-> I think the recommendations suffer from not saying more
about implementation. Phrases like "We encourage
experiments...", or "We approve..." aren't sufficiently
directive. We should try to answer the standard questions
"Who, What, When, Why and How" in the recommendations. I've
added to a few (#1, #6, #9, and #10, where I thought it
important.
-> What about computer hardware for faculty? Mark bought
laptops for the humanities faculty last year. Should the
Institute provide a basic Windows or DOS or Mac machine or
an equivalent cash contribution (for those who want a higher
level platform)for each faculty member?
-> I think that #5 is a very important recommendation -- if
we provide more detail and confront some of the important
policy and financial issues. In particular, I think we
should list some of the SPECIFIC hardware and facilities
(for the short term). Do we need full-scale video
classrooms (this came up at Academic Council this week)?
Picture-tel studios? Lots of lower-end multi-media
workstations?
Also, I think we should point out
that there is a serious issue of who should pay for
specialized equipment. My own preference is that the
departments and schools who expect to be major users
should pay for it, rather than having it come out of the
central academic computing budget. But even if we can't
agree, or don't want to make a recommendation, we should
flag the issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Range Recommendations
The recommendations on this page can start being implemented immediately.
Other pages contain medium-range and long-range recommendations.
1. We approve the trend to putting most of the MIT documents that are
intended for the general public on the Web, and using the Web versions
as the definitive copies (printed versions are, then, snapshots taken
when needed). This policy makes use of the Web normal and natural, and
thereby makes its use for educational purposes seem natural. (In a
similar way, we advocate the use of e-mail in place of paper notices
for most administrative purposes.)
*** I/S (OR WHO?) SHOULD PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS
AND OFFICES UNDERTAKING TO MOUNT MIT DOCUMENTS IN WEB
FORM. THIS SUPPORT SHOULD INCLUDE ... AND WOULD HAVE TO
INCLUDE A BUDGETARY ALLOCATION...***
2. Every faculty desk and teaching assistant desk should be wired with an
ethernet connection capable of 10 Mb/sec communication. At the current
time probably half the faculty is so connected. The other half could
be connected at a cost estimated at $150K and, thereafter, another
$150K per year to support the upgrades required to keep the network up
to date. The purpose is to provide the faculty with access so that
they are motivated to develop and use educational applications.
3. In a similar way, most desks of research staff, probably all desks of
administrative staff, and many desks of support staff should be
connected with the same bandwidth. The purpose is to make access to
the Web natural and convenient for many people who deal with our
eduational mission.
4. All classrooms should have a network connection, so that it is there,
to be used without advance notification.
5. We encourage experiments in distance education, so that MIT gains
knowledge of how to do it effectively, using all the technology that
seems appropriate, including probably videotape, the Web, fax, and
interactive video. Possible applications could be to EIP or VI-A
students at the plant, and some not-for-credit short management
courses for executives at companies who cannot afford the time to
travel here.
6. *** THE PROVOST, THE SCHOOL DEANS AND THE DEAN FOR UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION SHOULD*** encourage experiments in distance collaboration in teaching subjects. 7. The internal workshops to familiarize faculty and staff about the Web
subjects.
7. ***ACADEMIC COMPUTING SHOULD CONTINUE TO SPONSOR*** internal workshops
to familiarize faculty and staff about the Web.
8. The program of distribution of Web software should continue. MIT needs
a clear and consistent source of tools and support for those
interested in Web browsing, and also for those interested in Web
publishing and, especially, those who wish to develop interactive
educational Web applications.
9. ***THE PROVOST SHOULD SET ASIDE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS*** specifically for ***CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT***
projects making effective use of advanced technologies.
***THE PROVOST SHOULD CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A VISIBLE,
COMPETITIVE PROGRAM WHICH AWARDS CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS FOR INNOVATIVE USES OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IN
EDUCATION.***
10. We recommend that ***THE FACULTY POLICY COMMITTEE AND
THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY CHARGE A STANDING faculty
committee (either an existing committee or a new one)
WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACULTY OVERSIGHT AND INPUT
TO*** academic computing,
distance learning, and the other issues discussed in this report.