Providing Students and Visitors With Kiosk-Based Campus Information System

Copyright CAUSE 1994. This paper was presented at the 1993
CAUSE Annual Conference held in San Diego, California,
December 7-10, and is part of the conference proceedings
published by CAUSE. Permission to copy or disseminate all or
part of this material is granted provided that the copies are
not made or distributed for commercial advantage, that the
CAUSE copyright notice and the title and authors of the
publication and its date appear, and that notice is given
that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for
managing and using information technology in higher
education. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish
in any form, requires written permission from CAUSE. For
further information:  CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite
302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303449-4430; e-mail
info@cause.colorado.edu



Background

"I don't keep regular hours: I work and I go to a community 
college and a university.  I don't necessarily need to see a 
person every time I need information.  I expect that there will be 
some sort of system in place so that I can access information at 
my convenience.  That doesn't mean that it's available just during 
the day.  I can be at home, at work, and I take night classes as 
well.  I need to have the information when it is convenient.  Some 
may say that this is difficult, but this is the way that I need to 
have it to continue my education.  I'm in a different generation 
than my parents: the slacker generation, Generation X, the MTV 
generation, whatever you call it.  We want things differently; it 
has to be slick, captivating, visually appealing, pleasing.  
Society is pumping all these images at me that really catch my 
attention so its kind of difficult to focus in on a static type of 
media.  I really like getting good service when I need it; most of 
the time I need to know something to continue on and if I have to 
go through a bureaucracy to get to it, I may never even both to do 
it or be frustrated as I try to get that service."

Does Fred sound like a student on your campus?  He represents a 
new generation of students to enter higher education:

  * they are computer literate, if not fluent;
  * they have an urgency about them in obtaining information, 
services, and instruction, based upon their personal obligations, 
work commitments, and academic goals; and
  * they expect the same or better level of service from their 
campus environment that they are able to obtain in their 
commercial world.

How do the faculty and staff feel who work with this type of 
student as well as the more traditional students? Many of those 
who were attracted to their professions are frustrated by the 
amount of time that they must spend in "search and retrieval" non-
professional activities.  For example, advisors must take time in 
searching through various text files and making several phone 
calls for current information regarding which support services may 
be available to their students: at what time, in which location 
and whom to contact.  As advisors provide guidance to students 
regarding their course of study, they typically must take time to 
search through the many hard copy versions of catalogs to find the 
appropriate one for a particular student and then make a "judgment 
call" regarding an exception to the prescribed curriculum to 
accommodate the students "unusual" circumstances.  The time taken 
for search and retrieval is time that could have been devoted to 
advising students with specialized circumstances and to designing 
expert systems that could serve more students.

You may have reduced the number of staff in your office, perhaps 
through an early retirement program.  While your enrollments may 
be steady, there are more part-time students who place increased 
demands for information upon your staff.  The work week is in 
excess of forty hours not nearly long enough to offer students the 
level of service that you would like to provide.  Have you 
recently determined how much time a staff person spends in 
providing a duplicate class schedule to students during the first 
week of class; how many students request an official transcript 
during the semester; and do staff in the Financial Aid office 
spend most of their time answering inquiries regarding the status 
of students' awards?

With issues of this nature confronting higher education, many 
institutions are looking for effective strategies to respond.  One 
source of expertise is the business and industry community.  Stan 
Davis and Bill Davidson, in their book, 2020 Vision, suggests that 
organizations can renew themselves by creatively using a 
plentiful, but unrecognized, resource within higher education.  He 
states,

"In every economy, the core technology becomes the basis for 
revitalization and growth.  Information technologies are the core 
for today's economy, and to survive all businesses must 
"informationalize." From small mom-and-pop stores to giant global 
corporations, the point to grasp is not merely that all economic 
activities will depend upon information to create and control 
their destiny.  We've heard that already.  And while it's true, 
this truth manifests itself so slowly - over decades - that people 
have tired of it.  For many, it is the unpoured honey.  Instead of 
focusing on its not-so-newness, we must focus on the growing power 
and consequences of this truth.  The point is that the economic 
value from generating, using, and selling information is growing 
significantly faster than the value added by producing traditional 
goods and services.  ...The value of any product can be increased 
by incorporating intelligence, information content, and services."  
1

The authors maintain that the assumptions in 2020 Vision are 
applicable in the higher education context.  To make the advice 
relevant, however, one must assume that the "products" of higher 
education are service, instruction, and research.  The consumers 
of these products are students.  To respond to the current and 
emerging needs of these consumers, the authors suggest that 
institutions improve the information content of services provided 
to students, allow students to conduct their own business 
transactions using information technology, and provide students 
with an information-enriched and accessible, learning environment.

The purpose of this paper will be to illustrate how institutions 
can create new, service-related products based upon the effective 
use of information resources.  The authors first, will identify 
the factors that accelerate or decelerate the process of creating 
new products by optimizing information resources; second, will 
present a model to "informationalize" colleges and universities; 
and third, will describe how one institution, Sinclair Community 
College, has begun to informationalize its campus environment and 
creatively design a new product: an expert system for advising. 
The paper is organized into the following sections: (1) Problem 
Statement, (2) Conceptual Model, (3) Application, and (4) Summary 
and Conclusion.

Section One:
Problem Statement

There is growing evidence that higher education is in a paradigm 
shift, although there is great variability among institutions as 
they accelerate/decelerate the process of change.  The factors 
that contribute to the process of change are organized in this 
paper into the following categories: social, political, economic, 
and technological.  Some factors pertain to the vestiges of 
tradition and others are the harbingers of the future 
"enterprise." These latter factors are the catalysts creating a 
paradigm shift within institutions who are transforming from an 
"industrialized" single entity organization to an 
informationalized, "enterprise-wide" educational network.

Social

There are at least three social factors that stimulate the 
informationalizing process.  The first is the heterogeneous 
student body.  For a number of years, higher education has 
acknowledged the changing demography of its student body.  To 
reiterate these characteristics, the students of today are older, 
more ethnically diverse, more part-time, and more diverse in their 
learning styles than were their predecessors. The implication of 
this heterogeneous student body is that institutions must offer 
information more conveniently, easily, and use more than one 
medium of communication and instruction.

The second factor is that the high school graduates now entering 
higher education are a "product" of the "media generation."  They 
learn from "infotainment."  When these students sit in a large 
lecture class with only the professor at the front of the 
classroom, the student's attention wanes, despite the expertise 
and experience of the professor. Many of these students have 
become accustomed to communicating electronically, performing 
simulations using Nintendo games, and are heavy users of desktop 
software tools.  However, one must also recognize that there are 
many other students who are not a part of the media generation and 
are not comfortable with technology.  They seem to prefer large, 
anonymous lecture classes; but, like their younger counterparts, 
they too have other personal and work demands that require more 
accessibility to information.  The implication of this second 
social factor is that institutions must be prepared to provide 
multi-media in both its services and instruction as well as 
facilitate the transition from text to image processing of 
information to those whose "first language" was text-based 
information.

Political

The social factors identified above accelerate the process to 
informationalize a campus.  The political factors to be identified 
in this section, however, tend to "decelerate" the 
informationalizing process. The first political factor is referred 
to as "the security shield."  The turf battle between and among 
offices regarding who owns the data is well known in higher 
education. To explain the basis of this battle, one must view 
information as a resource of power.  The person who controls the 
information, therefore, has power.  While data security is a 
legitimate requirement, data security should not be used 
inappropriately as a shield to fend off the "information 
aggressors," since these aggressors are the students and faculty 
and staff who work with these students. For example, why must 
someone in the Registrar's office have sole responsibility to 
update a student's address when the student, who actually "owns" 
this information should be able to directly input this information 
into the computer, via voice and/or a kiosk?

The second political factor is the "reluctant giver."  The 
recipients of higher education are the students and the 
communities in which they reside.  These communities, as 
formalized in governing bodies and governmental agencies, want to 
know more about the colleges and universities that they support.  
The Student Right to Know legislation is just one example of their 
need for information.  Although not publicly acknowledged, there 
is an undercurrent of reluctance among the information-rich.  They 
respond with legitimate excuses such as "they won't understand the 
context of the information; they will be comparing apples and 
oranges, and it will take one FTE six months just to provide the 
information."  While there is merit in each of these statements, 
one cannot discount the reluctance of colleges and universities to 
"charitably" donate information to their "publics."

Economic

There are four economic-related factors that can accelerate or 
decelerate the informationalizing process.  The first factor that 
could accelerate the change is the ability of institutions to 
optimize their current information resources.  The investment that 
has been made in building a robust database could be optimized; 
perhaps using the business model of "creating new products and 
markets." For example, an institution could provide new ways to 
access the data such as through voice technology and multi-media 
kiosks, thereby extending the use of the data to "new users," 
students and the community.  An institution also could use these 
data in new ways, transforming the data into information that is 
interactive and rule-based.  Using this strategy, institutions 
could extend the lifespan of their existing information resources 
while creating new products to informationalize the campus.

The second factor that could accelerate the process of change is 
the willingness of institutions to leverage their current and 
future investments by forming partnerships with other institutions 
and organizations. To do so, an institution must be willing to 
migrate out of its homogeneous environment into a heterogeneous 
one that includes other higher education institutions, K-12, 
governmental agencies, and business and industry.  The network, or 
highway of communication, now offers institutions the capability 
to share information resources that traditionally might reside in 
a single facility at a single institution.  Institutions may 
collaborate with hardware and software vendors to jointly develop 
new applications.

The third economic factor is the ability of institutions to 
creatively diversify their revenue portfolio.  These institutions 
are expanding their portfolios from the traditional sources of 
revenue: public appropriations, tuition, and endowments. The 
information resources in an institution may constitute a new 
source of revenue if creatively and appropriately "packaged." For 
example, businesses, such as fast food providers and copy 
services, may wish to advertise on campus kiosks and will pay, or 
at least purchase, the kiosk to do so. Promoting campus events and 
services to the community through kiosks located in shopping 
malls, as one possible high visibility location, may generate 
increased attendance at these events and utilization of these 
services on a fee basis. Another example pertains to the expertise 
available in higher education. Traditionally, professors have 
written and published books and received royalties for these 
works.  Cannot this same model be used to share other sources of 
expertise and information in the institution?  Some may regard 
such a notion as antithetical to the values and tradition of 
higher education; for some it may stimulate them to creatively and 
appropriately use all of the expertise and information resources 
of higher education to generate new sources of revenue to support 
innovation.

The fourth economic factor, interrelated with social, political, 
and technological factors, is the ability to rethink and 
restructure business processes.  The status symbol of today is not 
how many new staff you've hired this year, but rather, how much 
have you reduced your staff . The administrator who is able to do 
more with less is the one to be envied, not the administrator who 
has the largest staff. An example of one of the areas in which an 
institution may restructure is in the admissions and records 
offices. As a starting point, simple questions can be asked: how 
much time is spent, by how many staff, accessing, copying, 
stuffing envelopes, and mailing information such as transcripts, 
class schedules, and grades?  How much time do advisors and 
counselors spend in accessing information, such as the course 
catalog, referral services for students (including their location, 
office hours, and type of service) compared to time dedicated to 
focused, one-on-one counseling and advising of students with 
specialized interests and needs?

The capability for students to personally and directly access 
relevant information through voice and kiosks can immediately 
relieve staff and faculty of these time consuming, routine tasks.  
As the business world says, "time is money." Thus, not only can 
the use of information be optimized but also the amount of time 
can be reduced.  A formula can be derived to analyze the cost 
effectiveness of these tools, based upon the amount of time and 
number of people required to provide a given piece of information.

Technological

There are three technology-based factors that can accelerate the 
process of informationalizing the education enterprise.  The first 
factor is the availability of a campus-wide, externally linked, 
network.  This important institutional lifeline must connect all 
physical locations of the campus and extend the lifeline to the 
entire academic, governmental, and business communities throughout 
the world. For many institutions, however, there still are "small, 
remote communities" within the campus and organizational structure 
that do not have access to the "interstate highway system"  (e.g. 
faculty offices, classrooms, and local area networks).  Until all 
of these communities are connected to the campus and broader 
educational enterprise, institutions cannot fully informationalize 
their organizations.

The second technical factor pertains to an institution's 
information technology migration plans. Those institutions who, in 
the eighties, were regarded as "technologically advanced" because 
they had comprehensive mission critical systems operating on large 
mainframes accessible by staff from their terminals, now find 
themselves faced with becoming "technological dinosaurs."  To 
survive in this emerging environment, institutions are confronted 
with the following challenges: migrating their mission critical 
applications to a client/server architecture; equipping all 
faculty, staff, and student labs with a minimum of 486 class 
personal computers, all with network cards; building their campus 
backbone; wiring all offices and classrooms, many with voice, 
data, and video; connecting all their local area networks to the 
backbone; offering access to and training all users in the use of 
Internet; acquiring desktop software and training all employees in 
these productivity tools; and reorienting and retraining technical 
staff from "data processing" personnel to designers, network 
navigators and managers, and user consultants.  A number of 
institutions are taking an incremental approach to creating a 
client/server architecture.  For example, they have 
developed/acquired value-added applications that reside on servers 
but are linked to administrative systems that operate on the 
mainframe. To provide benefits to users as the institution is 
migrating, some institutions are using new and existing 
technologies in creative ways to optimize the use of information 
available in their current mainframe-based administrative systems.

The third technology-based factor is the creative use of existing 
and new technology. One example of the tools they are using is 
voice response technology, a capability that institutions have 
been using since the early eighties, but typically the application 
was limited to the registration process.  The trailblazer 
institutions are reconsidering and now offering students access to 
information using voice technology in a multitude of ways, among 
them the following: grades, admissions status, financial aid 
status, graduation check.  They also are facilitating the conduct 
of business through credit card voice response registration and 
providing daily updates as to campus activities.

A second example of the creative use of existing and new 
technology, and the focus of this paper, is a campus information 
system accessible on kiosks.  The concept and use of kiosks has 
been in existence for many years and in many countries.  In its 
original form a kiosk, or "kioski" was a closet sized, stand-alone 
structure that carried convenience items.  The technology-based 
kiosk enclosures became popular with the advent of Automatic 
Teller Machines (ATM).  Today we see kiosks that can present 
information in multi-media form using CDs or laser disks, can 
print screens for which the requester would like a copy, can 
include a telephone, debit card/ ID card, and offer other features 
such as a membrane keyboard and voice activation.  The convenience 
that students experience in their commercial life with ATMs 
increasingly is being offered to students and visitors on college 
and university campuses.  Institutions are beginning to "unearth" 
their embedded information resources by completing their networks, 
developing a client/server architecture, and by creatively using 
existing and new technology.

Section Two:
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework has two components.  The first pertains 
to the evolving potential of the information resource and the 
second pertains to the integration of tools to optimize the 
potential.  The first component is based upon a model that assumes 
an interrelated continuum that commences with simple, quantitative 
data and concludes with complex, qualitative wisdom.  Table 2-1 
depicts the model graphically.



Table 2-1
Information Resources Continuum Model
(TABLE NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)

The definitions used for this model are as follows:

Data: numerical information suitable for computer processing

Information: the act of informing or the state of being informed

Analyze: to separate into elemental parts or basic principles so 
as to determine the nature of the whole

Synthesize: to combine as to form a new, complex product

Knowledge: comprehension acquired by experience or study

Application: the act of putting to a special use or purpose

Wisdom: good judgment, common sense

When this model is adapted to the higher education context, the 
more common application relates to instruction and research.  For 
purposes of this paper, however, the authors have applied the 
model to other information-related aspects of higher education.  
For example, in the area of advising, there are data that are 
appropriate for computer processing. such as calculating a GPA.  
The data can be used as information when they are made available 
to students in a meaningful context such as their applicability 
toward students' educational objectives.  An advisor can analyze 
information regarding students and the choices that they make by 
determining some basic principles that apply to students 
generally.  Advisors also may synthesize the information by 
combining it with their own experience in working with students so 
that a new, enhanced understanding of student behavior can be 
derived.  The understanding acquired by an advisor working with 
students is referred to in the model as knowledge.  When students 
translate the advise into action, or application, the advisor is 
able to measure the effectiveness of his/her advise. and further 
develop wisdom, or good judgment, regarding the most effective way 
in which to advise students.  Those institutions who are 
recognizing the potential of the information resource are those 
who are translating information into its more advanced forms of 
knowledge and ultimately wisdom.

The second component of the conceptual framework pertains to 
processes and technologies to store, manipulate, access, and 
disseminate the information resources.  The first model 
illustrates the traditional way in which students access 
information.  As noted in the graphic, students typically have 
relied on family and friends for information.  When they request 
information from their institution it is either through hard copy 
written response or with a secretary or other staff member.  The 
secretary typically must obtain the information from her personal 
computer or terminal linked to the mainframe or from hardcopy 
stored in files.  Her supervisor, generally not available for 
direct student contact, "supervises" the process. To obtain 
instructional information, the student has access through books 
and classroom instruction.  This model, or paradigm, reflects many 
of the principles of the industrialized society such as a 
bureaucratic organizational structure.  --see Appendix A: 
Traditional Model

The new information model graphically depicts the student at the 
heart of the enterprise, accessing information through various 
tools such as his pc, phone, kiosk, or personal contact.  In this 
new model, the students have direct access to information and do 
not have intermediaries--or barriers-- to obtain the information 
he needs or to conduct business transactions.  The mainframe 
applications can be accessed through a server networked to 
personal computers.  Voice response technology can reside on a 
server and provide students with simple access to all the 
information-related resources of the model.  Networked kiosks, 
linked to the mainframe through a server, provide additional 
integrating technologies such as multi-media presentation of 
information resources, particularly the sharing of knowledge and 
wisdom.  The kiosks also can integrate related businesses 
processes with a single student ID/Debit card.  With these tools 
and the expertise available in higher education, institutions can 
optimize all of their information resources to create an 
informationalized, educational enterprise.

When this model is combined with the Information Continuum Model 
described above. the information can be shared with students in 
the form of knowledge and wisdom using such tools as multi-media 
kiosks where the experts are visible in full-motion video.  
Students also could use the kiosk to access an expert system for 
advising that would be either a substitute for or complement to an 
advisor, depending upon the student's particular needs.  Family 
and friends still play a key role, but they are integral to a 
students way of life and they can be accessed using technology as 
well.  Technology becomes the integrator and facilitator of 
optimizing the information resources in colleges and universities.  
The institutions who use it well are consumer drivers, not 
consumer driven, providing a student-centered, educational 
enterprise.  --see Appendix A: New Information Model

To test the premises stated in this conceptual framework, the 
authors present an example of one institution, Sinclair Community 
College, which is aggressively moving along the continuum from 
data to wisdom, using applications, tools, and technology to 
integrate all of its information-related resources.

Section Three:
Illustration

Overview

Sinclair Community College, located in Dayton, Ohio, is an example 
of an institution that is working aggressively to restructure its 
information systems and supporting administrative processes.  
Sinclair has recently replaced outdated administrative software 
with the Colleague system, a comprehensive student information 
software package marketed by Datatel, Inc.  Colleague is 
accessible campus-wide at Sinclair through an ethernet network 
with a fiber backbone, using TCP/IP protocol.  The campus network 
provides the Sinclair community with access to Internet, the 
library system, and to many software packages for office 
productivity, in addition to Colleague databases.

With these computing facilities and a strong dose of imagination, 
Sinclair has moved rapidly toward a student-centered, 
informationalized campus environment.  A centerpiece of this 
transition is the InTouch kiosk system, which offers Sinclair's 
students convenient access to data, information, knowledge, and 
even wisdom (or at least very specialized expertise).

Developed in partnership with The Robinson Group, Sinclair's 
InTouch kiosk software merges several disparate technologies into 
a smoothly integrated system for information delivery.  Multimedia 
adds appeal and ease of use; relational databases provide rapid 
access to small collections of data that are relatively stable, 
while the campus network provides real-time access to highly 
volatile information in the extensive Colleague databases.

Artificial intelligence adds an entirely new dimension to kiosk 
functionality; through an interactive dialog with the student, the 
kiosk's Intouch Counselor gives personalized recommendations and 
suggestions.  While traditional databases deal with the questions, 
"Who? What? When? Where?", the counseling expert system helps 
Sinclair students explore "What if?", "So what?" and "What does 
that mean to me?"

The concept of a "smart kiosk" grew out of a Sinclair project 
called CWEST ("Counseling With Expert Systems Technology" -- 
pronounced "quest"), which was initiated in the summer of 1990.  
CWEST was funded primarily by a grant from the State of Ohio to 
promote the use of artificial intelligence and expert systems; the 
underlying objective was the transfer of technology from military 
to civilian applications.  To this end, a team of Sinclair faculty 
and staff worked with the Center for Artificial Intelligence 
Applications (CAIA), an organization funded by the Air Force, to 
develop an expert system prototype.

Application for an Expert System

The Sinclair team selected academic advising for its expert system 
domain for several reasons:

1.  Academic advising is inherently rule-governed and logical; the 
team felt that "if-then" rules could be defined for much of the 
knowledge domain.
2.  Academic advising is an area that is familiar to almost 
everyone on campus; rather than selecting an esoteric topic, the 
Sinclair team preferred a project in which many faculty, students, 
and staff could participate.
3.  Like most community colleges, Sinclair has an insatiable need 
for counseling services (both academic and personal) due to the 
increasing numbers of under-prepared and non-traditional students, 
the diversity of its student body, and the complexity of its 
program offerings, which include a full gamut of vocational and 
university-parallel options.
4.  Recent budget cutbacks make it unlikely that Sinclair will add 
more counselors to meet the increasing demand.  An automated 
academic advisor could expand access to counseling resources 
without adding more staff.

Phase One: Design

During the first year, the CWEST team created a prototype of an 
expert system that could assist students with the selection of 
courses for the next term.  Although the prototype operated with 
only small and simplified data files, the team was convinced that 
a full-scale system could be implemented.  At that point, the 
CWEST team turned its attention to the question of an appropriate 
delivery platform.

The team decided to pursue the idea of a touch-screen kiosk, 
possibly with multimedia, so that the expert system could be made 
available in convenient locations, and the system would be 
appealing and easy to use, even by students who are not computer 
literate.  However, the decision to field the system on a touch-
screen kiosk platform had an unexpected impact on the project. 
Almost immediately, the team realized that a CWEST kiosk could be 
used for many other applications, such as maps and general campus 
information, access to mainframe information, and (perhaps) on-
line registration.

As the team sorted through kiosk application possibilities, the 
definition and scope of the CWEST project went through alternating 
cycles of expansion and contraction, accompanied by rising and 
sinking levels of enthusiasm, anxiety, and confusion on the part 
of the team members.  One fact was emerging clearly, however: the 
team's vision of CWEST had become too large an undertaking for the 
Sinclair team to complete on its own.

Phase Two: Development

The difficulty of scope and resources was resolved in December of 
1992, when Sinclair formed a partnership with The Robinson Group 
(TRG) to combine the CWEST advising expert systems with TRG's 
Intouch kiosk software.  The TRG/Sinclair partnership was formed 
after a single meeting at which demonstration software was 
exchanged.  It was immediately apparent to both parties that the 
products were complementary and compatible in concept and 
function.

In the knowledge engineering phase, the CWEST team used a 
sophisticated expert system shell for rapid prototyping. However, 
to field test the system it was necessary to rewrite all the rules 
and algorithms in other languages (ToolBook script and C, 
specifically) so that the modules would be compatible with the 
Intouch kiosk software and the touch-screen interactivity.  The AI 
modules were also redesigned internally to be primarily table-
driven, so that they can be modified with relative ease to fit 
another institution's programs and course load factors.

Phase Three: Implementation:

The software merge was accomplished during the winter and spring 
of 1993.  In May of 1993, Sinclair installed six kiosks (in six 
different buildings on campus) running the combined TRG/SCC 
Intouch software, initially in stand-alone mode. In August the 
kiosks were connected to the campus network for access to 
Colleague databases.  Since then, new features and enhancements 
are continually being added in response to suggestions of 
administrators, staff, and students, and additional kiosks will 
soon be installed on campus and at off-campus locations.  Sinclair 
is also in the process of implementing a telephone registration 
system, and is working on an interface between the kiosks and the 
telephone system.

Implications

The CWEST project, which began as an AI initiative, has evolved in 
directions unanticipated by its authors.  This is not at all 
unusual for an AI project.  In recent years, many software 
developers working with AI and expert systems are recognizing that 
AI cannot be a stand-alone technology; to be successful, AI must 
be integrated smoothly into comprehensive information systems that 
include many other components, such as relational databases, 
graphical user interfaces, multimedia, and traditional non-AI 
programming. In the Intouch system, the AI modules make up only a 
small portion of the total program code, yet they contribute dis-
proportionally to the value of the kiosk.

Based upon Sinclair's experience, the authors conclude that 
integrating expert systems and traditional software is fairly 
difficult to accomplish.  There are two fundamental reasons why 
this is the case: 1) the development process for an expert system 
is usually quite different from traditional software development 
process; and 2) the software tool kits are not usually compatible.  
The expert system tool kits (or "shells") have been designed to 
support the non-traditional style of development preferred by the 
artificial intelligentsia.

A traditional software application is designed to satisfy a very 
specific purpose which is clearly and precisely defined, usually 
in formal specifications.  Typically, every aspect of the 
application is discussed carefully with the client, and all 
decisions meticulously documented before the programmer writes a 
line of code.  A typical expert system, in contrast, is not 
exactly designed.  The process of design starts out as a fuzzy, 
ill-defined idea and then grows exponentially into a larger fuzzy 
composite of ideas.  At some point during its non-linear 
development cycle, the expert system begins to acquire a shape and 
purpose, and the authors and domain experts suddenly understand 
what it was that they meant to be doing all along.

This is a process called "knowledge engineering," and the 
development style is "iterative," which is another way of saying 
"trial and error."  It is an exploratory style in which the 
authors begin with a few "if-then" rules to solve a problem, and 
then add more and more refinements until the system behaves, more 
or less, as desired.  For example, one could start with the rule: 
"If you have a full time job and five children at home, you should 
not take any more than one class at a time." Then one could add 
more rules to advise the student about his/her credit hour load: 
level of job stress, ages of children, grade point average, the 
level of support received from home for school work, etc.  While 
this might seem to be a straight-forward process, the designers 
found out what it is not.

The first challenge (and sometimes the primary challenge) is to 
articulate clearly what the question is that the designers are 
trying to solve.  For example, the CWEST team began with the 
question, "What courses should I take next term?".  It soon became 
apparent that the scope of that question was so large and complex 
that it needed to be broken down into a series of smaller chunks, 
such as:

     "What courses do I have left to take?"
     "How many credit hours should I take?"
     "What courses are required for my major?"
     "What courses have I already taken?"
     "Which of these are offered next term?"
     "Which of these have I had the pre-reqs for?"

It might be obvious that steps two through four above are 
identical to the steps required to do a degree audit -- that is, 
matching degree requirements and completed courses to determine 
remaining requirements.  While a degree audit is a very 
challenging data processing problem, it is not necessarily an AI 
problem.  However, the first chunk, "How many credit hours should 
I take?" is exactly the kind of "squishy" and elusive problem best 
suited to an AI solution.  This question became the first chunk 
that the CWEST team set out to solve.

As many advisors are aware, credit hour load is a very critical 
question for the majority of students at community colleges -- the 
older students trying to balance their commitments to jobs and 
families along with college classes.  Although it is posed as the 
simple scheduling question, "How many credit hours should I 
take?", the credit hour load question serves as a spring board 
into an exploration of complex personal and academic issues that 
will have a bearing on the student's success.  Knowledge 
engineering, in this case, involved codifying the judgment and 
expertise of several academic counselors who have worked 
personally with hundreds (or probably thousands) of students.

Another AI module addresses the question "What major should I 
choose?"  To develop this module, the authors researched materials 
used by career counselors, such as the Strong-Campbell Interest 
Inventory, the Myers-Briggs test, and job classifications used in 
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the Department 
of Commerce.  After studying these and several other instruments, 
the CWEST team decided that none of the existing question sets was 
appropriate for the CWEST application.  Most were much too long; 
kiosk users would not have the patience to answer more than about 
20 questions.  Further, the kiosk application should be specific 
to Sinclair programs, rather than a comprehensive career advisor 
such as the DISCOVER system marketed by American College Testing 
Program, or SIGI PLUS from the Educational Testing Service.  
Finally, the questions should address academic interests as well 
as career interests, since the module is to suggest possible 
Sinclair majors, rather than job titles.

After many weeks of work, a list of relevant questions was 
narrowed down from a few hundred to about twenty.  Careful 
consideration was given to the wording of each question, so that 
the student would give as honest a reply as possible.  Then 
Sinclair's academic advisors were asked to rate each degree 
program on each of the factors, such as the program's emphasis on 
writing or math or scientific problem solving.  All of the ratings 
were entered into a database, and a matching algorithm was 
developed to match the student's responses with the ratings for 
each of the various degree programs.  When the student runs the 
module, the kiosk asks the student to rate himself on each factor, 
usually on a scale of one to ten.  The output to the student is a 
list of the five best matches.

Validation and Verification

Expert systems are notoriously difficult to test, since they deal 
with "squishy" factors, and the accuracy of the recommendation is 
a usually a matter of subjective opinion.  Further, making 
adjustments to the rules to fix one "wrong" case will frequently 
cause problems for other cases that were working correctly.

Another challenge is finding appropriate human subjects.  The 
CWEST team felt that it was very important to test the advising 
modules with many different groups of students who represent the 
diversity of our student population.  Initially our volunteer 
beta-testers came from the Accounting Club and Student Government.  
However, we found that these students tended to represent the 
higher levels of academic achievement and ability.  To find more 
representative samples, we used students who were waiting for 
appointments with counselors, and also students from first-term 
English classes.

The credit hour load module has been tested exhaustively, using 
written surveys and live beta tests.  The "major choices" module 
has also been tested extensively in beta mode, and its actual use 
is being tracked in log files where responses and recommendations 
are recorded.  These log files will be used for continuing 
evaluation of the module's recommendations.

Results

Sinclair's six kiosks have been running continuously since late 
May, 1993.  The volume of use varies from 10 to 100 users per day 
per kiosk, with the peak activity (to date) during the 
registration period for Fall Quarter.  While all of the main menu 
options are getting steady use, the most popular function is the 
access to personal records in the Colleague system, which 
currently includes unofficial transcripts and class schedules.

Each of Sinclair's Intouch kiosks with automated advising is 
currently providing the following services to students, based on 
activity recorded during September 1993:

     41 hrs/month - academic advising
     42 hrs/month - access to personal records
     15 hrs/month - financial information & assistance
     2 hrs/month - employment information
     11 hrs/month - general campus information
   ------
     111 hrs/month - total time in use

If performed by humans, these services would cost the institution 
about $1,542 per month.  This figure is based on salaries (plus 
fringe benefits) of people who would typically provide equivalent 
service: academic counselors (41 hours), clerical staff (59 
hours), and student employees (11 hours).  The total cost of a 
kiosk, including installation costs (spread over four years) plus 
annual maintenance, is estimated as about $600 per month, or less 
than 40% of the "equivalent" human cost.

Future Applications

At Sinclair, the Intouch kiosk system marks the beginning of a 
revolutionary shift in the use of institutional database systems, 
from exclusive use by administrators and staff to direct, hands-on 
access by students.  In fact, it is not difficult to imagine that 
students eventually will become the primary users of 
administrative systems.  This drastic shift in the user base will 
have important implications for the structure and contents of 
administrative computer systems.  As direct access by students 
becomes more prevalent, the institutional information systems can 
be expected to evolve along several dimensions:

1.  Database content

Institutions typically maintain items of information about 
courses, sections, students, and personnel which are critical to 
the administration of the institution, and much of this is useful 
to students.  However, a student's need for information goes far 
beyond the data about class schedules and program requirements.  
Students are hungry for more qualitative information.  Which 
courses in biology are really tough and time-consuming?  What is 
Professor Jones' teaching style?  Does she emphasize lectures, 
class discussion, research papers, weekly exams?  What is the 
syllabus for ENG 219?  What percentage of students dropped out of 
CHEM 312?  Should I take calculus along with physics?  This is 
"consumer-oriented" information that students, as customers, want 
to know when they are making choices about the educational 
products of the institution.  Currently students are obtaining 
this qualitative information almost entirely from other students.

2.  Presentation of Information

Screen displays, as well as the navigation through a computer 
application, are typically designed with a particular type of user 
in mind.  As students become direct users of institutional 
databases, the designers of screens will need to consider 
aesthetic appeal, ease of use, and especially the comprehension of 
information, from the students' point of view.  Much of our 
current database information is stored in the form of codes which 
are meaningful to administrators and staff (and very efficient to 
store), but meaningless to students.

3.  Security and Integrity

While read-only access by students is becoming fairly wide-spread, 
few institutions are yet allowing direct updates of their 
databases by students, except through scripted telephone 
registration systems.  In the future, most student information in 
administrative databases will be input directly by students.  
Security issues will need to be developed for adequate protection 
of privacy and data integrity.  Processes developed for personal 
identification and PIN handling in telephone registration systems 
are a start.

4.  Inter-Institutional Information Exchange

The electronic exchange of information between institutions could 
significantly improve services to students.  In the future, 
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) will facilitate the transfer of 
student records, and also many other types of information.  The 
need for EDI is especially evident in community colleges, in which 
significant numbers of students are either transferring credits 
into the institution or planning to transfer to a four-year school 
after graduation.  It is often difficult and frustrating for 
students to obtain information about the transferability of 
specific courses between specific institutions.  Electronic 
exchanges of articulation agreements and course-by-course 
equivalencies could certainly reduce the level of students' 
frustration and confusion.


5.  Multimedia Databases

Student access to institutional information could also provide the 
impetus for developing multimedia databases, which would be 
accessible through kiosks and the electronic highway of the 
future.  These might include images and voice recordings of 
faculty and staff, campus maps, multimedia campus tours, and 
pictures of labs, classrooms, and residence halls.

6.  Crossing the Course Section Boundary

Traditionally, administrative systems have treated the course 
section as an atomic unit -- an indivisible chunk recorded in the 
student's transcript with a grade, credit hours, and course title.  
In course scheduling and faculty load assignments, the section is 
also treated as an atomic unit.  The management of entities larger 
than sections (that is, courses and degree programs) have 
traditionally fallen under the jurisdiction of the administration, 
while record-keeping below the section level -- the syllabus, 
sequence of topics, assignments, test scores -- have traditionally 
been regarded as the domain of the professor teaching the class.  
Students obviously have an on-going need for information both 
above and below the course-section boundary. Access by students to 
administrative information could generate pressure for 
institutions to look at ways of integrating instructors' class 
records into the central information systems, although the 
political implications could be formidable.

7.  Feedback from our Customers

In the future, devices such as kiosks, telephones, and desktop 
computers will facilitate two-way communication between the 
institution and the student body by means of surveys and polls, as 
well as direct communication.  As students become a primary user 
base of administrative systems, it will also be critical for 
software designers to obtain input from students regarding their 
information needs and the usability of information systems.  
Institutions will need to develop processes for organizing student 
focus groups and volunteers for beta testing, as Sinclair has done 
throughout the development of the expert systems and other 
components of the Intouch kiosk software.

In summary, Sinclair's Intouch kiosk system provides a glimpse (if 
not a comprehensive vision), of things to come in the evolution of 
computing in higher education.  As an institution, Sinclair feels 
strongly that the driving force of the revolutionary changes ahead 
will be the student as the primary user of our institutional 
information systems.

Section Four:
Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how institutions can 
create new, service-related products based upon the effective use 
of information resources.  The authors identified the social, 
political, economic, and technological factors that accelerate or 
decelerate the process of creating new products.  The authors 
presented a conceptual framework to illustrate the potential of 
the information resource, ranging from data to wisdom.  They also 
illustrated the capability of technology to optimize the 
information resources through the integration of technology and 
revised business processes.  Finally, the authors shared their 
experience in informationalizing an institution, Sinclair 
Community College.  They described how Sinclair is 
informationalizing by advancing the information contintunuum to 
wisdom, using technology such as an expert system for advising, 
accessible through campus kiosks.

The authors conclusion draws from the "wisdom" of the student who 
was cited in the introduction:

"The most helpful tools are those that let me get the information 
when I need it without having to stand in long lines.  I don't 
necessarily feel that I have to ask people questions to get simple 
information.  If I have a genuine problem, then I will go through 
the process of seeing someone like an advisor.  But if I just want 
to get simple information, like where is something on campus, I 
can to go to the touch screen system on campus and just punch it 
in and find it out.  I can go back as many times as I have to, and 
I am not embarrassed talking about it.  First week of class, I can 
walk up to a kiosk and find out where my class is instead of 
walking around campus like a goof ball carrying it around. "

1 2020 Vison, Stan Davis and Bill Davidson, Simon and Schuster, 
1991., p. 17