The Towerand the Cloud

Higher Education andInformation Technologyin the Web 2.0 era

Richard N. Katz Vice President EDUCAUSE

Agenda

1. Introduction to EDUCAUSE2. Some findings from recent ECAR

research3. Some conclusions from this research4. Observations about higher education5. Observations about IT6. Speculations about the future (video)7. Questions and Answers

What is EDUCAUSE?

• U.S. based, global membership organization

• > 2000 college, university, and corporate members

• Mission of enhancing higher education through intelligent use of IT

• Conferences, publications, research, policy development, advocacy

Introduction

What is ECAR?

• Research arm of EDUCAUSE

• 17 research fellows

• Focus on the state of IT management practice in higher education– Social science orientation

• More than 300 research publications since founded in 2002

Introduction

Major Areas of Research

• IT Security• Identity Management• IT and Research• Enterprise Resource

Planning (ERP)• Networking

• Undergraduate Students and IT

• Instructional Use of IT• IT Governance• IT Help Desk• IT and Business

Continuity

Introduction

Undergraduates and IT

Findings

Ownership Patterns Favor MobilityChange in Technology Ownersihp from 2005 to 2007*

1.2%

12.1%

62.8%

37.0%

52.8%

7.8%

14.8%

68.9%

60.1%

68.3%

10.1%

10.4%

58.1%

74.7%

75.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Smartphone (combination cell phone andPDA device)

Personal digital assistant (PDA)

Personal desktop computer

Electronic music/video device (iPOD, etc.)

Personal laptop computer

Students

2005 (N=13,620) 2006 (N=12,335) 2007 (N=12,007)

Findings

Changing Use Patterns

Change in Technology Use from 2005 to 2007*

12.1%

12.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

69.7%

8.9%

19.2%

39.6%

70.4%

72.3%

72.5%

7.8%

24.0%

46.1%

76.2%

80.3%

82.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Primary Internet connection is dial-up

Primary Internet connection is wireless

Use CMS several times a week or more

Have downloaded Web-based music/video

Have used online social networks (Facebook, etc.)

Have used a CMS during college career

Students

2005 (N=13,620) 2006 (N=12,335) 2007 (N=12,007)

Findings

Online is a Lifestyle % Engaged

Median Frequency of Use*

AssociatedFactor 1

AssociatedFactor 2

Almost All Students Engaged        

Create, read, send e-mail 99.9% Daily

Write documents for coursework 98.6% Several times/week

Use library on university/college Web site 94.7% Monthly Social Sciences Humanities

Create presentations (PowerPoint) 91.7% Monthly Senior Business

Most Students Engaged        

Create spreadsheets or charts (Excel) 87.9% Monthly Senior Engineering/

Business

Online shopping 86.4% Monthly Senior Male

Create, read, send instant messages 84.1% Daily Age (younger) Reside on campus

Use Course Management System 83.0% Several times/week 4-year institutions

Online social network (facebook.com, etc.) 81.6% Daily Age (younger) Reside on campus

Play computer games (online or offline) 78.3% Weekly Male Age (younger)

Download Web-based music or videos 77.8% Weekly Age (younger) Male

Create graphics (Photoshop, etc.) 72.3% Monthly Fine arts Engineering

Some Students Engaged        

Access or use wikis 41.7% Weekly Male

Blogging 27.8% Monthly Fine arts

Findings

Students and Social NetworksUse of Instant Messaging and Online Social Networking, by Age

N Never Weekly or

lessSeveral times per

week Daily

Instant Messaging (IM)          

18–19 years 10,587 9.2% 17.5% 14.3% 58.9%

20–24 years 12,524 13.5% 23.4% 15.0% 48.0%

25–30 years 1,807 28.3% 28.1% 15.3% 28.3%

30 years and over 2,636 44.7% 26.4% 11.2% 17.6%

Online Social Networking (Facebook, etc.)      

18–19 years 10,607 6.5% 9.8% 14.4% 69.3%

20–24 years 12,553 12.8% 23.0% 19.1% 45.2%

25–30 years 1,811 42.4% 30.1% 9.3% 18.2%

30 years and over 2,633 76.5% 16.1% 3.0% 4.4%

Findings

Students Use a CMS from 2006 to 2007 (65 Institutions)*

Report in 2006

(N=20,844)

Report in 2007 (N=19,598

)Arithmetic Change**

Percent Change**

Never 23.4% 18.4% -5.0% -21.4%

Monthly or less 15.5% 13.3% -2.2% -14.2%

Weekly 21.6% 22.1% 0.5% 2.3%

Several times per week 21.7% 24.3% 2.6% 12.0%

Daily 17.9% 21.8% 3.9% 21.8%

*Data are based on student responses from the 65 institutions that participated in both the 2006 and 2007 studies. While institutions remain the same, the actual students responding are different each year

Postive/Negative Experience Using CMS (N=22,509)

0.7%3.9%

18.9%

58.9%

17.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very negative Negative Neutral Postitive Very positive

Stu

de

nts

CMS/LMS/VLE?

Findings

IT Engagement in Research

Note: This is not real!

Findings

1. “The classical approaches to scientific research have been extended to in silico simulation and modeling to explore new possibilities and to achieve new precision.”

2. “The enormous speedups of computers and networks have enabled simulations of far more complex systems and phenomena, as well as visualizing the results from many perspectives.”

3. “Advanced computing is no longer restricted to a few research groups.”

4. “The primary access to the latest findings, in a growing number of fields is through the Web, then through classic preprints and conferences, and lastly through refereed archival papers.”

5. “Groups collaborate across institutions and time zones, sharing data, complementary expertise, ideas, and access to special facilities without travel.”

E-Research Trends

Findings

Four Research Questions

• Trends: What do CIOs see happening with research in their institutions?

• Services: What infrastructure and services are central IT organizations providing to researchers?

• Engagement: How involved and knowledgeable is central IT in academic research activities?

• Resources: What levels of staff and dollars are central IT organizations applying to research-related IT?

Findings

Interdisciplinary + Multi-institutionalResearch Grow

Interdisciplinary Research Multi-Institutional Research

Q: In the past three years, ___ has:

Q: In the next three years, ___ is expected to:

1=Greatly Decrease(d) < --- > 3=Stay(ed) the Same < --- > 5=Greatly Increase(d)

4.07

3.68

3.25 3.11

4.13 3.98

3.483.14

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Research

Essential

Balanced Teaching

Fav ored

Teaching

EssentialMe

an

Past Three Years

Nex t Three Years

TRENDS

4.303.99

3.55

3.17

4.23 4.08

3.70

3.20

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Research

Essential

Balanced Teaching

Fav ored

Teaching

Essential

Past Three Years

Next Three Years

Findings

Use of IT in Different Disciplines is Expected to Grow

0.4% 0.7%

56.6%

37.3%

5.0%

0.0% 0.4%

41.1%

50.1%

8.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Greatly

decrease(d)

Decrease(d) Stay (ed) the

same

Increase(d) Greatly

increase(d)

Per

cent

age

of I

nstit

utio

ns

PastThreeYears

Nex tThreeYears

Q: In the (next/past) three years, computational research in traditionally non-computing disciplines (e.g., humanities) is expected to (has):

1=Greatly Decrease(d) < --- > 3=Stay(ed) the Same < --- > 5=Greatly Increase(d)

TRENDS

Findings

Infrastructure Demands to GrowSERVICES

Percentage of respondents who said that these infrastructure elements would or had increase(d) or greatly Increase(d) in a 3 year period.

50%58%

81%

66%72%

87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Computing Networking Data storage

Per

cen

tag

e o

f In

stit

uti

on

sPast Three Years

Next Three Years

Findings

Infrastructure Responsibility Dominantly Centralized

Q: Where does responsibility lie for the following IT infrastructure elements related to research?

1=Almost all central < --- > 3=Equally shared < --- > 5=Almost all local

SERVICES

96%

57%

61%

3%

11%

2%

33%

28%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Networking

Computation

Data Storage

All / Mostly Central

Equally SharedAll / Mostly Local

Findings

While Research Services are Likely to be Provided Locally

SERVICES

77%

74%

70%

67%

67%

63%

63%

55%

54%

45%

27%

26%

12%

11%

14%

21%

15%

14%

12%

15%

18%

14%

18%

15%

12%

15%

16%

12%

19%

23%

25%

30%

28%

41%

55%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100

%

Collaboration tools

Vendor contracts

Training classes

Facilities planning

IT consulting

Software lifecycle management

Data archive migration

Server hosting

Standard research applications

Application development

Research tools

Web site development / maintenance

All / Mostly Central

Equally Shared

All / Mostly Local

Q: Which IT organization(s) are responsible for the following support services?

1=Almost all central < --- > 3=Equally shared < --- > 5=Almost all local

Findings

Central IT Budgets for Research are Relatively Modest

Q: Independent of infrastructure that is multipurpose (e.g., network, email), how much money does the central IT organization spend on infrastructure and services related to research?

RESOURCES

22%

38%

21%

8% 8%4%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

None Less than$100,000

$100,001 to$500,000

$500,001 to$1,000,000

$1,000,001to

$5,000,000

More than $5million

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ins

titut

ions

Findings

Research Intensity and the Degree of Localization of IT Services are Associated

SERVICES

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00Research Essential

Balanced

Teaching Favored

Teaching Essential

1=highly centralized; 5=highly localized

Findings

IT Engagement is Informal and Ad Hoc

ENGAGEMENT

Method of Engagement Number PercentAd hoc consultations on an as-needed based 210 64.0%Regular and active informal networking by central IT staff with researchers 114 34.8%Formal consultations supported by specific research grants 64 19.5%Regular meetings with deans, chairs, and heads of institutes regarding research-related IT needs 62 18.9%A single formal research advisory or working group 37 11.3%Open meetings for all researchers to provide input on research-related IT needs 37 11.3%Multiple advisory or working groups organized around shared research problems or methods 35 10.7%Surveys to colleges, departments, or researchers regarding research-related IT needs 34 10.4%Multiple advisory or working groups organized around computing platforms 26 7.9%

Findings

Influence of IT Governance

Base: All CIO respondents and all executive respondents.

How influential is IT governance at producing the following outcomes (1=not influential,

5=very influential):

CIOs Executives

Mean

Std. Deviation

Mean

Std. Deviation

Cost-effective use of IT 3.39 1.291 3.59 1.061

Effective use of IT to enhance teaching and learning 3.45 1.166 3.71 0.985

Effective use of IT to enhance research 2.26 1.200 3.11 1.085

Effective use of IT to enhance administrative processes 3.68 1.088 3.73 0.959At my institution, IT governance... (1=strongly

disagree, 3=neutral, 5=strongly agree)CIOs Executives

MeanStd. Deviation

MeanStd. Deviation

Balances institutional & local/departmental needs. 3.76 0.986 3.85 0.928

Is effective overall. 3.67 1.039 3.92 0.887

Findings

Students

• Academic use is instrumental– Convenience– Communication– Control

• Use of CMS/LMS/VLE is rising and is positive

• ‘Being digital’ is a lifestyle

• Mobility is key

• Own considerable hardware• Are shifting to mobile platforms• Are connected to the network

• by broadband• wireless use rising

Research Conclusions

Research• Most research IT support is

now provided ‘locally”• Central IT organizations are

not well positioned• Competing pressures to

localize and globalize may ‘squeeze out’ the middle

• Central IT providers must explore new ways of providing support (if they want to be relevant)

• Interdisciplinary research is increasing• Multi-institution researchis increasing• Use of HPC is rising inhumanities & social science• Demands on central IT infrastructure are rising - especially data mgt.• Resources are likely to lagdemand

Research Conclusions

Higher Education

“Colleges and universities are amiable, anarchic, self-correctingcollectives of scholars with a small contingent of dignifiedcaretakers at the unavoidablebusiness edge.”

George Keller

Observations

Don at Dusk, Oxford University

Higher Education

1. Centrality of mission

A. Wealth of nations

B. Individual social mobility

2. Complex demographics

3. Pressures to contain costs

4. Pressures to open doors

5. Rising consumerism

6. Globalization

7. Technology change

Observations

Information Technology

1. 1,000,000,000 connected A. Broadband everywhere

B. Wireless everywhere

2. Standards settled or settling

3. Virtual worlds emerging

4. Web 2.0

5. Virtualization of services and IT infrastructure

6. IP Wars

7. ‘Digital natives’ are now in the university

Observations

Era of Contradictions

• Centrality of education ≠ Centrality of colleges and universities

• The context of IT ≠ Context of higher ed• Really Neat IT ≠ Improved student engagement• Everyone online, everything digital, more open

content ≠ universal access (IP wars)• More IT ≠ More information/scholarly literacy• More IT ≠ More control

Observations

• An era of realization?– IT works (mostly); now what?

• What does it really mean to be a global university?– The Uni with the most connections ‘wins’

• What do we stand for in the debate over ‘elite’ knowledge v. ‘popular’ knowledge?– The ‘permeable’ university

• Can the university be central in the ‘knowledge-driven era’?• What is the university experience in the digital context?• What of the knowledge (or IT) poor?

Opportunities and Challenges

Speculation

ConclusionOur discussion needs to shift fromwhat the University can do for IT, to what IT can now do to energizethe mission, enlarge the footprint,cement the relationships, andotherwise help the university realizeits central place in a world thatdepends on innovation and education.

Can IT be organized in ways thatreinforce the ‘soul’ of the Universityand help the institution manifestits roles as arbiter of culture and promoter of human welfare?

Thank You!

rkatz@educause.edu