University Technology Policy and Governance

Technology Governance

Benchmarks for course and program quality are based on a deep understanding of the needs and desires of adult students. As Hanna (2003) indicates, the new metrics for program quality in higher education are “…based on outcomes that matter to students and employers rather than on inputs that matter to faculty and administrators” (p. 30). Flexibility, responsiveness, timeliness, efficiency, and applicability are at the heart of the quality benchmarks (Hanna, 2003). Johnstone (2005) adds that the differentiator for remarkable programs “…is, and will be, service to students.”
The following documents represent established guidelines for quality higher education courses and programs and they form the foundation of principles of good practice at.
Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs - The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (Best Practices in Distance Education).

Sloan-C Five Pillars of Quality – (http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/index.asp)
o Student Access
o Student Satisfaction
o Learning Effectiveness
o Faculty Satisfaction
o Cost Effectiveness and Institutional Commitment
TLT (Teaching, Learning and Technology) Flashlight Project - Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. (http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html)
o Encourages student-faculty contact.
o Encourages cooperation among students.
o Encourages active learning.
o Gives prompt feedback.
o Emphasizes time on task.
o Communicates high expectations.
o Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
Hanna, D. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 38 (4), 24.
Johnstone, S. M. (2005). “New Benchmarking Approach: Open Educational Resources.” NUTN [Conference]. San Francisco. 12 June. 2005.
Distance Education: Guidelines for Good Practice
The Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/distance.pdf

Instructional Technology Development

Distance Education

Models for teaching online
It is a truism among educational researchers that media studies, i.e. studies which seek to compare one means of instructing against another, have no useful purpose, whether or not the measured differences in learning are significant (c.f. Twigg). In large part this is because different media for instruction have different strengths.
Some researchers have investigated possibilities of developing software that would be flexible enough for the varying pedagogies of differing disciplines. Others have quietly continued to contribute studies that have gradually developed the mainstream models and pushed our understanding of the current models forward. Instructional design theory, with its careful attention to the pedagogical process, was slow to leap into the breach but then contributed practices that have been essential to the success of online learning. Still others have been software-oriented. Few academic fields have contributed; educational disciplines (which own the underlying pedagogical discourse) have remained within their towers, while teachers of dance and engineering have floundered.
Ertmer, P. (2006). Efficacy of peer feedback in online learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_fdbk.pdf

Measuring Success in Online Courses and Programs
The Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) report, Measuring Success in Web-Based Distance Learning represents one example of criteria for evaluating course and program success.
(see Measuring Success in Web-Based Distance Learning for the full report.)

Client-Services Support and a Team Project Approach
Distributed Learning often employs a multi-point, client-services support model. The goal is to provide all the services and resources instructors and students need, when and where they need them. To this end Distance Learning staff interact with faculty, staff and students in-person, with the web and Internet, and with the phone. Distance Learning staff work to make instructors successful with all of their distance and distributed learning experiences. (See Fink, 2002).
Fink, M.L. (2002). Faculty on the Move: Rethinking Faculty Support Services, In Syllabus, 15 (7), 27-29.
Team Project Approach Source:
Adapted from a process developed by the Online Instruction Group at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Public Health. Used with permission.
Note: Process outlined in an article originally published in The Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org/) as:
Chapman, D., & Nicolet, T. (2003). Using the Project Approach to Online Course Development, In The Technology Source, March/April 2003. Available online at The Technology Source

Course classification - the continuum
alt^I supports a wide variety of course types, including all of the technology-mediated courses described in the Sloan Consortium publication, Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005 – p.4:
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf

Sloan-C effective practices
http://sloan-c.org/effective/index.asp
Sloan-C focuses on five pillars of quality in online education: student satisfaction, access, learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction and institutional cost effectiveness. For each of these areas, pillar editors are collecting practices that are innovative and replicable.

1:1

DiGangi, S., Kilic, Z., Yu C. H., Jannasch-Pennel, A, Long,L., Kim, C., Stay, V., & Kang, S. (in press). 1 to 1 computing in higher education: A survey of technology practices and needs. AACE Journal.

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348.

Open Source

Dougiamas, M. & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 171-178). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

CMS/LMS

Providers and Consumers in Today’s Distributed Learning Environment
Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT)
http://www.center.rpi.edu/Monographs/Quality.html

Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference
Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT):
http://www.center.rpi.edu/Monographs/Innovations.html

Google apps for education.Retrieved November 20, 2006, from https://www.google.com/a/edu/

Kindle, J. (2006, October 12). Check your inbox, you’ve got Gmail. ASU Web Devil, Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2006/10/12/news/698216

Technology Support

Accessibility

Cast.org researchers, focusing on ways to include learners with disabilities, concluded that their most productive path would be research and development in universal design for learning. To encourage all learners, Cast.org suggests these principles:

1. Multiple means of representation, to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge,
2. Multiple means of expression, to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know,
3. Multiple means of engagement, to tap into learners' interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3). p. 233-246

Global Education
At the dawn of Internet-based education, evolving as it did from paper-and-pencil correspondence courses, a conundrum for educational thinkers was: how will we cope with learners in different time zones? Quickly as technology may develop, in this case the rate was relatively slow. It is not without reason that the Sloan-C consortium calls its initiative by the name of ALN, or asynchronous learning networks. Clearly, asynchronous learning was the answer to the time zone problem. Considerations of how to integrate instructional means such as virtual reality were dropped. Videoconferencing, though it kept the discussion alive, was not widespread enough to be of great importance in the developing model of online instruction. In 2006, with the growing use of 3d environments, consideration of synchronous environments may once more rise to the top of the priority list. In the meantime, global education thinking also considers the role of culture and gender, as well as the ease or lack of ease of connectivity, including digital divide issues.
Zembylas, M., Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, M.S. (2006). Of Nomads, Polyglots, and Global Villagers: Globalization, Information Technologies, and Critical Education Online. In: Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2006). Editors. Current Perspectives on Applied Information Technologies: Distance Education and Distributed Learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Price, L. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: challenging stereotypical views of women. (2006, October). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22 (5). 349-359.

Du, J.,Havard, B., Yu, C. & Adams, J. (2004, Fall). The Impact of Technology Use on Low-Income and Minority Students' Academic Achievement: Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 4 ( 2). 21-38.

Assessment
Assessment in distance courses is an area that will require ongoing investigation and research into best practices. Alternative assessment practices include portfolio-based assessment, which has led to the development of OSP. The US Department of Education, working with CAST, is encouraging the development of assessment practices and software that can be used for all learners.
Gibson, D. & Barrett, H. (2003). Directions in electronic portfolio development. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 2(4). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/general/article3.cfm

Hansen, K. (2005). Application of traditional and online journaling as pedagogy and means for assessing learning in an entrepreneurial seminar. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, 3(2).

Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7).

Professional Development
Teachers at all levels find technology a necessary element in instruction. At the university level, where pedagogical principles are not well integrated in all disciplines, the introduction of technology and distributed education can lead to breakdown of teaching models. Professional development models are therefore critical. Vrasidas and Glass have collected chapters ranging from pre-service teacher preparation to the support of university faculty in their recent edited book.
Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2006). Editors. Current Perspectives in Applied Information Technologies. Preparing teachers to teach with Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Krista Glazewski and Thomas Brush’s chapter, Integrated Field-Based Models for Technology Preparation, investigates pre-service models at seven universities.

Judith A. Duffield’s chapter, Mentoring a Teacher Preparation Faculty Toward Technology Integration, discusses lessons learned in the integration of technology use with faculty over a nine-year period.

Research Methodology

Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. (2005). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-116.

Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., and Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education 44(1): 1–19.

Data mining

Hearst, M. (2003). What Is Text Mining? Retrieved November 27, 2006 from http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/text-mining.html

Rajman M., & Besancon,R. (1998). Text Mining – Knowledge extraction from unstructured textual data. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS-98), Rome.

The Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

Fall 2006 Summary

Technology inspires and motivates, educates and entertains, and at times is the source of frustration and trepidation. Emerging technologies are the subject of much attention, speculation, assumption, opinion, debate and research. What are the needs and desires of today's students--and of tomorrow's? Terms such as millenials, digital natives, digital immigrants, generation Y, and broadbanders are referenced in the media as well as the academic literature. Each of these terms carry much connotation, yet provide little in the way of information that can guide our decisions of how best to educate. The literature abounds with assertions, recommendations, and proclamations on how we must teach, how students must learn, and how as a University we must continuously adapt to best meet the needs of all students. We must be agile and nimble, leading edge and up to date, engaging and competitive. Ultimately, our choices must be data-based and must result in the most effective educational experience for all students. Central to any institutional decision is a clear understanding of the needs and desires of the community, the end-user, our students.

As part of an ongoing effort to foster data-based, academic technology decision-making, the University Technology Office, Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I surveyed ASU's Fall 2006 student population. Each student received a personal email invitation to participate, containing a direct link to an online survey. Response totaled 9706 students, representing an approximately sixteen percent return rate. The survey consisted of 188 items; a combination of fixed response and open-ended/text entry. Student response to the survey indicated a high level of engagement -- students who started the survey, completed the survey. Likewise the number of responses to the open ended questions and input opportunities was high. Students took the survey seriously - admittedly this is a subjective assessment, supported by analysis of indicators such as number of words per written response, format of responses--sentences versus one-word responses, degree of on-topic responses. Across each indicator, the level of engagement and attention was high. Responses to several questions in particular support this observation. For example, with questions taping perceptions of a Student Technology Fee, the responses were centered on what would and could be the outcome of such a fee. The level of detail provided by those who support, oppose, and express indifference or indecision, indicate that students value the opportunity to provide input. A strong desire to positively impact the learning experience was evident.

Who responded

Email invitations were sent to each of the 62095 ASU students enrolled in Fall 2006 courses. Nine thousand seven hundred and six students responded to the survey across a 3 week period; 5344 responded within the first 7 days, which was followed by a reminder prompt at day eight. Two thousand one-hundred seventy-one students responded between day eight and fourteen, upon which a second prompt was issued, yielding an overall response rate of 15.63%. Response distribution across ASU's campuses is expressed in Table 1. The distribution indicates representation proportional to the population, for example, in ASU's overall student population, 47.23% is male, 52.76% is female. The response rate across all campuses; 13.99% male, 15.31%, is reflective of this ration.

Who have we not yet heard from?

When interpreting a survey we must examine potential bias and limitation of our measurement. Technology enabled survey techniques provide a unique opportunity to elicit a wide range of opinions, to the point where virtually every member of the relevant population may included. Sampling techniques often provide a more strategic and sensitive approach toward gaining a true understanding of the population under consideration--a systematic approach toward defining sub-groups and characteristics may enable the researcher to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the individuals is obtained. In the case of technology use, and in particular technology ownership, a process of sample and inference relates only part of the picture. Much is assumed and written of the digital divide; a term referring to inequities created when in this case information is delivered or accessed through technology that some have access to and others do not. Although the exact meaning and intent of this term, and more specifically the inferred cause, differs by author and audience, for the sake of our focus, we assess the status, needs and perspectives of all students, those who own computers as well as those who do not; by choice or circumstance. The survey represents a continuous and continuing effort toward gathering input from the campus community. Combining the use of ongoing survey with focus groups and direct interview procedures, we strive to enable all students to express their needs and convey ideas that can help shape and refine our learning environments.

Assumptions and procedures

The Fall 2006 Student technology survey was designed as an extension of several technology surveys presently in use across higher education institutions (Educause ECAR 2004, 2005, 2006). Questions were refined to focus on specific initiatives and relevance to ASU's structure, environment, goals and initiatives. A pervasive objective of this phase of survey is to invite and encourage student participation in the strategic planning process.

The primary areas of focus centered on:
1:1 computing
The Learning Platform
Financial considerations

The present phase of study solicited participation and input via an email invitation sent to every ASU student's preferred email address. As email is an official mechanism of communication for University business, and students hold obligation to receive communication via their designated email address, this approach was selected as a contact approach technically available to all students.

Is this real...or Spam?
In the age of unsolicited email, digital advertisement, phishing, and other electronic trickery, email from unknown senders carries an air of suspicion, in particular invitations to participate in a survey and provide input. With this in mind, the current survey invitation was issued as a direct email, to each individual, containing their name and email address. The invitation was initiated from a valid user with an asu.edu email address, and telephone, office and email address provided as a means of seeking clarification and validating authenticity of the request. A link was provided to the survey instrument, at which additional clarification, procedures, and ASU confidentiality assurances, and human subjects approval was designated.

1:1 Computing

To capture a snapshot of the equipment that students presently own, along with the extent and scope of the way that they use technologies, a series of fixed-choice and open-ended questions were presented. Across these areas, student preference and priority was assessed through direct questioning in which students ranked items, and through assessment of the open-ended responses, providing a potentially more comprehensive view of student concerns.

• Seventy-seven percent of students responding indicated they own a laptop computer. Overall, forty-three percent of respondents own a laptop and desktop computer, and twenty-two percent indicated they own only a desktop computer. Two percent of those responding indicate they do not own a computer. The observed distribution was consistent across all campuses.

• Male students indicated a higher percentage (46.78%) of both desktop and laptop ownership than did female (39.29%). However, in terms of owning laptop only, female students has a higher percentage of ownership (36.70%) than male (29.56%).

• Graduate students (51.83 %) indicated a higher ownership of both a laptop and desktop, than did undergraduate (39.01%). Twenty-eight percent of graduate students indicated owning a laptop -- whereas 35.14% of undergrads.

• Among Colleges, initial assessment indicates percentage of both desktop and laptop ownership was highest in the School of Global Management, Percentage of desktop ownership was led by Morrison School of Management where as percentage of laptop ownership was led by Cronkite School of Journalism.

Going Mobile

Mobile computing today extends well beyond the computer itself, a primary example, the mobile phone. Ninety-five percent of students indicate owning a mobile phone. The survey was structured to include consideration of a range of portable devices, including specific measure of student ownership of a digital audio player, mobile phone, and wireless gaming device. As expressed in the following table, 72% of students own a digital audio player (such as an ipod or iriver). Each of these observations is consistent across campuses. Within the colleges, ownership is reflective of the same percentages observed for computer ownership.

In addition, thirty-eight percentage of respondents indicated that they own a gaming device. These students tended to be undergraduates 78.51% (versus 21.49% graduate), distributed across Colleges and campuses.

Activity

Toward a profile of ownership of devices, analysis of the overall student toolkit was conducted. Some of the interesting trends are indicated in the table below. Students who own a computer (mobile or not), also tend to own a mobile phone, gaming device, and digital audio device. Of those students who indicated owning no computer (2%), 80.86% of these indicated that they own a phone, and 60.34% reported also not owning a digital audio device. Of those students indicating not owning a mobile phone, 5%, they also tended to not own a computer (8.77%).

Students were asked to indicate the extent to which they use various devices and services on a regular basis. A threshold of 'more than once a week' was presented. Student responses across activities are indicated in the table below.

• Ninety percent of students responding indicated that they presently have courses that are hosted within Blackboard. Likewise this semester ASU hosts over five thousand active courses online. It is not clear the extent to which student's interpret 'using the web' as synonymous with accessing their course material via a learning management system (such as Blackboard or Sakai). This will be further explored in the next phases of the survey and focus group process. Use of web as a factor of computer ownership was explored. Of those indicating ownership of a computer, 80.36% use the web more than once per week, and 97% use email. Of those who do not own a computer, 1.49% use the web more than once per week and 1.46% email. From this perspective, computer ownership is associated with the degree to which students use the web and email.

• Forty-five percent of students responding indicated that they use a mobile device to take class notes. Students who own a laptop computer use that device to take class notes 37.5% of the time. This figure coincides with students reporting of the extent to which they bring their computer to class. Of those students who own a laptop computer, 29.21% indicate that they bring the computer to class to every class. Students expressed several factors impacting their decision to not carry a computer to class, including the absence of wireless internet access throughout classrooms, and difficulty locating convenient power outlets and comfortable seating. Personal choice was also cited as a prominent factor; "don't want to carry it".

• Sixty-two percent of respondents who identified themselves as owning a laptop computer indicated that they would purchase a computer under ASU's 1:1 computing plan. Sixty percent of those who identified themselves as currently owning an Apple computer indicate that they would run both Apple OS and Windows.

Also of note was the level of detail provided in the responses. On the topic of disk space as example. Assumption may be that students would desire as much disk as possible. The more storage the better. Responses however were tempered and rational. Students indicated the desire for remote storage commensurate with requirements of their program. Throughout the responses, a trend in a desire for integrated resources was observed. Rather than a call for a "one-product solution", such as a single course management system, the responses indicate a desire for easily accessed (single sign-on or 'one click') to a collection of services and resources.

Toward a "Learning Platform"

Emphasis was placed on gathering student perceptions on the 'Ideal' learning environment. What features and functions would in their view be most advantageous to their experience at ASU. We examined the experience that student's bring to ASU (see tables below). In exploring those who indicated support of a fee, those indifferent and those opposing, ratings of the priorities were consistent. Wireless everywhere, Ubiquitous connectivity, inside classrooms and throughout the campuses was of highest priority, a must-have for the learning platform. This priority is consistent with descriptions of the ideal learning platform as featuring web-based tools. Students report familiarity and use with the resources available to the general public (myspace, facebook, google, gmail, flickR, Writely--now GoogleDocs), these tools and resources necessitate of course, connectivity.

Student Technology Fee

Would it be useful for ASU to create a model in which student's pay a technology fee to advance technology and support services? Responses from students were 33% indicating yes, 31% no, and 36% indifferent. The priority of features and support was also consistent across campuses and between graduate and undergraduate students. Further examination of the priorities that students place on application of a fee were explored through open-ended questions, providing some insight to the services should be enabled through a fee.

Through analysis of fixed response and open ended questions, the most prominent requests include:

• Wireless everywhere

• Laptop support for 1:1 computing

• Common computing areas

• Automatic creation of podcasts for all lectures

• Mobile phone services

• a print quota rather than per-page charges

Students were provided opportunity to elaborate on their responses through open-ended questions and write-in fields. One trend in priorities relates to 'print services'. Student's express desire for inclusion of a print quota--the ability to print a specific number of pages on University printers as part of the technology fee. Access to software was also consistently cited, with primary interest in products from Microsoft (office, word, powerpoint, excel) and Adobe. Helpdesk support was also frequently referenced -- with specification of 7x24 support capable of providing assistance with all aspects of technology use and access. Student's elaborated that support capable of looking beyond one specific problem, to address interrelated challenges such as features within the course management system, 'Real' helpdesk support, not merely system status or the ability to report a problem. Comfortable environments to use laptops -- comfortable chairs, power outlets, access to coffee and snacks. Student's described the desire to be able to access learning resources anywhere. Several referenced the desire for community/public areas that also allow for access and connectivity. An area 'like Starbucks', but with more power outlets, and more comfortable chairs.

There was an even breakdown of responses was noted across categories when students were asked if they would be willing to pay for a tech fee upfront. More specific questioning will take place during focus groups. Students were also asked what services they would a tech fee to be applied to; wireless access ranked highest (81.04%) and software lowest (26.94%), however many students wrote in that they would like to see printing quotes put into place instead of a per page fee.

Would it be useful to you if you paid a technology fee upfront, instead of having to pay for services as needed?

What services should be enabled through a fee?

Types of software indicated in write-in entry fields called primarily for Microsoft Office tools (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) and Adobe products (Photoshop, Acrobat). Frequent reference was made toward a fixed-number of print copies available per semester--as part of a quota rather than paying per-page as needed.

Podcasts

Sixty-two percent of the students responding indicated a desire to have podcasts of their courses available. On how students anticipate accessing the podcast, 55% prefer access via their laptop computer, 35% on a portable audio player, and 33% a desktop computer. The desire to access via a laptop may appear counter intuitive on first glance. However, as format of 'Podcasts' continue to evolve, the capabilities of this distribution approach span a range of formats; from an audio file, to enhanced podcasts which combine audio with graphics such as slides, synchronized to the audio, text files such as handouts and readings, and 'video podcasts', which can be viewed on a video enabled portable device -- as well as via a computer. As a learning tool, the majority indicate they would use their portable computer for access. A benefit of the flexibility of 'podcast' is the ability for students to access material in various formats depending on need and circumstance. A concern when making audio versions of courses available is that the student's will stop coming to class. Experience across institutions who make podcasts available has not shown this to be the case. Several other circumstances impact the way that podcasts 'impact' instruction--perhaps the most significant is an approach by which the podcast is approaches not as merely an audio version of the classroom experience, but instead as another resource or tool toward instructional delivery. Student's anticipated use of podcasts supports this view -- with 71% indicating they would use podcasts when a class is missed, 55% re-visit lectures for better understanding and review, and 42% for access to additional, supplementary materials made available by the instructor. Ultimately the use of podcast is directly influenced by the way in which the instructor incorporates the resource into the instructional experience. 'podcast' does not by nature imply live creation and distribution, but can also include pre-design materials and resources - or material constructed following the class session. This range of capabilities carries great potential for expanding and enhancing the learning experience.

In Summary...and The Future

We asked students to indicate how they would envision technology in education three years from now. Initial analysis of these open-ended questions indicate emphasis on interactive lectures, constant connectivity and interaction, digital textbooks, audio and text versions of all classes. At the same time, a theme of "fear of losing 'touch' and ability to communicate" emerges. Also expressed is a caution against becoming an "all online"-- with elaboration suggesting that concern for 100% online courses taking the place of direct, interaction with faculty and other students. Interestingly interaction is not necessarily referenced as in-class, lecture, but rather the ability to engage with instructors and peers, via technology as well as in person. 'Blur' the distinction between in-class and online was another frequent answer. As more detailed analysis of the open ended questions is conducted, results will be made available along with initial reports from the student focus groups.

The present survey provides important information on the current state of student computing at ASU. While no survey can provide a comprehensive overview of every need and perspective of every student, in every situation, through careful consideration of the information expressed by the thousands of students participating in this activity, we are provided a valuable framework upon which we can extend our understanding and awareness. Most importantly, we have established a means of communication and expression. The keen insight and observation offered us by these students is significant in and of itself, and speaks highly of the level of interest and commitment of ASU students toward improving our educational environment. Likewise through your involvement in reading this summary, and in participating in our ongoing effort to develop, implement and constantly refine our Learning Platform, we each contribute to the future of ASU, a New American University.

Dr. Samuel DiGangi

Associate Vice President

Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

University Technology Office

Associate Professor

Mary Lou Fulton College of Education

sam@asu.edu

480.965.2047

Dr. Angel Jannasch-Pennell

Assistant Vice President

Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

University Technology Office

angel@asu.edu

480.965.3906

The Design Research methodology, as based on the Columbia University model, guides our collaborations with faculty partners. Together, we work through an iterative cycle of research, development, and assessment to create innovative uses of technology in the field of new media teaching, learning and research.

Design Research integrates the exploration and development of digital technologies with pedagogical theory and practice. alt^I rejects the long-standing division between theory-oriented educational research and service-oriented technical support and development. We seek to combine research and practice in a process that can best be summarized with a simple phrase: "build to learn."

The Design Research process for developing classroom innovations begins by partnering with faculty members to discuss their teaching practices. This conversation unfolds in a series of discussions around the following stages to incorporate successful innovative practices into the University's repertoire of academic tools:

• Initial Understanding of Curriculum: What is the purpose of this course within the department's curriculum? We begin by analyzing a course's curricular context.
• Problems and Challenges: What kind of challenges does this course pose? We work to identify specific challenges and obstacles that make up the learning environment.
• Design Hypothesis: How can technology be used to facilitate learning? We work with faculty to articulate and identify new media solutions to enhance the educational experience.
• Design of the Educational Experience: What learning experiences does the design enable? The project is implemented in the classroom and its use is closely monitored.
• Educational Experience: What learning experiences does the design enable? The project is implemented in the classroom, and its use is closely monitored.
• Discussion of Research and Evaluation: What have we learned? We evaluate the process and articulate conclusions for improving the project. It is important to mention that this discussion is made possible through continuous documentation throughout the entire process. The evaluation process informs future iterations.