This new publication is the first in a series of reports to emerge from the joint efforts of SHEEO and the California State University System, under the auspices of Educom's National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII). These reports will examine the application of technology to the educational challenges of our time. The purpose of this report is to explore the policy and implementation issues involved in providing universal student access to technology, which means ensuring each student has 24-hour access to a laptop computer and the Internet. What follows is a summary of major points addressed in the report.
State and institutional leaders are asking higher education to assist students in reaching a higher level of learning productivity. Because information technology promises learning productivity improvements, institutions are looking for ways to provide students with greater access to technology resources. For a variety of reasons, the emphasis has shifted away from public access computer labs located on campuses. The emerging model is for students to "own" a laptop computer and have 24-hour access to a computer network.
Why provide students with 24-hour access to a networked laptop? One reason is because of the growing importance of networked information and communications. Students must be able to access the information resources that are integrated into their educational experience. The goal is any time, any place access to information resources.
The rationale for universal access arises from the following factors:
1) The increasing amount and dynamic nature of knowledge that students must absorb: The body of recorded knowledge is growing at such a rapid rate that it is no longer possible for traditional tools (paper formats) to keep pace. As the availability of electronic information increases--from libraries, museums, and other sources--the amount of time that each student spends using a computer will increase. Personal, continuous access to computers and the network becomes a necessity that will enable information resources to be integrated into the student's academic experience.
2) Changes in educational paradigms: Technology can serve as a catalyst for change from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches to education. When faculty and students can assume a high level of access to technology, more active forms of learning can be encouraged. Classes can be structured so that students learn by doing and discovery instead of passively receiving information delivered by faculty. Universal student access focuses on the student as an independent producer of learning rather than a passive customer of teaching.
3) A desire for improved communications: Communication between faculty and students can be enhanced by access to networked computers. For example, a student can post a question to a faculty member by e- mail instead of seeking out the professor during office hours. With assured access among faculty and students, computer-mediated communications may also replace less efficient media such as class handouts or hallway postings.
4) The rapid pace of technological change: With new products entering the market on six to nine month cycles, institutions with universal access strategies are better able to keep pace. Lease arrangements, for example, may allow computers to be replaced annually or bi-annually.
5) The changing nature of students: Many students work part-time or full-time, are motivated by career or work-related factors, and have family commitments -- all of which make it difficult or impossible to use campus computer labs. Responding to the needs of nontraditional students will be crucial to the competitive success and even survival of many institutions.
Universal access to technology not only maximizes the learning productivity of students, increases the relevance of higher education to students and society, but it also enhances equity of access to information and education. The disadvantaged student should not be excluded from the benefits of technology because he or she cannot afford to buy a computer. Students with the means to purchase computers are already doing so (national estimates are around 40%), giving them a significant advantage over students who must rely on computer labs. Computer labs often have outdated equipment, are only available during limited hours, and are often overcrowded. As demand for access to technology grows, this situation can only worsen. The universal access strategy offers an opportunity to address disparities of access to information resources.
With colleges and universities already facing enormous financial pressures, strategies such as universal access to a networked computer must make good financial sense. Expenditures that do not contribute directly to the learning productivity of students--and their ability to gain the knowledge to succeed in a competitive world economy--will be difficult to justify to either policymakers or students. The costs for universal access must be borne jointly by the student and the institution. Financing issues raised by institutions with existing universal access policies include the means by which a student possesses a computer (loan, lease, purchase, etc.), the decision to assess a technology fee or build the cost into a tuition increase, financial aid issues, and funding the network infrastructure necessary to support universal access.
In implementing a universal access strategy, institutions must decide whether to slowly phase-in the policy or adopt it in one step for all students. Decisions must be made on whether to adopt a single model of machine for all students, allow differences among departments/disciplines, or to allow the student to decide what kind of computer to purchase. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each decision.
Introduction of a universal student access policy represents a major shift in the way an institution operates. It impacts many aspects of institutional culture, and thus requires significant planning before successful implementation occurs. Extensive dialog with students, faculty, administrators, executive management, and governing bodies is necessary to enhance support. Typical concerns of faculty members involve making a hasty or "radical" decision, ulterior motives for the decision, depersonalizing education, faculty development/tenure criteria, and student affordability. While students may initially resist universal access programs, they are quickly convinced that these programs are in their best interest. They believe that exposure to technology applications will give them a competitive advantage in the job market upon graduation. So far, institutions that have announced universal access programs have seen the number of applicants for admission rise, while also eliciting enthusiasm and support from employers and the public.
Several institutions that have successfully implemented or are in the process of implementing a universal access strategy include the University of Minnesota--Crookston (contact Bruce Brorson, Internet: [email protected]), Sonoma State University (contact Mark Resmer, Internet: mailto:%[email protected]), Wake Forest University (contact Larry Henson, Internet: mailto:%[email protected]), and Drexel University (contact Arthur McMahon, Internet: mailto:%[email protected]
To order the full report, contact Cathy Walker at SHEEO, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado 80202. (303-299-3686). Each copy is $18.00 including shipping and handling. Phone orders with purchase order numbers only; no credit cards.