California Lutheran University, one of twenty-eight colleges and universities of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is a young liberal arts university (founded in 1959) with an enrollment of 2600 students, 1600 of whom are undergraduates. Located primarily on a 290-acre campus in Thousand Oaks, California (14 miles from Malibu), CLU also has graduate centers in Woodland Hills, Oxnard, and North Hollywood. The University offers undergraduate and graduate programs through its College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business, and School of Education.
If, as CLU's mission statement professes, we are educating students to become "...confident in their identity and vocation" we need to prepare them thoroughly for the technological requirements of their vocations. The integration of technology into the teaching and learning process is now a major academic objective in the University's Strategic Plan which proposes that we infuse technology into the curriculum content, pedagogical methods, and student proficiency standards.
In 1990, ten CLU faculty from diverse disciplines visited Maryland to observe Washington College's campus-wide network. The result of that visit was a collaborative push for a campus-wide network at California Lutheran University. In 1992, the CLUnet project received more serious attention after the University hired a new president. Board of Regents approval followed in February 1994 and implementation began in July 1994. Now, two years into the project, CLU is beginning to see some of the changes that a campus-wide network can bring.
In 1994, California Lutheran University created and installed CLUnet, a campus-wide technology network which contains applications software for use at all offices and dorm rooms and classrooms on campus as well as Internet access from campus and dial-up capability from off-campus centers and home use. With the installation of this network, training for all members of the campus community commenced. The trainers were technical staff from Information Systems and Services (ISS).
The initial priorities in implementing CLUnet included: application software, universal access to the Internet, library resources and email. Training at the University focused on enabling faculty, staff and students to become proficient with the Microsoft Office Suite, Netscape, email (Eudora or Pine), and locating and identifying electronic Library resources.
Of 1400 potential connections, 600 are in use today: 100 in the dorms, 100 in computer labs, 400 (99% GUI interface) in offices and classrooms. Ninety-six percent of the full-time faculty have computers. There are no charges to students, faculty or staff for CLUnet accounts. Seven classrooms have large screen projection systems with multi-media computers. Two portable Windows notebooks with color panels are available for classroom presentations. Three computer labs are used for classroom instruction. These labs and additional computers in the library are available on a drop-in basis.
The University's mission "to educate leaders for a global society..." has been met by CLUnet's implementation in several ways, most notably by electronic communication. Our students communicate with other students and scholars throughout the world via Email (2000 or 70% of students have Email accounts) and the ListProc software. These electronic discussion groups allow students and faculty to participate in a scholarly discourse unconstrained by time or place.
The CLUnet backbone network and "smart" classrooms are set up like those at Penn State (Morrow and Boettcher, 1995). Multimedia stations are available in both MS-DOS Windows and Apple Macintosh models. One classroom is equipped with cameras and microphones supporting distance learning capability to satellite campuses. Morrow and Boettcher reported the need for effective training and support when using technology-infused instruction. At California Lutheran University, we have indeed found that ongoing training and support are critical to success in using technology in instruction. (Crowe, J. & Karayan, S., 1995). An important component of the support system lies in our technology mentoring program. Each semester interested faculty are paired with a faculty mentor who has a level of expertise in technology. The mentor spends from three to ten hours per semester working on the individualized instructional needs identified by that faculty member at her/his computer.
During the 1995-96 academic year, ISS leaders identified faculty who had received extensive training and intended to implement CLUnet technology into their course design and presentation. These faculty members were offered the opportunity to schedule their classes in classrooms equipped with computers and projection devices. The computers had access to the campus backbone network, including CLUnet software and unlimited Internet access.
Sammons (1995) reported on student assessment of technology-infused classroom presentations at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. According to the article, student reactions to the use of technology were generally positive. At California Lutheran University we wanted to study student perceptions of not only technology-infused presentations, but also the effectiveness of electronic discussion groups, use of electronic library resources, and use of the Internet for locating information. A follow-up study of the effectiveness of technology in instruction was designed and administered. First, professors were queried about their integration of four aspects of the technology available:
Fall 1995 Spring 1996
Use of presentation software 14 15
Use of electronic discussion groups 14 27
Use of electronic library sources 10 20
Use of the Internet 13 27
In addition, each professor was asked if an opinion survey could be administered to the students in his/her class. Twenty-four faculty responded to the survey. Of this group, sixteen let students respond to a survey designed to measure student perception of educational technology. In May, 1996 thirty-seven faculty responded, and thirty-three allowed their students to be surveyed.
Two hundred fifty two students responded to the Fall 1995 survey, and 426 responded in the Spring 1996. See Tables 1, 2, and 3 for additional demographic information on the student survey respondents. Please note that in Table 2 ADEP stands for Adult Degree Educational Program; and Teacher Prep. stands for CLU's School of Education Teaching Preparation Program.
Fall 1995 Spring 1996
Arts and 83 136
Sciences
Business 46 148
Education 112 120
Fall 1995 Spring 1996
Undergraduate 288
ADEP 17
Teacher Prep. 35
Graduate 75
Other 3
Fall 1995 Spring 1996
Female 159 250
Male 87 164
The surveys administered to students addressed the four categories: use of presentation software; use of electronic discussion groups; use of electronic library resources; and use of the Internet. Each area of technology use contained three or four questions graded on a six-point Likert scale, with five being "Always" and zero, "Never" (see Attachment 1).
With the introduction of presentation graphics software and multi-media projection classrooms, students view faculty presentations and are able to create their own as well. Interested students may review faculty presentations outside of class by downloading the presentations from CLUnet. Nearly half of the students surveyed reported that the use of presentation graphics frequently or always: (1) helped them to take notes; (2) made lectures organized; and (3) made lectures interesting. In fact 79% (Fall 1995) and 68% (Spring 1996) reported that the use of presentation graphics frequently or always made lectures interesting. These student responses support the idea that lectures supported by visual material are more effective than those delivered without such support. Survey results of Spring 1996 show that students report that presentation graphics seldom helped them to take notes. This finding can be explained by the fact that faculty usuually provided the students with handouts created through presentation graphics.
A second resource used in the classroom was electronic discussion groups. Ordinarily a topic proposed by the instructor or a student was posted at one class session and students had a chance to respond and react to the discussion topic during the following week. A pedagogical benefit of this means of communication is that the reflective learners get a chance to put together their thoughts without being interrupted by more impulsive thinkers. From the survey results we learned that in the classes of those instructors who promote electronic discussion groups, almost half of the students frequently or always found that the technological intervention helped to: (1) communicate with the instructor; (2) communicate with other students; and (3) understand the course material. Specifically, 61% (Fall 1995) and 62%(Spring, 1996) strongly believed that these groups enhanced their communication with the instructor. An even stronger result was found supporting the usefulness of electronic discussion groups in student-to-student communication (72% Fall, 64%Spring).
The evidence shows that two thirds or more (Fall 71%, Spring 66%) of the students responding felt that the use of electronic discussion groups helped them understand the course material. It is clear that the students had a positive reaction to the use of electronic discussion groups.
A number of electronic library resources are available today. At CLU the ISS staff sought advice from faculty on which services should be made available to the University community. During the 1995-96 school year training was made available as these resources were purchased and installed on CLUnet. A total of 1,056 students received bibliographic and information literacy instruction in 68 sessions taught by the Office of Information Systems and Services. On the questions about University-provided electronic information resources, over 50% of the students reported that these resources frequently or always: (1) supported the content of the course; (2) were easy to find and use; (3) allowed them to explore new avenues of information; (4) and provided tangible results. Over three quarters of the students felt that these resources supported the course content (Fall 75%, Spring 77%). Nearly as many (Fall 71%, Spring 75%) reported that resources were easy to find and use. Nearly 80% of the students in both surveys felt that electronic library resources provided tangible results for them. As far as exploration of new information was concerned, the numbers dropped from 80% in the Fall to 63% in the Spring perhaps due to the students' increased familiarity with these resources.
CLUnet serves as a local access provider to the Internet. The University made Netscape 2.0 browser available to all faculty, staff and students on campus and at home. ISS also provided training in the use of Netscape and attendant search tools. Eighty per cent of students who participated in the surveys both in the Fall and Spring semesters reported that Internet resources: (1) supported the content of the course; (2) were easy to find and use; (3) allowed them to explore new avenues of information; and (4) provided tangible results.
California Lutheran University's campus wide network has recently completed its second year of operation. Demand for technologically equipped classrooms continues to grow steadily. Training is ongoing, personal, and support-oriented. Student surveye data show the positive response to the use of technology in the classroom. In the future we hope to continue to collect anectodal as well as class-survey data. At this point we can state that students generally have a favorable response to the use of Information Age technology in their learning experience.
References
Crowe, Judith A. and Silva S. Karayan. 1995, November. "Training the Trainers: Research on Increasing the Effectiveness of Technology Trainers in Higher Education." Paper presented at California Educational Research Conference. Lake Tahoe, CA.
Morrow, Charles T. and Judith V. Boettcher. 1995, March. "Technology Classrooms: Design and Implementation: A Penn State Perspective." Syllabus, 6, 18-20.
Sammons, Martha C.. 1995, May. "Students Assess Computer-Aided Classroom Presentations." T.H.E. Journal, 22, (10), 66-69.
STUDENT SURVEY
Please circle the information that applies to you.
1. Department: Arts & Science School of Business School of Education
2. Student: undergraduate ADEP Teacher Prep graduate other
3. Gender: female male
4 Major: ___________________________________________
Please answer the following questions by circling the number that best describes how you perceive the use of technology in this class, 5 being highest and 0 being lowest.
Presentation software (PowerPoint, MacroMind Director)
5. made lectures organized Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0 B
Always Sometimes Never
6. helped me take notes Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
7. made lectures interesting Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
Electronic discussions
8. helped me communicate with the instructor Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
9. helped me communicate with other students Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
10. helped me understand the course material Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
Electronic library resources
11. supported the content of the course Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
12. were easy to find and use Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
13. allowed me to explore new avenues of information Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
14. provided tangible results Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
Internet resources
15. supported the content of the course Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
16. were easy to find and use Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
17. allowed me to explore new avenues of information Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
18. provided tangible results Results: Fall 1995 Spring 1996 Both
5 4 3 2 1 0
Always Sometimes Never
