University of Americana - Technology Environment Evaluation - Matt Uhrich University of Americana Technology Environment Evaluation At the University of Americana,

we have a diverse set of students and faculty. Many are online, and many live throughout the world. Yet, even those students who are local and attend the campus, are able to participate online with each other and the instructors. Some of our students go to school full-time, while many attend school while working full time. Surprising to some, the student body is predominantly female, with just 31% of all students being male. Our largest race population is white, at 34%, but African American representation is just behind at 22%.
American Indian/Alaskin native 1%

University of Americana - Diversity

Asian 2% [CATEGORY NAME] [PERCENTAGE] Caucasion 34% African American 22%

Unknown 29%

University of Americana - Gender

69%

31%

Male

Female

University of Americana - Technology Environment Evaluation - Matt Uhrich Administrative From a policy perspective, suitable technology use is welcomed by administration. Many policies are loosely defined, and therefore, end up being somewhat informal. Some policies, like remote access, are quite formal and strictly adhered to. Student confidentiality and protection are highly valued. Thus, anything related to accessing student data is strictly controlled. For administration updates or changes, approval pathswhile often requiredare often unclear or ever-changing. Frequently, a new policy is enacted by one silo, but is not communicated to other parts of the organization, and is thus hard to follow. There is a lot of planning at this school. However, most strategic planning seems to take place outside of central planning sessions. There are several technological departments vying for responsibility, so planning tends to take place, but is often exclusive according to specific projects or missions. Considerations for budget are high, as University of Americana is quite liberal with its IT budget. There is capital available for many different line items, but sometimes line items conflict with other strategies, or are wholly non-strategic. Long-term budgeting is restricted by quarter. Because the school operates many of its programs and offerings online, internet-based systems are required for operations and are a daily part of activities. Many, if not all, paper systems are replaced by electronic means, including the submission of assignments onlineincluding students at the campus whose classes are face-to-face. All administrative systems are available to those staff members who require them at any location and remotely. Administrative systems consist of student, records, scheduling, faculty payroll, curriculum, assessment, alumni, content, and even internally-based social networking. Curricular Because students online and on-ground are assessed electronically, all students have access to the internet. Most access the web at home or work, but many come to the campus learning center for internet access. Students have resources available through electronic libraries for research. They also have a wealth of media-rich supplemental materials at their disposal. Not only can students attain their textbook electronically, they have access to the entire university textbook collection. Even after degree completion, students can indefinitely access the library of material. Most in-class assessment takes place at the objective level. Assessments are rarely multiple choice, but are more frequently demonstrated through writing, interacting and real-world application (by demonstration). Outside of learning assessment, the university assesses student satisfaction at the end of every course, to look for opportunities to improve quality. While not highly sophisticated, these traditional surveys give administration a window into the effectiveness of curriculum. Though growing daily, the technology integration into curriculum is a mixed bag. Students have access to online resources that were unheard of just a decade ago. Yet, as technology has continuously expanded in complexity, the university has pushed to keep ahead. Even still, all instructors, either online or in the classroom, have equivalent and available access to traditional technology for content delivery and experimentation. Some schools, like the nursing school, do have sophisticated on-site technology centers, where cutting-edge tools help the students gain practical knowledge through simulations and modeling.

University of Americana - Technology Environment Evaluation - Matt Uhrich Support The universitys dependence on technology is great, so the support systems in place for the student body and faculty are vast. The students have the ability to call for support at any time for assistance with their technology issues. Yet, as strong as support is, it is lacking in the areas of proactivity and planning. Sometimes, support is caught off guard, when they are caught unaware of a new system. They sometimes learn about the system through those they help, and then share the knowledge with the rest of the group. On the other hand, much of the planning involves getting the support staff to aid in the service of those who need it. Divisions within the company will often notify support of upcoming changes and give them a brief overview what should be expected. This proactive approach aids in the efficiency of service for students and instructors. There are dedicated staff at this university whose sole purpose is to assist students or faculty with their technological issues. They are trained to efficiently serve and support those who come to them, and to help them along their way. Connectivity The staff at the university have extensive networking access, both at the local and wide are levels. Sublocales have the ability to share data with central locations, and vice versa. Access to the local network is achieved through either wired or wireless means. Wireless is preferred for mobile users and has spread to most locations. It allows administrative staff to freely roam throughout the campus while maintaining access. Through this local network, staff can move large files and access extensive data sets. When they are away from the office, staff can phone home through a virtual private network. The speed at which that network functions is largely limited by the speed through which the staff connects to the internet. Using this access method, the private network places a little more restriction on the size or length of files accessed. Larger files, longer videos, and the like, are often difficult to move in this way. Yet, large file transfer is still possible, albeit slow. Even students can get in on the action. While roaming the halls, students are able to wirelessly attend class, or view rich media presentations. They can watch video, or record audio, and share it with their class. Their access can also be directly in-line, but they are commonly linked without wires. All student and staff communication systems are focused on email. There is a system-wide access, bolstered by Googles Gmail backbone, which allows students to freely write and exchange emails. Internally, administration uses self-served Exchange systems to communicate. Students and staff also take part in independent chat platforms. The student system is a custom-built, and proprietary platform, while staff use Microsofts Communicator. On top of the email system and instant messaging, students, faculty, and staff can participate in local, and contextual social networking through the university. The web-based networking service allows the full breadth of alumni, administration, and current students and faculty to exchange ideas and information with each other. The use of this system has been widely adopted and is officially supported across the university. Innovation The staff at the University of Americana is not new to technology. Yet, technology forges ahead, and in all different directions. Though new technology for learning has been somewhat slower to evolve, new

University of Americana - Technology Environment Evaluation - Matt Uhrich methods for incorporating existing technology into learning are constantly being discovered. With all this innovation occurring, it is incumbent upon staff to adopt and incorporate it into learning opportunities. However, it is not always easy to do so. Budget, scale, and feasibility are always in question. New technologies, such as augmented reality or facial/body movement recognition are available as educational opportunities, but have not been adopted or utilized to due availability. The tough part about new technologies is that early adopters have to wait for the rest of the population to catch up, before the value can be shared with the majority of constituents. Exclusivity is often a factor when early adopters struggled to interact with the rest of the population. The universitys technology adoption is on pace with the community, but it strives to be ahead of the game, and is working on getting there. Conclusion A true evaluation must acknowledge that technology comes down to a couple of factors with a converse relationship. As a universitys size increases, so does its ability to invest in newer technologies that support learning and increase knowledge transfer. However, smaller universities are more easily able to adopt and proliferate new technologies due to their smaller footprint and lower overhead. Though smaller universities suffer from less disposable capital that can be applied to expensive technology initiatives. So, the conundrum is how to run a university large enough to support major technology investments, while keeping it nimble enough to bourgeon the latest and greatest gadgets throughout the students experience without sacrificing quality or effectiveness. Our University of Americana is attempting, every day, to invest in learning technologies that keep us ahead of the curve, while capitalizing on our size and willingness to adopt innovation. As an innovator in many areas, and as a university that continues to do more, our overall maturity registers as integrated because we have done a lot, but can do a lot more. We are large, and are investing innovatively, but we still struggle with the difficulties of widespread change and adoption that are inherent in larger organizations.