Log on

 Present: Professors William J. Barnhurst, Victor Brooks, John D. Caputo, Walter E. Conn, Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chairman; Trudi Graves, Lowell Gustafson, Chairman; Karyn Hollis, Edward Kresch, Kenneth Kroos, Michael Levitan, Treasurer; Howard Lurie, Masako Hamada, Robert Styer, Joyce Willens, Julia Paparella, retired faculty representative; and Margaret King (clerk).

AGENDA:

1. Approval of Minutes

2. Announcements

3. Middle States Accreditation Process

4. Faculty Response to Campus Notebook Initiative

     Invited guest: Karin Steinbrenner, Executive Director,

       Office for University Information Technologies

5. New Business

2. Announcements.  Professor Gustafson distributed a list of people leading the various committees for the Middle States study and the preliminary questions that the faculty committee will be looking at. He suggested that the senate members look over the list and email any additional questions or clarifications to existing questions that would help us on that committee.

3. Professor Gustafson introduced Ms. Karin Steinbrenner, Executive Director of the Office for University Information Technologies, Professor James Borden from Accounting and Mr. Dan McGee from UNIT to talk about the laptop or notebook proposal. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is spearheading a new academic IT plan which "calls for the adoption of a standard notebook computer not only by all students but also by faculty and professional staff" with network connections to be accessible to everyone on campus. The laptops would be leased to all students, faculty and staff, and would be replaced every two years.  Ms. Steinbrenner is meeting with various groups on campus to gain input and to explore solutions for achieving this goal.

Discussion centered around some of the major issues brought up by the faculty. The biggest complaint heard is that the faculty doesn't have state of the art computers to do what is expected. Another complaint is that the standardization proposed will not work for all departments (or is it intended to). Another reaction is that students' attention will be diverted to their laptop and classroom participation will suffer.

 Ms. Steinbrenner said that laptop technology is changing rapidly, and she emphasized the advantages of the notebook's flexibility. Faculty can hook their laptops in to an overhead projector without attendant software problems, students can plug in their laptops and be ready to go. The latest laptops have a monitor viewing area equivalent to a 17" screen and only standard sized keyboards are being considered.

Prof. Borden, who teaches Accounting in C&F, detailed their laptop program, which is now in its second year. For the students it has been a rousing success and he has heard very few complaints. The students enjoy having a laptop available to them 24 hours a day, it is flexible enough to bring to class and to take home, it is easy to set up. There are many places on campus where power is available to connect to the Internet, and it is convenient to request help from the Support Center if anything goes wrong. For the faculty the laptop is a great advantage in classrooms with mounted projectors and connections on the podium.

About 65 faculty (out of approximately 90) participate in the laptop program, and Prof. Borden feels that the faculty is very supportive of the laptop program. Each pays $25 a month rental fee which probably represents about 25% of the actual cost. If a faculty member chooses not to participate in the laptop program, the turnaround time for a new desktop computer would be 4 to 5 years versus 2 years for the laptop, which was a strong incentive for people to consider the laptop program. Some faculty feel that they are being forced into the program because in order to take advantage of the projection system in some of the classrooms, they have to reserve a portable pc, and in the future they may be unable to use the technology.

As for concerns with students and their use of laptops in the classroom, faculty observation confirms his belief that approximately 90% of the students participate actively on their laptops during class. He did mention that he would be hesitant to teach in a classroom configured for internet access.

Professor Gustafson opened up the discussion to questions. Prof. Kresch requested clarification of the $25 change. Prof. Borden said that the faculty pays this through payroll deduction.  Ms. Steinbrenner added that this is peculiar to the present C&F program and that if the campus-wide notebook initiative is put in place, it would be free to the faculty. Asked to clarify this statement,  Ms. Steinbrenner said that Villanova is supporting multiple technologies, and at present the C&F program is outside the norm and therefore is more expensive.

Prof. Borden was asked to outline faculty preparation for the laptop program in accounting. He said that since the computer applications course was going to be the heaviest user, the faculty attended training sessions the spring before. A few of the faculty that were competent with technology led the training sessions, with three faculty members in each class.

Prof. Kresch inquired about the cost of the student computers and if there has been any reaction from the parents or students. It was stated that the cost of the laptops is part of tuition. It covers replacement of the laptop after two years with the student keeping the second one.  Ms. Steinbrenner stated that the students haven't officially discussed it yet, but that the president of the Student Government Association, Nicole Douglas, gave a very outspoken testament at the last University IT council.

Prof. Kresch wanted to know if applications to the business school had been affected by the laptop program. Prof. Borden replied that the dean was concerned that parents would react to the increase in the cost of education, but the parents who were wildly in favor of it far outnumbered those who complained. It did not seem to affect the application process, although he admitted that this is a biased sample as there is no record of the students who decided to withdraw their applications due to the increased cost. Several students mentioned that the deciding factor in selecting Villanova's business school was the use of laptop computers. One big selling point is that in the business world the Big Five accounting firms issue laptops to new employees, so laptops make good sense for accounting students in the transition to the business world.

Karin Steinbrenner said that about 400 non-C&F students opted to buy the same notebook computer so they were assured they had a pc that was ready to go and connected to the network. Prof. Kresch asked how much that would cost. Mr. McGee stated that $2,400 covered the cost of an IBM ThinkPad, the system itself and Microsoft Office Suite. A standard body of software was established with input from some students and C&F. With a Villanova standard, the student computer support center can provide a higher level of service.

Prof. Hollis requested a clarification of the additional cost to students: is the computer cost separated from tuition cost? Ms. Steinbrenner said that the cost was included in the tuition for C&F students, but it was made clear that the additional $1,000 increase is for the computer.

Prof. Frank Klassner from the Computer Sciences department raised two questions; one from the point of cost and another regarding pedagogy. As a laptop user he feels access to a printer and the need for a backup hard drive are essential. Both incur additional cost over the estimated $2,000. Mr. McGee stated that no printers are provided through the C&F program although some schools with long-running notebook programs provide a printer as part of the package. The students are encouraged to purchase a low-end HP deskjet for around $150-$200. Network printing is available but picking up the printouts can be inconvenient. He mentioned that there is a lot of sharing of resources among students. Regarding backups, there is no mechanism in the laptop itself for storing individual files, but an attachment can be added at negligible cost.

Prof. Klassner remarked that these additional costs should be factored in before advertising the $2,000 figure. He brought up the fact that large PowerPoint presentations consume much space. When students invest a lot of time and energy on a big project, backing them up on a floppy disk is out of the question. Mr. McGee agreed that the growth of this kind of presentation incurs additional cost.

Prof. Klassner returned to his second issue: pedagogy. He mentioned that parents may want to know what the professors are doing to justify their investment. Although he teaches computer science (operating systems) he stated that student access to laptops in the classroom during his lecture would not have benefited the learning experience, and although personal laptops are very useful for producing papers and presentations, he felt that many courses could not truthfully justify the use of a laptop in the classroom without significantly rewriting the coursework.

Prof. Borden asked if the question regarding printers was really about students buying a laptop versus bringing their own desktop to campus. He said the issue was irrelevant because the problem of printer access and backup space exist both with the laptop or desktop. Regarding the pedagogy issue, he is a strong believer that this technology can be used in many other courses, but there is no set answer as to how that should be done. The biggest problem, he feels, is integrating the technology into the curriculum. It is not just a matter of teaching the faculty how to use the technology, but also making them aware of how it can be useful. The curriculum in Accounting has been revamped completely to take advantage of the computer course. Presently junior level courses are being reworked not only in accounting but in finance, marketing and management. C&F has had guest speakers from other colleges explain how technology can be used in various disciplines.

Prof. Klassner, who had attended one of the presentations, said that one of the questions raised was, "Show me the results." The speaker replied that the students are more enthusiastic but that the jury is out on whether or not they are learning more.

Prof. Willens opened up the discussion to the use of technology in the College of Nursing. At present the multimedia projector takes the place of transparency projectors with the added investment of time to transfer the lecture into PowerPoint. She also brought up the problem of discrepancies in the use of software from discipline to discipline. She underscored the learning differences between nursing students and felt that having a laptop was not going to be of much help. She stated that palm top computers for communicating patient records would be much more useful.  Ms. Steinbrenner reiterated that every program must be looked at for the right configuration.

Prof. Eckstein enlarged on the problem of departmental differences. While laptop use in certain departments is something worthwhile to pursue, it may have less application on a daily basis in Arts courses. He also is concerned about the prohibitive cost to students. From a pedagogical standpoint, he would rather have the students invest in books rather than a laptop computer. And a big issue for faculty is access to multimedia classrooms on campus.

 Ms. Steinbrenner countered that there is a great misconception that computers are most useful in the sciences, and that the notebook initiative is not meant to destroy that valuable component of the classroom, one-on-one discussion. But she said that searching the Web for research projects and after class discussion among students is where laptop access can be valuable. Regarding book purchases, Ms. Steinbrenner mentioned that a CD Rom is often included with book purchases and down the road the CDRom may replace books.

Prof. Eckstein asked why the notebook initiative must be mandatory rather than optional.  Ms. Steinbrenner replied that cost savings was a consideration in drawing up the mandatory laptop proposal. Maintaining present desktop capability, as well as voluntary laptops with campus-wide computer access to students not in the program, complicates technological support.

Prof. Hollis spoke up in favor of the proposal. She contrasted two writing-related classes, one for C&F students with laptop capability and another for liberal arts students without laptop experience. She felt that the students' ability to access information, to revise their work, and to share their progress with her via email was exciting and useful. There was overwhelming support for the program by both groups, although there was some reservation about the additional cost.

Prof. Graves asked for clarification of the phrase "all faculty and staff" in the proposal: does this include adjunct professors?  Ms. Steinbrenner replied that the details have to be worked out but if the proposal is approved everyone who teaches will have access to a laptop.

Prof. Levitan felt that the optimism expressed by Prof. Borden was encouraging but that he would like to see some data that there is a real advantage in using laptops in the classroom. He enumerated some of the problems he could foresee - a student's coming to Villanova with a different laptop, the significant cost of procuring various types of software required by different departments, and the burden on UNIT to support all these different situations.

 Ms. Steinbrenner responded that the major support cost is really consumed by outdated equipment. Regarding software for different programs, each group has the ability to download software from a central server.

Prof. Gustafson gave the floor to Prof. Klaus Volpert from Mathematical Sciences for the last word. Prof. Volpert commenced by stating that his reservations about the proposal should not be construed as anti-technology. He thinks that what represents a 4% tuition increase is significant and should not be taken lightly and is in favor of the voluntary concept put forth by Prof. Eckstein. His response from a query sent to faculty in his department was that their main concern was pedagogical. He is concerned that by requiring laptops the university could do away with labs. He feels that labs are important and worries that the labs in Mendel Hall will not be finished if the laptop initiative goes into effect. He stated that the greatest need at present is overhead projectors with computer plug-in capability to show the students how to use the technology, but it is important for the student to explore the technology on their own. Exploring the technology in the classroom reduces the lecture time, a very concentrated teaching vehicle, to a workshop.

Prof. Gustafson apologized for bringing the discussion to a close. He thanked Karin Steinbrenner, Prof. Borden and Mr. McGee for taking the time to go through the proposal with the group.

4. Salary and Benefits Committee Report

Prof. Gustafson called on Rick Eckstein to go over the proposal from the Salary and Benefits Committee (see attached). Prof. Eckstein stated that the proposal requests a 4.9% increase in salary, broken down into 5 parts; cost of living adjustment, equity for full professors, an across-the-board raise, a merit increase, and a shortfall from the 1998-99 salary increase, which represents the difference between the actual increase (2.7% adjusted for dean's equity pool) and expected increase (1.7% cost of living adjustment, .5% raise, and 1% merit). Prof. Eckstein asked for response from the members on the proposal.

Prof. Conn asked if #2, full professor equity, wasn't a separate item. Prof. Eckstein explained that it could be excluded from the increase and dealt with separately, but the university is going to have to come up with the money in order to take care of the discrepancy between full professor salaries here and at our so-called benchmark schools.

Prof. Kresch stated that the 4.9% is an increase in budget allocation for faculty salaries, not a 4.9% increase in salary.

Prof. Eckstein was asked to explain the shortfall (#5). There was a 2.7% increase in what was budgeted for faculty salaries last year, but the money allocated should have been 3.2%, based on cost of living adjustment, across-the board raise and merit increases.

Prof. Gustafson, following up on Prof. Kresch's remark, asked if the increase would be 4.9% for full professors and 3.5% for everybody else; Prof. Styer said that with 1.4% of the total budget going to full professors, the increase for each would be between 5-10%. Prof. Styer stated that he would much prefer separating out the various items because the 4.9% figure would be questioned as last year's budget allocation was 3.2%. The actual equity was .5%.

Prof. Kresch said that it is a matter of how it is formulated.. Prof. Lurie remarked that the most important thing is to try and insist that there be some definite figure that every single member of the faculty actually gets in his paycheck.

A discussion followed regarding the final request. It was decided to combine #1, 3, and 5, to wit, cost of living adjustment, 1.5%; across-the-board raise of 1 %, and 1% merit equity, bringing the total to 3.5%. Prof. Kresch suggested adding a footnote regarding the 1.4% full professor equity, but not including the figure in the total budget allocation. Prof. Gustafson said that was how it was handled a year or two ago.

Prof. Conn summarized by stating that the average increase would be about 3.5%, with some getting more and some less.

Prof. Gustafson presented the resolution:

The Salary and Benefits committee proposes a 3.5% increase in budget allocation for faculty salaries for the 1999-2000 budget year. The request is based on the following formula:

1) Cost of living adjustment 1.5%

2) Across-the-board raise 1.0%

3) Merit increases 1.0%

 

In addition:

Full professor equity 1.4%

Prof. Hollis moved and Prof. Graves seconded the motion. The vote to accept the resolution was unanimous.

It was decided to postpone discussing the proposal for evaluating the VPAA until the next meeting.
 
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Lowell Gustafson

Chairman

Contact Webmaster
Last Modified: Wed Aug 21 01:37:58 GMT-05:00 2002
Privacy Statement
© Copyright 2005 Villanova University