through a lease or through financing, is a challenging problem that needs to be discussed with the chosen vendors to see what help they can give in meeting two major goals: 1) every student can get a computer, and 2) the University is not liable for student financial agreements.

For all these reasons, the subcommittee felt it would be wisest to avoid lease programs and concentrate on purchase payment plans. If a lease program remains a consideration, then students may also need significant help storing boxes, having a lease contact/shipping agent, and general support in successfully managing the terms of the lease. Clearly any enhancements allowing students to finance their computer purchase need to be carefully written into the actual contract with the selected vendor(s) and spelled out carefully in the RFP. (This points out the need for any final RFP committee to include purchasing, technical, and financial aid committee members…see Appendix C for more RFP recommendations).

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 18 2. Adaptive Technologies

Support for adaptive technologies needs to be provided by NAU. Few vendors will know or participate in our internal evaluation of the products we intend to support. As stated in the key features of the RFP process below, selected vendors must provide a product line that works well with those adaptive technologies in use at NAU. At the same time, Disability Support Services needs to be fully funded with the staffing necessary to make recommendations on behalf of the campus for adaptive technologies. Also, students with mobility problems may deserve home computer support—ITS recognizes that a few faculty require special accommodations because bringing their equipment to campus for service would be a severe hardship.

3. Environmental Concerns

Faculty and students have asked the subcommittee to make recommendations on environmental concerns. These matters fall mainly into the following areas: building an energy saving culture among student computer owners, building energy saving awareness, and understanding how computers should be properly recycled at the end of their life cycle. Our recommendation is that the computer ownership program should address all these issues, however, we feel it is very important to avoid all energy saving features of hardware and software, as these are frequent sources of problems. Computer users should make it a habit to conserve energy by turning off monitors and shutting down computers when they are not used for an extended period of time, instead of relying on power management tools. Students should be educated on how and where computer components can be recycled.

4. Departmental Support Concerns

Departmental staffing for computer support has historically been a difficult area, which may require special attention. As centralized open labs are reduced somewhat in importance through the student ownership requirement, the departmental labs and especially departmental staffing needs will increase. This is due to the expected changes in the curriculum and the recognition that, especially in the higher-level courses, discipline specific software not covered by the student computer ownership program will be required. Departments may, for instance, release their own software through the web or on a CD to students or even become an application service provider. These transformations will require appropriate funding to be successful.

In addition, helping students with the required use of computers in their disciplines will come to occupy an increasing percentage of the working hours of academic personnel including faculty, graduate assistants, computer laboratory support staff and lab aides, and the lab managers of traditional scientific teaching laboratories when computer use becomes a part of the lab assignments. Providing instruction and responding to student questions in the area of course-specific computer use will take an increasing amount of time during office hours and study sessions, as well as class time in recitations and

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 19 lectures. Increased use of course-related email raises student expectations of interacting with faculty and teaching assistants at a high level of individualized detail.

Departmental computing laboratories will continue to provide the setting for training students how to use discipline-specific software and computer-based analytic techniques, and will likely become centers for administering proctored quizzes and exams online. There will be increasing reliance on classrooms with multimedia presentation capabilities, including computer-based presentations from the lectern and in some cases directly from student workstations.

Currently lab fees cover the costs of equipment for courses that have been able to set such fees in place. However, these fees do not cover staffing costs (both full time staff and student workers). Quantification is difficult because of the diverse and discipline-specific nature of technological innovation, and because of the distributed nature of budgeting for such enhancements. However, we anticipated that the student computer requirement will require funding increased levels of work effort for faculty, graduate and undergraduate student workers, and technical and professional staff within the academic units.

XII. Publicity and Marketing

As with other major programs affecting students and the campus, the Public Affairs and Marketing Office will play the lead role in providing information to incoming students, parents, and the general public. A typical publicity campaign should be put together which would include such things as a website explaining the details of the computer ownership program and mailings to perspective students.

A. Responsibility

1. Primary: V.P. for Public Affairs and Marketing

2. Secondary: All other campus units supporting the program

XIII. Costs

A. Student Services and Software Support

1. Looking at the current ResNet ratio of 3,000 out of 6,000 users, we computed a straight-line extrapolation of costs from today’s level for the Academic Computing Help Desk (ACHD) and the Residential Computing Consultant (RCC) program. Since ITS currently has four staff, one additional staff member is needed per year to support the increase in computer users. Four additional staff members (one per year) are also needed to handle the support of operating system and software installation. The following chart shows the annual increases necessary to complete increased support in the areas impacted over the next 4 years.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 20  Two ACHD staff: $78,000/yr  ERE for two full time staff: $13,260/yr  ACHD students: $21,590/yr  RCC student staff: $11,250/yr  Total yearly increase: $124,100/yr  Additional RCC/ACHD helpdesk staff training/support budget after 4 years: $21,328

At the end of four years, we’d have eight more ACHD staff (growing from the current level of 4 to 12 employees), have at least two students on duty at a time at the ACHD, and also double the RCC program. In addition, the new professional staff will need annual supplies, computer refurbishments, and training money, estimated at $5,322 per year for 2 new employees. The total cost increase after four years: (4*$124,100 + 4*$5,322)  $517,728.

2. A similar expansion of Learning Assistance Center (LAC) services should be planned for as well. The LAC calculates that direct computer related assistance currently amounts to $23,000 per year. At the end of four more years, assuming again that service demand doubles, we anticipate a total cost increase of $23,000 (per year increase of $5,750). This figure, however, accounts only for normal growth of LAC services based on today’s models. If LAC plays a significant part in Sections VIII & IX, these cost figures will need to increase.

3. There is a cost issue with adding students to our Microsoft license agreement (details are addressed in Appendix B, section 1). The Microsoft contract currently states that the university must pay for all students (FTE) when the student portion of the license is enacted. Since we are phasing in the ownership requirement starting with freshmen, NAU would have to pay the difference of the total license cost, which is approximately $273K, minus what we collect from freshmen. Our initial discussions with Microsoft have given us the impression that they will not change their contract language.

4. Additional costs to consider: $40,000 + ERE for an IT contract specialist to handle RFP and Microsoft contractual issues.

B. Faculty and Curriculum Support

It is assumed by this committee that the recommendations for faculty development, curriculum support, and freshmen assessment activities would be funded through the Provost and the E-Learning Initiative from Proposition 301 funding.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 21 XIV. Risks

The committee and subcommittee chairs agree on two areas of concern that appeared during our plan development. Both have significant risks associated with them. The PMT and President should address these two areas of concern before a final decision is made to go forward with the plan.

A. The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee’s Recommendation to Delay Implementation One Year 1. The Issue A key factor in the ultimate success of the “Technology Across the Curriculum” program will be the ability to deliver appropriate and timely support to faculty. This support includes training in technology applications relevant to redesigned assignments, individual consultations on instructional design, student assistants to help with developing materials for projects, workshops on assessment, and technology assistance through the first pilot offerings of reworked courses.

It is the recommendation of the FSC subcommittee, after considerable discussion of resources, requirements, and timelines, that the initial student computer ownership requirement be phased in, more specifically, that computer ownership be recommended for 2002 freshmen and then required of 2003 freshmen. The subcommittee points to two areas that emerged during their assessment of developing a logical process in preparing the faculty and curricula to support student computer ownership: a. Lack of time: A sequence of activities relating to faculty and curricula that should transpire before students are required to have computers, is as follows: (1) dialogue and consensus of what skills and knowledge are needed by students within their degree programs; (2) training of faculty on methods to enhance classes with technology and ways to support technology within their curricula based on (1) above; and (3) time for faculty to apply what they’ve learned. This subcommittee feels that more than one year is needed to accomplish these tasks. b. Lack of adequate faculty development and support on campus: This emerging problem has been acknowledged prior to the SCOT efforts. The Provost charged a faculty committee to look into the issue and their report is due at approximately the same time as this plan. Certainly, the organizational structure that this committee recommends will be key in developing a faculty support and training program based on the recommendations in this plan. If organizational changes are made, the new unit will need time to organize and then begin to tackle the issues presented in this plan, as well as their other responsibilities.

The FSC subcommittee has proposed a number of steps that would involve the University in an aggressive plan to engage faculty in the process of determining the best ways to infuse technology into the curricula. These steps will ensure that NAU offers its students challenging and creative ways to understand and use technology in order to prepare themselves for the world of work they will enter upon graduation. However, more than one year is needed to attain these goals.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 22 2. The Risks If a one-year delay is not enacted, there are a number of risks that will potentially have severe adverse effects on the success of the overall computer ownership program. a. A proactive stance on the part of the university in regard to technology must also include the faculty. NAU cannot encourage the growing computer literacy and computer use among NAU students without simultaneously expanding opportunities for faculty to learn and experiment with technology in their research and teaching. It is here, in the classroom and the laboratory, that student outlays of money and time for purchasing computers and for learning computer skills will be truly rewarded. The computer initiative cannot be successful without providing adequate and accessible learning opportunities to faculty for their own technological development. Adequate time and support is needed for faculty to learn new technologies related to their research and teaching interests, decide on the best pedagogical uses of technology, and incorporate them thoughtfully into courses and curriculum. Faculty are essential, as well, in deciding what computer competencies to expect of students, and what curricular initiatives-such as a Technology Across the Curriculum program-should be put in place. Without both sufficient lead-time, and an adequate infrastructure to support faculty development, the entire computer initiative could fail. b. Since this recommendation is coming from a subcommittee of nearly all faculty members, refusing their request for a delay may invite a significant faculty backlash against the entire ownership program. The lack of faculty support would seriously weaken the entire program.

B. Lack of Funding for Student Support Services 1. The Issue No additional budget dollars have been established to increase the support services needed to provide students an adequate support structure. The ownership program is doomed if students do not get the support they need when a problem arises. Currently our estimated un-funded, first year requirement, which is detailed in Section XIII, is $135,172, plus, whatever the impact is from adding students to the Microsoft license agreement.

2. The Risk Students will become extremely frustrated if they cannot get help with their computer problems. If they have to wait in a long call queue to get answers, they will question the whole premise of the ownership requirement if they perceive support to be inadequate. Potentially, we could lose students and receive bad publicity for not supplying adequate support services.

C. Recommendation

The SCOT committee recommends that the President direct the reallocation of funds to support the additional funding for student support services. The committee also recommends that the faculty request to delay the requirement by one year be approved.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 23 XV. Appendices

Appendix A. Possible Timetable for a “Technology Across the Curriculum” Plan

Outlined here is a detailed example of a plan to focus initial TAC efforts on the freshman UC101 course, and to expand the effort in subsequent years. The outline is intended to illustrate the many concurrent, and sequenced, activities that will be needed to validate the computer ownership requirement.

Phase 1:

1. Summer 2001. Surveys would be designed to poll employers about the type of technology abilities that they seek in recent graduates. Results from this survey would help to shape the set of technology skills that graduates would need to have at time of graduation.

2. Fall 2001. Faculty would be released (probably from one course) so that they could focus efforts on the learning of new technology applications. Individual colleges would identify specific technology skills and then identify courses in which the skills would be taught. Departments, who have already gone through this process, would be a good source for mentors/discussion leaders to assist other units. Faculty would meet with colleagues, collaborate on teaching ideas, and work to redesign courses. It would be up to each unit to determine how faculty would be assessed on these endeavors and how student feedback could be included in this process.

3. Spring 2002. Faculty members redesign their courses to integrate technology and have them ready for Fall 2002. Redesigned courses should be counted as part of an individual faculty member’s scholarship or teaching productivity for the next evaluation period (consistent with Boyer’s Model of Scholarship). Faculty who usually teach junior and senior students would start dialogue/process to redesign courses. Faculty would be provided support for professional development opportunities (e.g. visit other universities who are successfully integrating technology into teaching in area of expertise).

4. At the University level, the OTLE would develop self-paced, web-delivered modules for faculty to learn how to use and integrate TAC. The first modules should target basic skills and would need to be ready at the beginning of the Fall 2001 semester.

5. OTLE would provide the following resources for faculty use: Instructional Media Designer (design web-deliverable instructional materials), Educational Technology Specialist (expert in theoretical application of technology to learning environments), Technology Support Specialist (IT services and Web support).

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 24 6. OTLE would develop and offer mini-workshops that focus on learning technology while using technology for teaching. Mini-workshops would be offered during the Spring 2002 semester.

Phase 2 (Fall 2002 - Spring 2003):

1. The target group of this phase would be faculty who usually teach sophomore students. Activities at the college and university level would continue as in the previous phase. In addition, faculty who participated in the previous phase would revise their courses. Lead faculty from the previous phase would be recruited to coach “new” faculty on how to integrate technology into TAC. (Release time for lead faculty may be necessary.) Funding would be provided so that classrooms within each unit could be equipped with the necessary hardware and software to accommodate the needs of teaching with technology. Survey results would be analyzed and feedback given to faculty who teach junior and senior students. Faculty who teach junior and senior students would start learning specific technology for their discipline.

2. At the University level, OTLE would continue developing self-paced modules for faculty training. The Intramural Grants Committee would develop criteria to support faculty members who wish to undertake multimedia projects in their classes. Criteria would be developed and released for the 2002-2003 competition. OTLE would begin the development of a clearinghouse on technology integration best practices.

Phase 3 (Fall 2003 - Spring 2004):

1. The target group of this phase would be faculty who teach junior students. All activities at the College and University level would continue as explained in the two previous phases.

Phase 4 (Fall 2004 - Spring 2005):

1. The target group of this phase would be faculty members who teach senior students. All activities at the College and University level continue as explained in the three previous phases. In addition, new partnerships with external agencies would be sought for placement of students on technology-related internships. At the University level, a technology fair could be organized to showcase the students’ technology abilities. Public relation articles could be developed to outline approaches and strategies used in developing and implementing TAC at NAU.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 25 Appendix B. Software and Hardware Recommendations

The following minimum recommendations have been available for comment on the SCOT website since March 12, 2001 and represent our current best recommendations. Note that minimums such as these change on an annual basis and, as much as possible, the wording regarding new equipment is vague enough to insure that mid-year product improvements from manufacturers will become the de facto minimums for new computer purchases. Also note that these recommended minimums are base minimums. Different colleges and departments may specify higher requirements for their degree-seeking students. Students should always check with their college or department to see if there are additional requirements beyond these minimum standards. Also, hardware requirements are generally based on the software students are expected to run.

1. Minimum Software for a PC

The main component of the NAU software suite is the Microsoft Office 2000 Professional edition. This software for students can be added to the NAU existing campus license agreement with Microsoft. There is a potential problem in the way Microsoft charges for student participation in the student portion of their campus license. If NAU signs up to the student portion of the license, we must pay for all students (FTE). Microsoft currently charges approximately $20/yr/student FTE, which would mean a cost to the university of $20x13,650 (our fall 2000 FTE number) = $273,000. We would expect students to pay for this software, but, since we are phasing in the requirement, the university would have to pay the difference from what is charged and collected from students and the total cost. We will try to negotiate this point with Microsoft but there is a potential cost associated with this license if they hold to their current contract language.

Note other software (especially browser plug-ins) will also be available from the NAU software web site or from the Internet.

 Microsoft Office 2000 Professional [primarily Word, Excel, FrontPage, and PowerPoint]  Email client (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)  Internet Browser (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)  Acrobat Reader (available from NAU’s software web site)  Network Associate Antivirus (available from NAU’s software web site)

2. Minimum Software for a Macintosh

Note other software (especially browser plug-ins) will also be available from the NAU software web site or from the Internet.

 Microsoft Office 98 Professional [primarily Word, Excel, FrontPage and PowerPoint] (available through the campus Microsoft License Agreement)  Email client (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 26  Internet Browser (available from NAU’s software web site)  Acrobat Reader (available from NAU’s software web site)  Virex Anti-virus (available from NAU’s software web site)

3. Hardware and OS minimums for a currently owned Intel-based PC

 233MHz CPU, 64Mb memory, 2Gb hard drive  CD-ROM, 16 bit sound card  28.8 Modem (appropriate Ethernet card if you are living in the Residence Hall)  Printer  Windows NT 4.0, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000

4. Hardware and OS minimums for a currently owned Macintosh

 Any iMac or G3 model Macintosh  Printer  Mac OS 8.1 or better

5. Hardware and OS minimums for a new Intel-based PC

Note that faster machines will hit the market well before the Fall 2002 time when students are required to have a machine. Hence our advice is to purchase any reasonably new computer that meets (or hopefully exceeds) the following March 2001 specifications:

 700MHz CPU, 128Mb memory, 10 Gb hard drive  CD-ROM, 16 bit sound card  56K Modem (appropriate Ethernet card if you are living in the Residence Hall)  Printer  Windows ME, Windows 2000

6. Hardware and OS minimums for a new Macintosh

 iMac or G4  Printer  Mac OS 9.1 or better

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 27 Appendix C. Computer Vendor RFP Considerations

There are a number of sub-issues to consider in this area. The subcommittee was concerned about supporting the existing base of equipment or, at the very least, providing some alternative computer access system for students when their equipment, regardless of where it was purchased, breaks. Implied in some of the previous discussion is a possible need for a complete Request For Information or Request for Proposal process to determine what sort of service center options are feasible here in Flagstaff.

Key features/objectives of a vendor RFP:  The vendor offerings meet NAU’s continuously evolving hardware and software minimum requirements (including ISP access).  Upgrade paths are available after the purchase.  Ubiquitous access: all NAU students are eligible for purchase, payment plans, and service regardless of family income or credit history.  NAU will in no way be liable for student equipment purchases.  The purchase program has toll free telephone and web access points.  Students are billed directly.  Warranty service: warranty repair meets the students’ need for having a machine available within the timeline set by the faculty. Very likely this means within 24 hours. (Or NAU provides an acceptable alternative for students.) An extended warranty of three years needs to be available.  Out of warranty hardware service: some economies of scale may allow students to access a repair facility set up through the vendor(s) of choice. This is important to assure students have computer access regardless of where they purchased their computer. To meet service level expectations, the vendor may establish a loaner program (or the campus may come up with an acceptable computer access alternative).  Software support: most vendors provide very limited software support. However, support for damaged software is considered as important as support for damaged hardware, both means the student’s computer is unusable. This may require a separate agreement, Request For Information (RFI) or RFP or an in-house support effort. Software support should be 24x7 but other high availability options will be considered if there are significant cost savings.  Adaptive technology compatibility: Many adaptive technology products lag behind state of the art operating systems and/or hardware. Vendor offerings need to include options for purchasing equipment deemed usable by students with special needs. Although the specific adaptations may not be the responsibility of the vendor, they also must not void the warranty.  Service level agreements include a “remedy” for failure to meet conditions of the agreement. Performance indices are well established, reports are semi-annual and the student computer ownership contract manager holds performance reviews twice a year.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 28  A termination agreement is established ahead of time specifically to allow NAU to select another vendor if the current vendor is unable to meet obligations. The termination agreement stipulates termination penalties, procedures, and schedule.

More study and discussions with vendors are needed to determine what a single provider, versus multiple providers, may be able to do for the campus. A Request For Information (RFI) may be necessary in order to determine what is possible. Clearly NAU needs to explore the limits of the existing vendor (Dell and Compaq) agreements in order to know which, if any, of the above features and objectives they would not be willing to meet. The subcommittee also feels an exacting “due diligence” process is necessary to evaluate any suppliers we consider for ability to actually execute support contracts of the magnitude implied by the features and objectives stated in Alternative 2 above.

More campus information needs to also be collected so that we can have meaningful and informative discussions regarding purchase and support contracts. For example, it’s important to know exactly how many students will be “maxed out” and thus ineligible for further financial aid to pay for a new computer. Depending on the size of this population, a vendor may or may not be able to offer “free” computers as part of their contract.

The solution we consider most likely to succeed for purchasing, and then supporting the computer hardware and campus related software, would entail both in-house and vendor participation. Apple’s program, for example, is quite limited and does not provide for on-site hardware or software support. To give equal access to all students may require NAU to be involved in doing the actual software support (including the OS) and, perhaps, running a loaner program with both PCs and Macs to accommodate the unavoidable down time a repair facility will face. Asking a repair facility to support any and all brands suggests a loaner program is necessary. It’s simply impossible to be certified on all machines and to carry all the necessary parts. To meet a performance index like “a student must be back on-line with a working machine in less than 48 hours” probably requires a provider, in many cases, to loan a student a machine, order the parts, and repair the machine after the parts have arrived and then return the machine once the student has paid the bill.

The next step in this effort should be to form a team with broader representation (technical, financial, and purchasing agents) and even, given the scope of the work to be done, build a formal project plan with a project manager assigned at least half time to just this effort.

NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan 29