Office of Learning and Information Technology
UW System CIO Council, 1/18/2007
CIO Council Meeting University of Wisconsin
January 18, 2007
· 2006 ECAR Student Study Results
· CALEA update
· Microsoft licensing report
· Electronic forms – Exchange
· Middleware/Fusion Applications
o Priorities for campuses
o Strategies for proceeding as a system
o Identifying next steps, including any next steps that could be addressed whether or not a technical solution is pursued
· User Productivity Kit (UPK) update
· Update on RFPs for consulting services -- HR/Supply and Student Administration
· MHEC Docufide eTranscript initiative
CIOs and their Representatives
Mark Anderson (by teleconference)
Judy Caruso thanked all of the UWS institutions that participated in the ECAR Student Study in 2006 and encouraged everyone to contact her regarding participation in 2007. A full report of the 2006 results was sent to the CIOs in mid-December.
In 2006, within the UW System, there were 5,528 respondents out of the study total of 28,728. Response rates varied by institution from 7.4% at UW–Parkside to 22.9% at UW–Platteville. The majority of respondents were female, which reflects the UWS demographics. UW–Parkside respondents were the most diverse with respect to age. UWS respondents were a little older than the national average. There were more senior respondents than freshmen which affects some of the measures, such as skill level and computer ownership.
Living on campus makes a difference on certain measures. The academic disciplines of the respondents also affects their skill and usage levels, especially students from Business, Life Sciences and Engineering.
Within the UWS, UW–Platteville students have greatest ownership of specialized technologies as well as the greatest usage and skills with advanced applications like spreadsheets. They also have the greatest amount of gaming, which reflects the predominantly male population of the campus. The greatest uses of social networks are at UW–La Crosse and UW–Eau Claire, which also have the most female respondents. Dialup access is still prevalent at UW–Superior, UW-Parkside and the UW Colleges.
UW–Oshkosh and UW–Whitewater report the greatest use and satisfaction with course management systems. UW–Madison reports the lowest use, but this doesn't reflect the results of the UW–Madison survey which includes students at all points in their college careers.
UWS students own slightly newer computers than students nationally. At UW–Madison in particular, students are coming in with laptops rather than desktops. UW–Platteville students own computers that are not very current compared to other institutions.
UWS students own fewer PDAs than the national average. UW–Madison students own iPods at a rate greater than the national average, but the ownership rate is lower at all of the other UWS institutions. UW–Superior students have the least ownership of technology overall.
Students were asked about their preferred email account. Nationally, students prefer their institutional account at a rate of 47.6% but the UWS institution rates are higher. Perhaps this shows the quality of the email at the UWS institutions.
Nationally, students prefer to be contacted via email at a rate of 84.8%, and most of the UWS rates are even higher.
Students at UW–Parkside have the widest range of electronic device usage in the UWS, from least hours per week to the highest.
On average, the UWS measures match the national averages. But, there are differences on a campus by campus basis. For example, instant messaging use at UW–Whitewater is 75.4% compared to the UWS average of 61.6%. The highest uses of the course management systems are at UW–Oshkosh (91.5%) and UW–Whitewater (56%) compared to a 39.1% UWS rate overall and the lowest rate at UW–Madison (20.4%).
Students at UW–Platteville own the most spreadsheets within the UW System, also the most PowerPoint and the most audio video software. UW–Parkside students own the most graphics and web development software.
At UW-Superior, UW Colleges and UW-Milwaukee the fewest students reported advanced skill levels with spreadsheets whereas at UW–Platteville the most students reported advanced skill levels. Overall, the UWS skill levels are lower than the national averages which may reflect a lack of integration in the curriculum or less preparation in high school.
The survey shows that students learn advanced tools when they are required to do so in their courses, not on their own or because their job requires it.
Dial-up access is still prevalent at UW Colleges, UW–Parkside and UW–Superior. The rates are less than 13% for all of the other UWS institutions.
If additional monies were available, UWS students overall would like more computer labs and printing. At UW–Milwaukee, these are virtually the only things that students want. 35.2% of the students at UW–Madison want a Napster-like service for free music.
The UWS students have a preference for a moderate amount of IT in courses, which reflects the national data.
Students at UW–Madison are much more likely to use podcasts
(14.2%), webcasts (6.6%) and blogs
(9.7%) in their courses than the other UWS institutions. Use of clickers is
highest at UW–Milwaukee (27%).
David Blough reported that weighting the results by institutional enrollment tends to result in student preferences and satisfaction with IT in courses that is statistically a bit lower than national institutions overall.
The most useful feature in a Course Management Systems is online grading. The most valuable benefit of IT in courses, from the student perspective, is convenience (51.3%). The second most valuable feature is managing activities (18.5%).
Overall, the curriculum is the driving factor in terms of student skills. The more students use a CMS, the more they like it.
Bruce Maas suggested that the institutions use the survey results to brief their students at the start of their Educational Technology Fee allocation processes.
Dick Cleek noted that the other institutions tended to not have such a large university system with so many smaller comprehensive institutions and therefore he questioned a blanket conclusion that the UWS is behind comparable institutions given all of the efforts that have been made in recent years.
David Blough of the UWS Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) reported that the UWS does an accountability report every year that is based upon measures first created in 1999 from the NSSE survey http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/accountability. The items related to technology are perhaps a bit out of date. The OPAR office is interested in possibly using the ECAR survey in accountability reports in future years.
The accountability report that will be submitted this year includes questions such as:
· In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you used email to communicate with an instructor?
· In your experience at your institution during the current school year, how often have you used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment?
· To what extent has your experience contributed to your knowledge, skills and personal development in using computing and information technology?
David Blough proposed certain items from the ECAR survey that might fit within the technology accountability indicator. Lisa Wheeler noted the need for a question reporting how technology enhances learning outcomes. The CIO Council especially liked the questions that asked students whether their faculty are using IT well in their courses and whether or not IT is helping them learn.
Elena Pokot noted that various forms of technology use may become so pervasive that certain questions may not be relevant for the long term, e.g., questions about courses that use technology versus courses that don't. John Krogman suggested that questions be worded in terms of satisfaction, not amount of usage. A question from the Alumni survey asks whether there were extensive computer system services, equipment, labs, etc. available to the former students.
UW System and its institutions should consider themselves exempt from CALEA and do not need to file anything with the FCC at this time. The outstanding question is whether having public access through libraries would compromise the exemption that is based upon not offering a public network. Library use will be considered as "incidental" use that comprises a very small percentage of overall use. We are probably not offering services that are subject to CALEA through our public access points. The law firm that represents the American Council on Education agrees with this position.
There are filing deadlines in February and March for institutions that have determined that they are non-exempt from CALEA. The penalties, if any, are not defined if an institution believes it is exempt but is later determined to be non-exempt.
BadgerNet is not a service provider with respect to Internet access so they don't have to respond to CALEA. It is organizations like WiscNet and AT&T that are in the roles of service providers.
etro, state and regional networks that provide services to education and research are receiving two different legal opinions. The firm that represents EDUCAUSE feels that many regional networks will have to comply. The firm that represents National Lambda Rail and others feels that all of our networks are exempt because they are inter-exchange carriers. WiscNet is moving toward a position of non exempt because they have represented themselves as a service provider for E-Rate purposes. Service provision for E-Rate purposes begins at a site router at an educational institution.
The question of where WiscNet is covered by CALEA will be defined as the four core backbone nodes. There is nothing in prior FCC decisions that says every aggregation or site router must be instrumented. However, it is not clear as to what compliant equipment actually is from the perspective of the FBI and others. The technology does not yet exist to identify the stream of a communication.
At the last CIO Council, several people volunteered to consider the
licensing challenges of some of Microsoft's new products, including the
Most of the Microsoft suppliers have been contracted, as well as the hardware vendors, to try and gain data on the volume of products purchased that are covered by the class action settlement. David Dumke reported that invoices and packing slips may be necessary based upon the experience of one of their staff who worked in the private sector. There may be an attempt to negotiate a settlement amount based upon an estimate of product volumes rather than a detailed accounting. Payment will likely be in the form of a voucher, not cash.
UW Colleges and UW Extension has electronic distribution of pay stubs and partial distribution of leave statements that are printed and signed. Dick Cleek is interested in a completely electronic process for leave statements, including supervisor signoffs. He is exploring interest either across the full UW System or among the campuses that use Exchange.
UW–Milwaukee is talking with UW–Madison about distribution of
pay stubs through the my.uwm.edu portal via
Since the middleware/Fusion presentation at the last CIO Council meeting, several people have begun conversations with Oracle about some of their products.
UW–Madison has developed use cases for talking with vendors. Meanwhile, they have short term needs for addressing immediate security issues while they continue running the operational directory services and IAA.
Ed Meachen would like the Common Systems funding
committee to understand the middleware needs and what they might cost
Whatever decisions are made at UW-Madison will impact D2L, SFS and other Common Systems and a portion of the costs will be spread across the UW System. Even a systemwide Identity Management implementation would still require the UWS institutions to do their own local management of their constituencies.
UW-Whitewater has been underway with an Identity Management process for almost a year and is looking at IBM, Oracle and Sun. Their goal is to make a decision by the end of February, then go forward with an RFP or a bid. Most of the UWS institutions are not yet prepared to buy products for their local use.
There are needs for systemwide applications, and a set of needs on the UW–Madison campus which is highly decentralized. These same needs may not exist at all of the UWS institutions which may have more centralized processes.
Identifying next steps, including any next steps that could be addressed whether or not a technical solution is pursued
Elena Pokot suggested that needs analyses be undertaken at the local campus, UW-Madison and Common System levels.
Jim Lowe said there is no way to get access controls applied to data that is sent from every system to every other system without an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). David Dumke expressed concern that many of our existing systems might not play well with an ESB, e.g., parking systems and ID card systems. Chris Holsman felt that an ESB would ultimately ensure that downstream applications would only receive the data they need when they need it, not batch files. However, integration work would be required.
David Hart reported that the Collaterals group has looked at SOA a number of times. The challenge is to decide which step is appropriate to take first.
Dick Cleek and David Dumke would like to gain a better perspective of the value propositions for large investments at the UWS and institutional levels.
Between now and the February CIO Council, a small group will brainstorm the next step, which will not include going to Common Systems unless there is a specific need for the coming year. Ron Kraemer, Dick Cleek and Elena Pokot volunteered to participate.
A few people have inquired about gaining access to the 10 Oracle UPK developer licenses for training purposes. The 10 licenses need to be spread judiciously between UWS needs and local campus needs. UPK will be discussed further at the January 26 Collaterals meeting. A list of all of the licensed training content was distributed. The generic content can be used for training purposes without a UPK developer license.
Both evaluation teams have had their initial meetings to discuss their processes. Much of what the teams need to know will probably come out of meetings with the actual consultants. Start dates for both engagements are expected in the March timeframes.
Tomorrow, the Chancellors will discuss the MHEC initiative for feeding electronic transcripts into PeopleSoft with Docufide functioning as a central repository. No servers are required at any educational institution. MHEC believes that if all high schools and higher ed institutions participated, a lot of money would be saved. The Great Lakes Higher Education Association might be willing to front the money for all high schools and universities for three years.
The next CIO Council meeting will be February 15, 2007. Meeting dates, the directory of UWS CIOs and meeting summaries are available at: http://www.uwsa.edu/olit/cio/