You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘elearning’ tag.

In 2004, Winona State University transitioned its laptop lease program from a standard PC to a convertible tablet, resulting in one of the largest mandated tablet deployments in higher education at the time. Armed with a good price from our vendor, we were able to make the transition without increasing the lease price for students or altering program features and services. Because the model was a convertible tablet that could be used in either standard laptop or tablet mode, the tablet features were simply promoted as value added. The attitude at the time among laptop program decision-makers was, “If we can maintain our edge by offering new tablet features without changing the program, why not do it?”

Early indications were that the tablet features were popular with instructors, especially in STEM fields that relied heavily on board work and overhead transparencies in class. WSU invested in DyKnow to assist these instructors and expand the collaborative capabilities of tablets in the classroom. Faculty also began using digital ink to develop online course materials and evaluate student assignments. Students began using MS OneNote to take notes in and out of class. Overall, our transition to tablets was smooth and did seem to add value.

Today, we are considering a move back to a standard laptop model and discontinuing our support of the tablet.  Why change? Here is my take on why this is under consideration, with reasons listed in decreasing order of importance:

  1. The Cost Gap. The gap in cost between a convertible tablet and a similarly configured standard laptop has increased over the years. For the price of our current tablet (Toshiba Portege M700), we could probably be providing students with a standard laptop with performance and features that exceed the tablet model in some key areas (e.g., graphics processing). Taking another approach, we could be providing students with a less expensive standard laptop that meets minimum specifications, perhaps allowing us to either lower the lease price or add value in other areas of the program (e.g., software, support). As we enter the worst budget crisis in state history, this option may be quite appealing to stakeholders.
  2. The Mobility Trade-off. Tablet functionality has become more closely aligned with mobility over the years. In our laptop RFP last spring, only one vendor presented a convertible tablet with a screen larger than 12″ and that company is now out of business. There is much to be gained from emphasizing mobility in our laptop program. Many instructors use their laptops in class, in their offices, at home, and when traveling. Our students are not only mobile themselves, but are preparing to enter an increasingly mobile workplace. However, concessions must be made to achieve greater mobility. The laptop screen and keyboard are smaller and more difficult to use, particularly for older faculty. Tablet graphics processing is insufficient for various productivity and entertainment applications. These are the primary workstations for students and faculty who must be comfortable using their laptops for long periods of time and for a wide variety of tasks. Surveys of students and instructors indicate a clear split in preference for a heavier, larger desktop-replacement versus a more portable laptop. Employees appear divided down the middle, whereas the majority of students want greater mobility and this preference becomes more pronounced over time. For last year’s RFP, we decided that we could not support two PC models cost effectively. Many employees have addressed usability issues using external monitors and keyboards, but are unhappy about covering this unexpected cost. If we must select a single model again this year, there is a good chance that mobility will lose out to usability and performance.
  3. The Mixed Laptop Environment. WSU has always offered both a PC and Mac laptop model. Thus, there is no guarantee that all students in a particular course will have tablets. This is an obstacle for faculty who want to use tools like DyKnow, the power of which are optimized when all students have their own tablet. Although we address this by asking Mac students to install Boot Camp, it has been enough of a hurdle to put off many faculty and slow adoption. Our decision to maintain the tablet will be based mainly on end user applications versus the more compelling collaborative applications that could really transform learning. This leads to what might be the final deciding factor.
  4. Preference for the Mouse and Keyboard. Setting innovative tools like DyKnow aside and looking at end-user applications, taking notes in MS OneNote and inking in MS Office tools emerged at WSU as the most common uses of the pen as an input device. Instructors and students who use their tablets to take notes and grade papers regularly swear by them and those who don’t, don’t. A good conservative estimate based on a survey administered last spring is that 25-35% of our tablet owners use digital ink regularly. There is a third group of users who don’t use digital ink daily, but absolutely love to use it on ocassion. The pen is great when you need it, but many people don’t seem to need it that often. Perhaps they don’t know that they need it and this is a training problem. Perhaps they would like to use it more frequently, but are bothered by human factors issues. Maybe they have tried it, decided that they really don’t need it that often, and are more effective using the mouse and keyboard instead. I will dig into this in another post, but this will not change the current perception that, since adoption in 2004, the number of regular tablet users has remained relatively low and perhaps WSU could do without digital ink.

As we move forward some of these factors might change and new information might come to light. I am looking forward to the conversation and will keep you posted. I am guessing that we are not the only laptop university engaged in this sort of discussion.


It has been over three weeks since EDUCAUSE 2008 and I just finished converting my session notes to blog posts. “Not very Web 2.0 of you Ken,” you say, “Shouldn’t you post your blog entries during the session?” I suppose. For me, it’s less about reporting and more about reflection and that takes time. Looking back, did I accomplish my conference goals?

  • Learning space design. On the upside, the U of M session on learning spaces was excellent and I am planning a trip up to the Cities with my team to get a closer look and exchange ideas. Their process is a great model from end to end. I saw some interesting tools, both in the informal learning spaces area and in the vendor showcase that fit into my vision for the classroom of the future. I think DyKnow (Vision), Tidebreak (TeamSpot), TechSmith (Relay), and TurningTechnologies (ResponseWare Web) are spot on in terms of supporting the critical transformation of the classroom from a crowded theater where student drones transcribe lecture notes to a primarily collaborative, flexible environment. On the downside, the plethora of commercial “lecture capture” solutions just depressed me. Why on earth would we spend such crazy amounts of money to capture instructors doing something that most do only because they are forced into crowded lecture halls for 50 minutes? Let’s use technology to relieve faculty and student suffering in the classroom, not perpetuate it.
  • Mobile teaching and learning. I left the conference with some excellent ideas, practical examples, and real people to contact. Mobile computing is alive and well in higher education and it will change everything, ready or not. The presentation by ACU on their iPhone/iTouch project was disruptive in a very good way.
  • Instructional multimedia content management. The Duke session was excellent and their service model is one to emulate. I was also impressed by Mississippi State’s poster presentation on their custom solution for managing multimedia assets and I am very interested in learning more about OpenCast.
  • Strategic planning, organization, and leadership. This was a bit of a disappointment for me this year, probably because I was drawn to sessions that did not have this as the primary focus. I am still amazed by the number of people I meet at this conference who are frustrated by faculty support and development challenges, specifically the lack of commitment to faculty and staff professional development at the executive level. At my table of 12 people in the Learning Spaces Constituency Group discussion, many were amazed that WSU was going to create a center with experimental spaces where faculty could practice using the latest technologies and methods. I realize that such things cost money, but certainly we can all see the value in real dollars of improving the technological knowledge, skills, and abilities of our employees. Do we really still need to make the general case for this?
  • Supporting collaboration across the enterprise. I really enjoyed the CMU presentation on their Project Management Office, a great example of collaborative project management that transformed the campus culture. There were several poster sessions that focused on the use of SharePoint, but I was not overwhelmed by great examples of administrative groupware use. It also seems that our portal passion has waned a bit.

My post-conference action items for December are:

  • Deliver an “EDUCAUSE at WSU” session to report back to campus some of what I learned at the conference.
  • Take a trip up to the University of Minnesota to check out their collaborative classrooms and other interesting spaces. Connect with Derek Bruff (Vanderbilt) to learn more about what they are doing to support experimental use of classroom technologies. Apply what we learn to our own learning space design process, including existing classrooms and the new Maxwell faculty-staff development center.
  • Take on as a research project the possible replacement of our standard eInstruction classroom response system with either a custom/open smartphone alternative or a commercial product like ResponseWare.
  • Explore the adoption of a service model in our Integrated Media Services Department similar to Duke’s. Work with ITS to take a good look at OpenCast as a possible open source capture and asset management solution.
  • Discuss with our CIO and VP for Academic Affairs the possible adoption of some features of the CMU PMO approach, especially the executive retreat. Contact CMU to get more information about how this retreat is structured.

Looking back on the EDUCAUSE 2008 conference, it probably had the most impact of any I have attended. I will close my blog book on it by referring back to what I thought was the koan of the conference, Casey Green’s question, “After all these years, why don’t more faculty use technology?” Compare this to Dr. Ramachandran’s question, “Why can’t everyone recognize faces?” A likely answer to the latter question was revealed only after the application of a good theory. Where are our good theories of faculty development, institutional effectiveness, strategic IT investment, and the impact of technology on learning? Sure these things are complex, but are they more complex than the human brain? Regardless, it’s the act of theorizing that’s important. Without a map, we might get there by accident, but we are more likely to wander around in circles.


These are my notes from the Thursday, October 30th EDUCAUSE 2008 session, “Evolution of iTunesU and Its Role in the Duke Experience,” presented by Stephen Toback, Sr Manager, Interactive Technology Services, Office Of Information Technology, Duke University.

This presentation was my favorite of the conference and the session that will probably have the greatest impact on my work this year. Interestingly, the session presented last year by Duke’s Mark McCahill also earned that distinction. Lesson learned? Even as a UNC alum who has trouble typing the word “Duke,” I have to say that we all need to look at what they are doing as an organization. There are some fantastic practices in place there and they are so good at attracting incredible talent. It must be a fun place to work. If only their basketball team would just lose in terribly humiliating fashion more often.

I loved their approach to service provision and the way they package their services in customer-centered ways in their Multimedia Services division of OIT. Stephen talked about DukeStream, DukeCapture, and their implementation of Lectopia (acquired by Echo 360). I also got a kick out of their Blackwell Interactive web development group. The idea of having a skunk works for academic application development has always appealed to me. This discussion helped me remember the importance of branding your services and delivering them in a coherent and appealing way. At WSU and within the MnSCU system, we tend to roll out new services very unceremoniously.

As far as iTunes U is concerned, you couldn’t find a much more successful implementation. Duke is delivering 1500 audio and 1000 video files via iTunes U, including some of the more popular podcasts in the world. All of their nonacademic content is managed by the Office of Communication. Access to academic content is controlled using Grouper. About a third of their users subscribe and the rest download individual tracks. This is an interesting stat and I wonder if it is because users don’t understand syndication or whether the content is relatively static and there is no real need to subscribe.

Stephen indicated that they are looking at Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended and the delivery of PDF content that includes multimedia via iTunes. This is an exciting development and opens up some very interesting possibilities in terms of academic content.


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 session, “The 2008 Campus Computing Survey,” presented by Casey Green, Founding Director, The Campus Computing Project.

Although I know I can just purchase and read the report, I go to this session every year because I respect the Campus Computing Project and I love hearing things from the horse’s mouth. Casey opened the session by admonishing those in the audience who had not responded to the survey this year, telling them that they were, “skating on other people’s data.” Apparently, the N was down a bit. You can review the executive summary online.

At the end of the session, Casey listed some defining issues and one really stuck with me. He asked why, after all these years and given that new faculty are not the digital Luddites of yesteryear, do they not do more with technology? Why is it still such a struggle? I love this question. It should be on the survey! If you ask IT professionals, you might get responses such as,”Faculty are afraid, slow, lazy…[insert nasty personality characteristic here].” If you ask faculty, they will tell you, “We don’t have the time, support, tools, classrooms…[insert nasty environmental characteristic here].” This tendency to over attribute the behavior of others to their disposition and our own behavior to our situation is called the actor-observer bias and it’s a common mistake. So what’s the unbiased truth? I don’t know for certain, but the answer is certainly knowable. Here are some random ideas:

  • Each year, ECAR conducts a survey of students and their experiences with IT. I think it would be great if a similar faculty survey could be conducted annually. Given that the actor-observer bias will skew faculty self-report toward situational explanations, we can’t rely on survey data alone. Multiple methods will need to be used, including unobtrusive and indirect measures.
  • If you look at the 2008 ECAR student survey data, 44% of student respondents indicated that “Most” or “Almost All” of their instructors used IT effectively in their classes. Unfortunately, the same question was not asked last year. However, when asked to rate their agreement with a similar statement in 2007, “Overall, instructors use IT well in my courses,” 58% of students agreed or strongly agreed. What’s going on here? Are faculty becoming less proficient? Are students expecting more? These sorts of questions provide valuable insight into instructional practices. I think the ECAR student survey should ask more focused questions about the effectiveness of faculty use of specific academic tools (e.g., within a course management system).
  • Casey lamented in his presentation that we know how many schools are using course management systems, but we don’t know what they are doing with them. Are faculty simply posting their syllabi or is breadth and depth of use increasing? Is anyone measuring this well (e.g., either directly or by mining CMS data)? If so or if you are interested in developing something together, please contact me (!


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 session, “The Global Classroom: Integrated Approaches to Sustainable Development Practice,” presented by Rob Garfield, Educational Technologist, Columbia University.

Columbia’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning helped develop a 14-week, Masters-level, online course called, “Integrated Approaches to Sustainable Development Practice.” Rob took us through the extensive instructional design and infrastructure development/selection process that allowed them to deliver the course in 13 countries. The course went through several iterations, each building on the one before it. It was interesting to see the evolution of the course as designers, instructors, and students coped with the challenges of global delivery. They used Adobe Connect with great success. They also developed a shared content repository and a local group project with shared outcomes. The degree to which the final model emphasized collaboration was impressive.

Unlike many other program and course development efforts, there was never any doubt pedagogically why this program had to be online. It struck me that the main reason this was successful was because the need for a global program on sustainable development was so great that designers, teachers, and students were willing to fight through the technical progression from “shovel-ware” (i.e., online video lectures) to a unique, active, and collaborative learning experience. In this sense, the designers were employing a learner-centered process to essentially catch up technically with teachers and learners who were motivated to make something happen immediately.

I think this is an ideal situation. All too often, we are the ones saying, “Look, we are providing you with this expensive technology and we need you to use it. Can you help us?” I much prefer a model where faculty and students come to us and ask, “Look, we have this great opportunity and we want to take a whack at it. Can you help us?” At WSU, the eLearning Department is involved in good examples of both. Our interinstitutional work with Biology on a Clinical Lab Science online program is a great example of the latter. The general pressure being applied to increase laptop use in class as a way of justifying our laptop program is an example of the former.

I guess it will always be thus, but I do think success is much more likely when faculty and students are driving and we just clear the road, fix the car, and give directions.


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 lunch discussion, “Learning Space Design,” hosted by Richard Holeton, Associate Director, Academic Computing; Head of Student Computing, Stanford University and Phillip D. Long, Prof. of Innovation & Visiting Research Scientist, MIT.

These lunch meetings of constituency groups were a great idea. As much as I like eating lunch with friends and taking a break from sessions, this was a great opportunity to meet new friends and continue processing in an informal setting. There were about 100 people in the room. Ironically, the room was way too small and there was no technology, but we made the most of it.

Richard and Phil asked us to discuss topics that had been placed on our tables and then report out. I was seated at the Planning and Management table with some great folks from a range of institutions from around the world. Most of us were directors or administrators charged with facilitating learning space decision making and supporting faculty. Here are some things that stuck with me:

  • We all had tales of disconnects among executive visioning, facilities planning, and pedagogy. We agreed that this has led to the continued use of inferior teaching methods. In some cases, faculty, departments, and colleges are changing pedagogy and vacating existing facilities in favor of group-friendly spaces, informal settings, and virtual environments. One person described large lecture halls at her institution as now empty except for the occasional campus event. Both of these outcomes are undesirable and reflect the urgent need for a more enlightened approach to facilities planning.
  • I asked whether anyone knew of a school that had this planning-pedagogy connection right. Rio Salado College was offered as an example, which surprised me a bit given its strength as an online provider. Clearly, online and virtual spaces must be considered in this discussion right alongside brick-and-mortar spaces. Perhaps online institutions that are not as bogged down by the old politics of physical space can spend more time and energy focusing on the actual needs of teachers and learners.
  • There were mixed reports about classroom technology standardization. Most agreed that it was difficult to implement in their current organizations. Some were decentralized and others simply had difficulty getting consensus on what standards to use.
  • We talked a bit about creating experimental spaces for faculty where good tools and practices could be developed, refined, and rolled out to campus. WSU is building such a space in its new faculty-staff development center. I spoke with Derek Bruff from Vanderbilt who is also developing experimental spaces. I was a bit surprised that others at the table thought their institutions would not support such an idea. How can we know what to adopt if we don’t try it first? How can we expect faculty to change their approach if we don’t provide them with safe ways to explore? The best ideas for using learning spaces are not going to come from us; they will continue to come from students and faculty.


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 session, “Creating Applications for Converged Devices Like the iPhone: Start with a Vision,” presented by Hab Adkins, Manager of Programming and Support, and James Langford, Director of Web Integration and Programming, Abilene Christian University.

As an iPhone user and mobile computing fanatic, I wanted to hear how the ACU iPhone/iTouch deployment was going. This was a fantastic presentation, one of the more exciting of the conference for me. James started by saying that their ACU Mobile initiative was driven by academics, not simply the “coolness factor” of the iPhone. The development work prior to the fall 2008 launch could not utilize the SDK just released by Apple, so the developers used Apple dashcode to create web apps. When asked if they would use the SDK to migrate to native apps, Hab said they were looking into it and that some of the apps might benefit.

They reviewed a number of their applications:

  • Student profiles, including photo submission. Instructors see class rosters with photos and can launch a game that helps them learn students’ names, matching names with faces. They developed an  attendance tool using student photos and class rosters. Instructors see a graphic summary of attendance information at-a-glance and can identify at-risk students quickly.
  • Personalized Google Calendar feed and information about campus events. They have also established a Google Calendar for every course.
  • Point-to-point campus directions. A student developed the algorithm for finding the shortest distance, a great example of involving students in development.
  • Connection to Xythos that allows students to access personal and course-related files and deposit files into Xythos folders.
  • NANO (no advanced notice) polling tools. This was brilliant. We used one of the tools during the presentation. Polling results for multiple choice questions with one-word response options can be displayed as a tag cloud, where the size of the word indicates the number of times it was selected.
  • All services are also available via laptop/desktop from the ACU portal.

My main take away from this session was, if you want to know how to do this right, talk to ACU. Their vision was solid and aligned with campus strategic goals, their development work was inspired, and they accomplished a great deal in a short time.

After the session, I thought about the following:

  • Those of us with laptop mandates know that the portable media player, data storage, communication, and web functions provided by the iPhone are nothing new. However, we have struggled for years to integrate laptops into classrooms ill-suited for their use. We wrestle with weight, power, and other issues that discourage laptop mobility. Is the iPhone a device that competes with a laptop or are we reaching a point where both devices serve different, but symbiotic, academic functions?
  • ACU’s NANO tools illustrate the potential of the iPhone to engage students in class and the value of the iPhone as a media player is obvious. However, the benefits of the Xythos connection and accessing full-page content not intended for a handheld are not as clear. Apple designed the iPhone to provide access to full web pages and other documents, not mobile versions of them. Users then zoom in on the areas of the page they want to review. I think the jury is still out on whether this is a better user experience than accessing “moblized” verions of the same content.
  • I think ACU’s student profile, face-to-name game, and class attendance apps are absolutely fantastic and just scratch the surface of what’s possible in terms of using iPhone-like devices to improve student-faculty interactions both in and out of the classroom. If I am sitting in the cafeteria and I see a former student at the next table whose name I don’t recall, wouldn’t it be great if I could look that up on my iPhone and greet the student by name? Those are the things that students appreciate and remember.


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 session, “Teaching and Learning in Two New Smart Classrooms: Research Findings on the Pedagogical Implications of Space Design,” presented by Ann Hill Duin, Associate Vice President & Associate CIO, Linda Jorn, Digital Media Center Director, and Aimee Whiteside, Research and Evaluation Consultant, Digital Media Center, all from the University of Minnesota.

The Digital Media Center assessed the effectiveness of two Active Learning Classrooms at the University of Minnesota. The rooms accommodate 117 and 45 students and include:

  • Large, circular tables
  • Multiple, 3-person, shared, switchable displays at each table (each table can accommodate 9 students)
  • The ability for instructors to display any shared student display on a front screen and push content to student displays
  • Other collaborative accouterments (e.g., glass whiteboards)

Research questions related to faculty attitudes and expectations, student perceptions, teaching and learning strategies, and the impact of the physical features of the room. Multiple methods were used to gather the data, including instructor interviews, student and instructor surveys, student focus groups, and over 30 classroom observations.

Attitudes and perceptions of both students and instructors were uniformly positive and teaching in the room changed student-faculty and student-student relationships (e.g., more contact, more familiarity, greater level of comfort). Instructors reported that the environment supported their transition to a facilitator role and their willingness to redesign their courses around collaborative learning and teamwork. Challenges included training instructors to use the capabilities of the room “on the fly” and human factors issues (e.g., pillars obstructing lines of sight). None of the challenges were major obstacles and neither students nor instructors wanted to return to a traditional classroom at the end of the term.

My favorite finding came from the student open-ended responses. Students indicated that they felt more appreciated and engaged when meeting in the active learning classrooms. This relates to a psychological variable that we rarely measure directly: place attachment. As a former student and faculty member, I know how demoralizing it can be to walk into a large lecture hall where it is immediately apparent that the top priority in designing the space was not teaching or learning, but money. I think it benefits institutions when students and instructors feel attached to learning spaces. Unfortunately, we actively discourage the personalization and customization that would lead to stronger attachment when designing and assigning classrooms. Our focus on standardization and other practices that are blind to the preferred pedagogy of specific instructors, departments, and colleges turn classrooms into all-purpose conference rooms and faculty and students into visitors.

We were reminded in the general session this morning that complexity can be managed using good models and methods. Room planning and assignment are complex processes, but aligning them more closely with pedagogical needs and goals is certainly not an impossible task. What seems to be missing is an appreciation on the part of facilities planners and campus administrators of the value this might add in terms of not only improved learning outcomes, but stronger place attachment. The exciting work by the University of Minnesota is a great example of how departments charged with managing learning spaces might begin to help the institution gain this understanding and change their ways.


These are my notes from the Wednesday, October 29th EDUCAUSE 2008 general session with V.S. Ramachandran, Professor and Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition from UC San Diego, on The Unique Human Brain: Clues from Neurology.” This session worked for me and was a pleasantly surprising choice by the conference planning committee. Normally, you get a keynote speaker who is one of the following:

  • A celebrity who can tell a good story and make the audience laugh
  • A technologist who can give a good history lesson and make the audience proud
  • A politician who can sound the alarm and make the audience anxious

Ramachandran did none of these things, although he did have some funny bits (e.g., “How can Bush believe in intelligent design when he is a walking contradiction of the theory?”). Instead, he spent a good 45 minutes describing several of his research programs in cognitive neuroscience. This was a brilliant professor delivering a solid lecture that would have been right at home in an undergraduate psychology course.

The content was relevant in a subtle, but powerful way. If you consider the number of neurons in the brain, the number of connections those neurons make with one another, and the fact that each connection can be one of several types (e.g., exitatory, inhibitory), the number of possible brain states may exceed the number of particles in the known universe. How would you use a model of this complex system to explain prosopagnosia or face blindness, where the afflicted can’t recognize other people, even family members, by looking at their faces, yet have no difficulty recognizing their voices? How would you explain why amputees feel cramps or movement in their “phantom” limbs? Long story short, Ramachandran and his colleagues have made great progress in answering these questions using the scientific method, reliable measurement tools, and a good working model of the human brain. They have developed elegant explanations and have tested their hypotheses. Armed with those findings, they have devised practical solutions (e.g., therapies for amputees that can help relieve phantom limb pain). Basically, they have been good researchers.

Are we good researchers? I think we are good engineers, but we could improve as researchers by:

  • Using theoretical models. We tend to apply the “whatever works” principle without identifying the formal models or theories that can explain our results. We often use the term “model” not in the theoretical sense, but to describe techniques or solutions, many of which we discovered either by accident or guided by personal expectations about what should work (i.e., naive theories).
  • Better understanding the principles of measurement. Our understanding of measurement and research methods needs improvement. This will lead to better measurement tools and better tests of our formal theories. Anyone can create a questionnaire, but is it a valid and reliable indicator of the variable of interest? How do you know?

I also appreciated the fact that Professor Ramachandran delivered a traditional lecture, albeit with PowerPoint slides, to a very large classroom of IT professionals and he did not pull any punches. He used words like “sagittal” and “gyrus.” As I looked around the room I recognized the classic “Crap! I didn’t read the chapter.” and “Is this going to be on the test?” looks on some faces. On others, I saw the, “Is he kidding me with this? What does this have to do with anything?” look. We could all benefit from auditing some classes on our campuses taught by master teachers. Ramachandran reminded us who’s in charge and why faculty deserve our respect.


I am sitting in a large conference room waiting for the start of the EDUCAUSE 2008 General Session that will kick off the first big day of the annual meeting. In thinking about my strategy for the conference this year, I would like to learn more about the following:

  • Learning space design, both formal and informal. In addition to building the new Maxwell faculty-staff development center and its experimental learning spaces, we need to focus on improving our classroom infrastucture and the informal spaces where teaching and learning takes place. I would like to learn more about how others are meeting these challenges, how they support the professional development that unleashes the power of these spaces, and how they are assessing the impact of environmental variables on learners.
  • Mobile teaching and learning. We have been talking about this with respect to laptop computing for a long time, but it’s hard to use an iPhone without thinking that such devices will change everything. I am interested in finding out more about all things mobile, how we can better leverage our laptops both in and out of the classroom, and how we can begin to explore applications of next generation devices.
  • Instructional multimedia content management. Whether it’s live lecture capture, iTunesU, the multitude of Web 2.0 applications that support easy content creation and sharing, or simple narration over PowerPoint, we have an urgent need to effectively manage instructional multimedia and support local authoring of content by our students and faculty. I want to learn how others are meeting this need, how they selected the commercial and open source tools in their toolboxes, and how they went about planning around this issue.
  • Strategic planning, organization, and leadership that is both innovative and supports innovation across campus. We are building a new, collaborative division at WSU that has the potential to be a model for the system and beyond. I am looking for examples of innovative structures, practices, and services that might guide us as we rethink how we support our own campus community.
  • Supporting collaboration across the enterprise. In all that we do, we will be working together differently. We have a number of applications in place already (e.g., SharePoint) that can support this. How are others using such tools and are there other applications and practices that we might spin up at WSU?

I hope I can make a dent in this in two days.