CSAC guidelines

Teams of administrators and faculty from around the province developed the College Standards and Accreditation Council—CSAC—guidelines for each program grouping and for generic skills outcomes for all programs. When the outcomes were developed and accepted by CSAC, all programs in that cluster would be required to demonstrate how they were achieving the vocational, general education, and generic skills outcomes as outlined in the standards documents. The Ministry said that they would use success in meeting these outcomes as a requirement for continued accreditation of the program.

This initiative was significant for many reasons; for technological literacy it meant that programs without computer skills instruction were forced to include a course to meet the CSAC technological literacy generic outcomes.

Budget crisis

At around the same time that the Ministry began the CSAC initiative, colleges in Ontario faced a major budget crisis. Funding was drastically cut, and all colleges looked for ways to reduce costs and increase income. CSAC standards still applied, including technology literacy. For colleges that had under funded information technology infrastructure, the requirement became a significant financial burden.

Seneca College is a two-year institution with five campuses in and around Toronto, Ontario. Seneca contributed leaders to a number of the provincial CSAC teams, and the College was (and is) an acknowledged leader in information technology. When faced with budget problems, rather than solve them with layoffs and program cuts, the College evaluated what to continue, what to drop, and what new courses to add.

We found that every student needs computer skills—technological literacy. In the introductory computer courses offered, students complained that the labs were stuck in detail; they wanted more practice and less lecture.

Seneca survived the budget crunch, if a little battered and bruised, with a clear mandate for the future and a plan to achieve it.

Academic IT Plan

While dealing with budget issues, a great disparity in computer resources across programs came to light. Many programs had no access to computer facilities or faculty who could teach the technological literacy skills required by CSAC. There were no standards for computer labs or software, so there was a hodgepodge of equipment and software across all campuses. A budget task force recommended the establishment of a common minimum standard for all computer equipment and software in the labs and an Academic Information Technology Plan to be jointly funded by the College and the students.

As a result of this recommendation, the College in partnership with the student government established an academic IT fee that is levied to all full-time students every semester and a prorated fee for all part-time students. With over 15,000 full-time and 60,000 part-time students and matching funds from the College, this budget now exceeds three million dollars. The Academic IT fee is dedicated to technology used to directly benefit students. Students approve increases to the fee and the plan for how the money will be spent.

After the fee was instituted in 1995, the first initiative was to upgrade labs to a minimum standard and to increase the number of machines across the College. A frantic summer was spent throwing out all equipment and installing new machines, software, data lines and servers. Money was provided for student support in the labs, dial-up lines were installed, and all students were issued an id and password for Internet access.

We thought students would know how to use the equipment and the Internet. Wrong. Students received their log-on with their student cards, as a separate piece of paper; many students lost the paper and, when required to use it later in the semester, had no recall of ever having received it.

Students were unable to avail themselves of the technology. It became obvious that we needed to educate our students on how to use technology and that we needed someone to champion the cause. So the College created a new position—Executive Dean, with primary responsibility for Academic IT—to deal with all things computer-related.

So the stage was set for ICA001. We had the equipment. We had an Executive Dean. We had a mandate – from the government and from the College. We had students demanding change. All we needed was a plan that cost almost nothing.

With no additional funding available, it was clear that the solution to our technological literacy course would be independent study. The Vice-President Academic asked the Executive Dean to develop an independent but assisted learning course in technological literacy for all first semester students. The course was for two hours credit and factored into the hours for each program. There could be no lay-offs of teaching staff resulting from the course. For programs with an existing introduction to technological literacy course, a second course could be added using funds and faculty previously allocated to the introductory course.

Starting in January 1995, the Executive Dean started holding book fairs and demonstrations of independent study materials for technological literacy. Faculty and administrators were invited to attend these sessions and give their feedback on what they had seen. Based on these reviews, a short list was compiled of the best possible products.

In May a team of eight faculty members was selected to help with the development of the course and selection of the product. The faculty came from across the College and shared an interest in looking at alternative delivery modes and some familiarity with computers. The team, working with the Executive Dean, had two months to develop the subject outcomes to satisfy the CSAC guidelines, select the product to use, develop the evaluation criteria, and work out the scheduling and staffing logistics.

The Executive Dean then had July and August to make sure all of the labs were ready, staff was hired, the product was in the bookstores, and all programs understood how the course would work.

One of the first decisions was to determine if we were going college wide or running a pilot project. Initially we thought we would look at a pilot project, the team moved towards full implementation. This meant we would be offering a brand new course, in a new mode, with new equipment, and some skeptical and even hostile faculty, to about 8,000 first semester students. But that is what happened.

The next decision revolved around the choice of picking the product or developing the course outline first. The team decided not to let the product drive the course but instead to supplement material if necessary to meet the learning outcomes. As with any group process, there were divergent viewpoints on what was required. The team came up with enough learning outcomes to fill four courses. So, the work of negotiation and compromise began in earnest. At the end of the May the team had arrived at a course outline that articulated what they felt met a minimum level of technological literacy for all students that included word processing, spreadsheets, computer concepts, email and use of the Internet. The Executive Dean then had July and August to make sure all of the labs were ready, staff was hired, the product was in the bookstores and all programs understood how the course would work.

One of the first decisions was whether to go college wide or run a pilot project. Initially we thought we would look at a pilot project but the difficulties presented and the issues around equity steered the team towards full implementation. This meant we would be offering a brand new course in a new mode with new equipment and some skeptical and even hostile faculty, to about 8,000 first semester students. But that is what happened.

The next decision was whether to first choose the product or develop the course outline. The team decided not to let the product drive the course but instead to supplement material if necessary to meet the learning outcomes.

As with any group process, there were divergent viewpoints on what was required. The team came up with enough learning outcomes to fill four courses. So, the work of negotiation and compromise began in earnest.

By the end of the May the team had created a course outline that met a minimum level of technological literacy for all students, including word processing, spreadsheets, computer concepts, email, and the use of the Internet.

The Executive Dean invited publishers with products on the short list to come in and make a presentation to the team and anyone else who wanted to attend. Each group was given an hour and a half with specific areas to cover. We developed an evaluation form to assist team members and provide feedback to the publishers. Each publisher presented and the faculty had an opportunity to ask questions and review ancillary materials.

At the end of this process, two companies were asked to provide products for a more in-depth review by the faculty. Faculty then met with company representatives to get answers to any additional questions they might have had after the review. The faculty then chose McGraw-Hill’s Laudon, Interactive Computing as the product to use in the course. The package included CDs for Microsoft Word and Excel and computer concepts.

Staffing

The team decided a technician at each campus would be responsible for general operation of the course. Co-op students from the College’s Computer Studies’ program would be hired to provide technical support for students in the labs. Faculty advisors would be available if a student was experiencing significant difficulties with the course. Faculty would offer seminars on specific topics that students could attend if they had problems or wanted more assistance.

Scheduling

At first it was thought that students’ time would be open, but the faculty team felt very strongly that students needed structure. Two hours a week were scheduled into a lab for all students, requiring many labs to be completely dedicated to ICA001 in the fall semester. The faculty seminars would run several times a week and a schedule distributed. To add further structure, certain weeks were designated as test weeks when students were expected to sit their tests in a specific element of the course such as Word.

Email and Internet materials

Since the network environment was unique to the College, the team decided to create custom materials for email and using the Internet to be shrink wrapped with the McGraw-Hill package.

Evaluation policy

To ensure students’ mastery of all elements of the course, we decided that each element had to be passed with a grade of 70 or better. The students would be given two attempts at each test. The grades for the course would be “SAT” or “UNSAT”. If students had been working away and doing the tests, but were unable to finish by the end of the semester, they would be given an incomplete grade, INC, and allowed to finish the next semester at no cost.

Union issues

Because Ontario Colleges have two bargaining units, one for faculty and one for support staff, only faculty could develop the course outline, tests and their marking scheme, and promotion policy. Co-op students and the technicians were in the labs, not to teach, but only to provide technical assistance to the students.

The faculty on the team developed six versions of each test and marking schemes which clearly outlined how each questioned was to be graded. Co-op students could mark the tests according to the marking scheme objective grading. Technicians would load the grades into the student database. The Executive Dean’s name went on the student transcripts as the teacher of record.

Infrastructure requirements

The College at that time used bubble cards to submit grades, but no one wanted to enter 8,000 cards each semester! The College’s IT department developed a system to track each student on a database and, at the end of the semester, ran a program to calculate the grade and upload the grades to the student database prior to running transcripts.

Advance standing credit

The team expected that many students would come to college with basic technological literacy. Since this course was a credit course at college level, the team decided that students entering college would need a computer credit from a recognized post-secondary institution to receive advance standing.

Testing

Testing would be done as much as possible live within the Word and Excel applications. The IT department wrote a system to deliver tests to the students on-line; students would toggle back and forth between the test and the application, complete the assignment, save their work to disk, and the print a copy of the output to hand in to the co-op student in the lab. The Concepts test was true/false, delivered on-line, marked automatically by the computer, and then grades were loaded into the student database.

Implementation

With this work completed and decisions made at the end of June, the faculty team left for vacation. The Executive Dean coordinated with many groups to prepare for fall. Seneca’s IT department updated labs, wrote and tested programs, and trained staff to install the application programs. The Registration Office mailed a notice to all students to announce the course and requirements and, and they developed the process for scheduling. The College’s Bookstore made sure packages were coded and on the shelves for September. Three technicians were hired to look after the sites and they, in turn, worked with the Dean to develop a training program for the new co-ops students serving as lab monitors.

September 1 came and we entered full implementation. Did it work? Mostly. Were there problems? Lots—but none that could not be solved. The Dean and the three technicians put in lots of extra hours over the summer and the fall. The IT department encountered lots of technical challenges but learned a lot that has been used in other areas of the College. The IT staff setting up labs and installing the software put in countless hours and were in the College for the entire Labour Day week-end prior to classes starting. The good news was: we all survived.

Today ICA001 is a much more flexible course. The whole course is managed on line, including online assessment using McGraw-Hill’s SimNet Xpert. All students are required to demonstrate proficiency in computer concepts, MS Word, two other MS Office applications—Excel, PowerPoint or Access—and email and the Internet.

Students can test out of the course, with no cost at this time to take the challenge test.

With the new SimNet product, students have access to all of the training modules for a full three semesters, so if they want to refresh or learn another application on their own, they can do so no additional cost.

Now only two technicians look after the course, with a reduced number of co-op students, since all of the marking is done automatically. In the fall of 2003, eleven co-op students and two technicians dealt with 8,000 full-time students on five campuses. A lead technician hires and trains the co-ops, acts as the interface with McGraw-Hill on ordering P.I.N. numbers and any issues around the product, and works with the College’s IT department to ensure the system runs efficiently.

Students can book their tests and challenge tests with an on-line booking system developed by the IT department. Since they can work from home and at any time they want, taking tests is the only time they have to be in a lab. Many students choose to skip class and work independently. To maximize efficiency of the labs, students have only one hour of lab time that is uniquely theirs. This scheduling system allows us to use only half the lab space we allocated at the beginning.

Students now buy a P.I.N. card from the bookstore that gives them access to the tutorials and testing. We no longer have books, CDs, or paper tutorials to deal with. In the first class they receive one piece of paper with the basics of how to get started and directing them to the ICA001 homepage. All of the information they need to get through the course is located on that homepage, with contact information for the technicians and co-ops.

The first year the course was running, there was some resistance from faculty and the Executive Dean made many presentations to Academic Council on the success rate of the course. Now most faculty members have bought into the course and are integrating assignments into their courses that build on the skills learned in ICA001. Several areas of the College have used ICA001 to reach first semester students to make them aware of policies. For example, the College’s acceptable use policy for IT is incorporated into the required email assignment.

The suggested sequence of course topics has changed. Initially students were required to do computer concepts first; the failure rate the first year was staggering. The sequence was changed to start with Internet and Email, then Word and Excel followed by computer concepts. The failure rate dropped dramatically.

Since all tests are taken and marked on-line, students get automatic feedback—and they love it. There are actual cheers in the room when students get their grade back from the computer.

We have no faculty involved with the course in the full-time programs. We discontinued the seminars after the first year when it became evident that students were able to independently master the material. One semester we had over 25 seminars scheduled and only three students attended.

Lessons learned from ICA001

We learned a lot from planning and developing our technological literacy course. First and foremost, the product must be engaging. When we did the initial review of the products we had some students work through the two short listed products along with the faculty and found the students were inattentive if they disliked the voice or found the product boring, which they told us very explicitly.

It is essential to have someone in charge of the course who understands the academic area and has credibility with faculty and administration. The Executive Dean had been a faculty member and a Chair in Computer Studies prior to moving into this position. There has to be a clear vision and commitment from the Academic VP.

There needs to be faculty buy in. The course had to be seen as no threat to instructors’ jobs or hours. This course is a success because programs without computer literacy courses for their students got the course at no additional cost. Areas with an intro computer course could free up money and time for other coursework. This worked well for students, and the faculty had time for more challenging work.

Perseverance is essential. There will be problems but they can be resolved through communication and problem solving. Technology has its challenges but at Seneca it is much more stable than it was when we began ICA001.

Good staffing is critical. The technicians for this course and the co-op students are the chief advocates for ICA001. Our hiring for co-ops changed after the first year when we looked for students with the best technical skills; now we assume co-ops have the technical skills, and we select for communication and people skills. They are positive and encourage the students not to give up in those first critical weeks when everything at college seems so overwhelming. The staff needs training to understand their roles and then some freedom to take ownership of the course.

A good working relationship with the publisher is essential. We worked with a full team from the publisher including sales, marketing, and technical representation and this team had the support of the upper echelon of the company. While we were meeting and reviewing products, we had publishers who brought their senior management to attend the briefings and offer support, while in other cases only the marketing and technical representatives were present. In our case, we felt it was important to know up front that there was buy-in from the top of both the College and the publisher, since we were breaking new ground.

On occasion, the McGraw-Hill representative personally delivered packages to get them into the hands of the students on time. When CDs failed, an exchange program was set up. When it was time to change versions of the operating system or software applications, the publishing representative kept us up to date on what is happening and what will be available.

You need to be very clear about what you want in a product and why you want it. In our case, we wanted a product that would work in the Office application in addition to simulation, and we had to emphasize that decision with publishers numerous times. Don’t give in to pressured sales talks, if you are sure your decision is the right one.

Students like the confidence they get from being successful with an independent study course. Most of the students at Seneca had done little independent work, and they feared that they would fail. With good staff, equipment, and product, they learned they could work successfully on their own.

The College has a large English as a Second Language population and there was concern that these students would do poorly without a teacher in the room. Our research has shown that they, too, succeed in the course.

ESL students like to be able to hear the concepts, see them on the screen, try them out, and take practice tests. If they miss something, they can go back and do it over and over again until they understand it. An instructor with a typical class or 35 or 40 students finds it very hard to give such personalized attention.

Appropriate computer resources must be available to students and staff. There must be enough machines with the right horsepower so that students do not get frustrated and quit.

The subject must be reviewed on an on-going basis. Initially the Executive Dean, the faculty team, the technicians, the co-ops, IT staff and the publisher representatives met each semester to look at issues and successes. The co-ops and technicians provided so the feedback on areas of difficulty and we changed the course. This process also allowed us to keep the faculty team involved and engaged. The meetings are not held any longer but there are still regular messages that go out to the academic areas about changes in the course.

The same material can be used to educate staff on technological literacy. The tests can be used when screening applicants for jobs that require a level of technological literacy.

While more students are challenging out of the course than when we first started, we still find they come to college without the level of technological literacy that we thought they would have. Each year we anticipate that the course will become remedial, but not so far. Many students are familiar with the Internet, downloading video and music, chat rooms, email and some word processing but their ability to use the technology to solve a problem remains limited.

The Future of ICA0011

Our fervent hope is that ICA001 as it is now configured will become a remedial course for foreign or mature students who have not had an opportunity to become computer literate. Students could be tested and put into a more advanced course based on their level skills or in the existing ICA001.

Since we have demonstrated that first semester students can learn in this mode with appropriate support, we will explore other opportunities to apply the knowledge and systems we have built up. One possible application is the student success course offered across the College. Many of these courses have similar modules that could be put into independent study modules. Professors could pick and choose how to use the modules while offering a hybrid course. Students who not offered a success course could do independent study. The possibilities are limitless.

Judith Limkilde

Dean, Applied Arts & Health Sciences

Seneca College

Judith.Limkilde@senecac.on.ca

Judy Irvine

Educational Software Support

Seneca College

Judy.Irvine@senecac.on.ca

For information on McGraw-Hill SimNet:

Bill Bayer

Director, New Media

Bill.Bayer@mcgraw-hill.com